Conservation agriculture:
a Uganda case study
Conservation agriculture in Africa series
Series editors
Bernard Triomphe
Josef Kienzle
Martin Bwalya
Soren Damgaard-Larsen
Titles
Conservation agriculture as practised in Ghana
Philip Boahen, Benjamin Addo Dartey, Genevieve Delali Dogbe, Emmanuel Asare Boadi,
Bernard Triomphe, Soren Daamgard-Larsen, John Ashburner
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
Paul Nyende, Anthony Nyakuni, John Peter Opio, Wilfred Odogola
Conservation agriculture in Zambia: a case study of Southern Province
Frédéric Baudron, Herbert M. Mwanza, Bernard Triomphe, Martin Bwalya
Conservation agriculture as practised in Kenya: two case studies
Pascal Kaumbutho, Josef Kienzle, editors
Laikipia District
Tom Apina, Paul Wamai, Philip Mwangi
Siaya District
Philip K. Mwangi, Kennedy O. Okelo, Tom Apina
Conservation agriculture as practised in Tanzania: three case studies
Richard Shetto, Marietha Owenya, editors
Arumeru District
Catherine W. Maguzu, Dominick E. Ringo, Wilfred Mariki, Marietha Owenya,
Flora Kola, Charles Leseyo
Karatu District
Dominick E. Ringo, Catherine W. Maguzu, Wilfred Mariki, Marietha Owenya,
Njumbo, Frank Swai
Mbeya District
Saidi Mkomwa, Ahaz Mussei, Remmy Mwakimbwala, Ndabhemeye Mulengera,
Elimpaa Kiranga
Conservation
agriculture:
a Uganda case study
Paul Nyende, Anthony Nyakuni,
John Peter Opio, Wilfred Odogola
Publishers
African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT)
PO Box 14733, Westlands
Nairobi 00800, Kenya
tel and fax: +254 20 445 1391
website: www.act.org.zw
Centre de Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement
(CIRAD)
42 Rue Scheffer, 75116 Paris, France
tel: +33 4 67 615800
website: www.cirad.fr
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy
website: www.fao.org
Technical editing: Helen van Houten, Dali Mwagore, Keta Tom, Kellen Kebaara
Design and layout: Conrad Mudibo
Printer: KulGraphics, Nairobi
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal or development
status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products
of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have
been endorsed or recommended by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information
product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without
any prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully
acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other
commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holder.
Applications for such permission should be addressed to the Chief, Electronic Publishing
Policy and Support Branch, Communication Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di
Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy, or by email to copyright@fao.org.
© FAO 2007
Correct citation:
Nyende, Paul; Nyakuni, Anthony; Opio, John Peter; Odogola, Wilfred. 2007. Conservation
agriculture: a Uganda case study. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de
Coopération Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
ISBN: 9966-7219-2-4
Contents
Abbreviations ..........................................................................................vi
Preface ................................................................................................. vii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................... viii
Case study project background and method ..............................................ix
Acknowledgements for Uganda study ..................................................... xxi
Executive summary .............................................................................. xxii
1
History and background ..................................................................... 1
History of conservation agriculture in Uganda ............................................. 1
The pilot project areas ................................................................................... 4
2
Types of conservation agriculture practices......................................... 6
Land preparation ........................................................................................... 7
Planting .......................................................................................................... 7
Weed control .................................................................................................. 7
Soil fertility improvement .............................................................................. 7
3
Effects, benefits and results of conservation agriculture practices ........ 8
Farmer field school experimentation with conservation agriculture ............. 8
Labour requirement for field operations for maize........................................ 9
Weeding labour and associated costs ............................................................. 9
Farmer monitoring and evaluation .............................................................. 11
4
Adaptation and adoption .................................................................. 11
5
Key challenges and lessons ............................................................. 13
Providing and managing a permanent soil cover ........................................ 13
Tools and equipment ................................................................................... 17
Farmer field schools for introducing conservation agriculture practices
and principles ............................................................................................... 20
Resource mobilization—savings, revolving funds and loans........................ 20
Policy issues .................................................................................................. 21
6
Conclusions and recommendations .................................................. 21
References .......................................................................................... 22
Appendix 1 Curriculum for conservation agriculture–farmer field schools... 23
Appendix 2 Checklist for household and group case study interview.......... 26
Appendix 3 Checklist for focus group discussions ................................... 28
Appendix 4 Reference framework .......................................................... 29
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
v
Boxes
Box 1
Box 2
Box 3
Figures
Figure A
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Tables
Table A
Table B
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Mr Kasimire tells what conservation agriculture means for his livelihood ..14
What conservation agriculture means to Emmanual Mukari and
fellow villagers .........................................................................................15
Sapiri assesses conservation agriculture in their microcatchment ...........16
Entry points and four hypothetical pathways towards adopting
conservation agriculture ............................................................................x
Land and water management projects implemented in Uganda using
the farmer field school approach ..............................................................2
Number of rain days per month in Pallisa and Mbale catchments ..........5
Total monthly rainfall in Pallisa and Mbale catchments recorded over
18 months by farmer field school groups ..................................................6
Milestones of the case study project in conservation agriculuture ..........xiii
Key characteristics of case studies selected in Africa ...............................xvi
Timeliness and labour requirements for land preparation .........................9
Land preparation costs per hectare of maize ............................................10
Labour requirements and cost for weeding 1 ha of maize ........................10
Maize yield with different land preparation treatments in farmer field
school plots.................................................................................................10
Field observations of practices on maize and beans, as reported by
Mr Kasimire after four cycles (seasons) in 2002 ........................................12
Typical conservation agriculture curriculum for a farmer field school .....13
Farmers’ assessment of local cover crops and shrubs ................................18
Abbreviations
AEATRI
AESA
CA
FAO
FFS
NAADS
NARO
PDCO
RELMA
Sida
SLM
ULAMP
vi
Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Institute
Agro-EcoSystem Analysis (monitoring tool)
conservation agriculture
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
farmer field school
National Agricultural Advisory Services
National Agricultural Research Organisation
participatory diagnosis of constraints and opportunities
Regional Land Management Unit, supported by Sida and recently
affiliated with the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
sustainable land management
Uganda Land Management Project
Nyende et al.
Preface
Pilot initiatives to introduce more sustainable farming practices are many in Africa;
thorough documentation of results and lessons learned is scarce. Yet signs indicate
that understanding is growing among practising farmers, stakeholders, researchers,
and to a certain degree, policymakers, that sustainable agriculture bases itself on
simple core principles. These principles, making use of natural processes, can
respond to local climatic conditions and soil qualities as well as technological and
socio-economic factors and conditions. Conservation agriculture is one of the most
concrete and promising ways of implementing sustainable agriculture in practice.
It relies on three basic principles: 1) minimum soil disturbance or if possible, notillage seeding; 2) soil cover: if possible, permanent; and 3) useful crop rotations and
associations.
Across Africa, interest is growing to adapt, adopt, and apply these principles to
attain agricultural performance that improves productivity and protects the
environment—it sustains environmental resilience.
The French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
(CIRAD), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
the Regional Land Management Unit in the World Agroforestry Centre (RELMA)
and the African Conservation Tillage Network (ACT) have jointly facilitated this
case study series to verify and document the status and effect of pilot initiatives on
conservation agriculture with focus on sub-Saharan Africa. Eight case studies from
five countries—Ghana, Kenya (2), Tanzania (3), Uganda, Zambia—are published
in this series. A joint synthesis publication with overall results, lessons learned and
recommendations for Africa is forthcoming.
It is our intent this series will be a source of information on conservation agriculture
in Africa. It throws light on controversial issues such as the challenges farmers
face in keeping the soil covered, in gaining access to adequate no-tillage seeding
equipment, in controlling weeds, and on the challenges projects and institutions
face in implementing truly participatory approaches to technology development,
even as it illustrates the benefits of systems based in conservation agriculture and
the enthusiasm with which many stakeholders are taking it up.
Bernard Triomphe, CIRAD
Josef Kienzle, FAO
Martin Bwalya, ACT
Soren Damgaard-Larsen, RELMA
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
vii
Acknowledgements for Uganda study
We greatly appreciate the assistance and openness of the countless farmers (women,
men, youth, elderly) who participated in the field studies. We equally acknowledge
the sincerity of ward and district extension staff members and their contribution.
Special thanks go to all case study teams for their sincere efforts and sustained
dedication to this work: Tom Apina, John Ashburner, Frédéric Baudron, Philip
Boahen, Elimpaa Kiranga, Flora Kola, Charles Leseyo, Catherine W. Maguzu,
Wilfred Mariki, Saidi Mkomwa, Claire Mousques, Ndabhemeye Mulengera, Ahaz
Mussei, Remmy Mwakimbwala, Philip K. Mwangi, Herbert M. Mwanza, Njumbu,
Anthony Nyakuni, Paul Nyende, Wilfred Odogola, Kennedy O. Okelo, John Peter
Opio, Marietha Owenya, Dominick E. Ringo, Frank Swai, Paul Wamai.
The external reviewers who worked with the teams contributed generously with
their input, support and direct interaction—Sally Bunning, Theodor Friedrich,
Pascal Kaumbutho, Brian Sims, Kurt Steiner, David Watson. Their help we
gratefully appreciate.
Special thanks go to the Ministries of Agriculture of Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania,
Uganda and Zambia, who supported this work by granting access to their staff and
the information in their jurisdiction.
Only through funding from FAO and CIRAD and the main institutions behind
ACT and RELMA have the studies and this publication been made possible:
the German Government through the FAO CA-SARD project, the Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), and the Global Forum for
Agricultural Research (GFAR).
Thanks to the technical editing and production team—Helen van Houten with
Dali Mwagore, Keta Tom, Kellen Kebaara, Conrad Mudibo—who took on the
task of assisting the case study teams and the series editors in going the ‘last mile’
towards publication.
viii
Nyende et al.
Case study project background and method
Bernard Triomphe, Josef Kienzle, Martin Bwalya, Soren Damgaard-Larsen
This case study presents the status of conservation agriculture in Uganda. It is one
in a series of eight case studies about conservation agriculture in Africa, which
were developed within the framework of a collaboration between CIRAD (French
Agricultural Research Centre for International Development), FAO (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), RELMA-in-ICRAF (Regional
Land Management Unit of the World Agroforestry Centre) and ACT (African
Conservation Tillage Network).
This introductory section outlines the overall background of the conservation
agriculture case study project and the key methodological choices made. It also
gives a brief overview of major results and observations across all case studies. This
broad perspective allows the reader to appreciate both the commonalities among
the eight case studies and the specifics of the one being presented here.
Conservation agriculture: a working definition
‘Conservation agriculture’ has been defined differently by different authors. Perhaps
the most generic definition is the one provided by FAO:1
CA is a concept for resource-saving agricultural crop production that strives to achieve
acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels while concurrently
conserving the environment. CA is based on enhancing natural biological processes above
and below the ground. Interventions such as mechanical soil tillage are reduced to an
absolute minimum, and the use of external inputs such as agrochemicals and nutrients of
mineral or organic origin are applied at an optimum level and in a way and quantity that
does not interfere with, or disrupt, the biological processes.
From this definition, we can infer that conservation agriculture is not an actual
technology; rather, it refers to a wide array of specific technologies that are based
on applying one or more of the three main conservation agriculture principles
(IIRR and ACT 2005):
• reduce the intensity of soil tillage, or suppress it altogether
• cover the soil surface adequately—if possible completely and continuously
throughout the year
• diversify crop rotations
Ideally, what we call ‘conservation agriculture systems’ comprise a specific set of
components or individual practices that, combined in a coherent, locally adapted
sequence, allow these three principles to be applied simultaneously (Erenstein
2003). When such a situation is achieved consistently, we speak of ‘full conservation
agriculture’, as illustrated by the practices of many farmers in southern Brazil (do
Prado Wildner 2004; Bolliger et al. 2006) and other Latin American countries
(Scopel et al. 2004; KASSA 2006).
1 FAO conservation agriculture website: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/index.html
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
ix
Full conservation agriculture, however, is today rarely practised outside South
America (Ekboir 2003; Derpsh 2005; Bollinger et al. 2006), and is indeed difficult
to achieve right from the onset. Usually farmers who are willing, or obliged by
circumstances, to reassess their farming practices and follow the path to more
sustainable agriculture, embark on a long journey that takes them several years or
even longer. This journey consists of consecutive phases, each characterized by use
of specific practices that increasingly incorporate practice and mastery of the three
principles. No journey appears to be linear, and no journey seems to comprise the
exact same sequence of phases (fig. A), although some paths are more commonly
followed than others.
Permanent
full CA
systems
1. Quick and complete adoption
2. Stepwise adoption
3. Periodic CA
End
points
Entry
points
RT/MT
4. ‘Failure’ is always possible
Current
practices
End of project
Cycles/year
Figure A. Entry points and four hypothetical pathways towards adopting conservation
agriculture:
1. Quick and complete adoption of conservation agriculture in its fullest form
2. Stepwise adoption of conservation agriculture practices, which may or may not lead to
complete adoption over time (RT = reduced tillage, MT = minimum tillage)
3. Conservation agriculture practised during some cycles but not others
4. Use of conservation agriculture practices stops soon after the end of the project, perhaps
because incentives are no longer available.
While the hope of many farmers and agronomists is that eventually most farmers in
a given region will reach the full conservation agriculture phase, and better sooner
than later, no phase in itself, no individual conservation agriculture system or set
of practices can be considered intrinsically superior to the others (Triomphe et al.
forthcoming).
Rather, they should be viewed as what can realistically be achieved at a given time and
in a given farm context, depending on the environmental, socio-economic, institutional
and political circumstances and constraints. Some factors and conditions clearly relate
to the characteristics, preferences and experiences of individual farmers and farms—
such as the capital available for investing in equipment and inputs, the choice of
x
Nyende et al.
cover crops, the soil conditions prevailing at the time conservation agriculture is being
introduced, the care with which a farmer applies inputs or controls weeds, or the ability
to learn new practices and take risks (Erenstein 2003). Others, however, relate more to
the local or regional environment of the farm: ease of access to equipment, inputs and
relevant knowledge, links to markets, existence of policies favouring (or discouraging)
the adoption of conservation agriculture practices, and so on.
Given this huge diversity of adoption pathways, we use the term ‘conservation
agriculture’ in this booklet with a meaning as general and open as possible, trying
to refrain from judging if some actual practices were ‘real’ or ‘good’ conservation
agriculture, while others were ‘partial’ or ‘poor’. Rather, we have made every effort
to understand and explain what motivates farmers to try specific conservation
agriculture practices, or what prevents them from trying the practices or from
achieving success with them. At the heart of this assessment lies our desire to
distinguish between conservation agriculture in theory (as promoters of conservation
agriculture would like it to be implemented), and conservation agriculture in
practice (as farmers are eventually able, or willing, to implement it).
Background
Why it was necessary to develop case studies
Rigorous documentation of successes, failures and challenges related to conservation
agriculture adaptation and adoption is still rare, especially outside of South
America. Also, most existing case studies have been written without relying on a
unified systemic analytical framework, and hence are difficult to compare one with
the other. They furthermore often demonstrate a strong bias towards emphasizing
what is going well, overlooking process issues and problems encountered.
Under these conditions, the FAO working group on conservation agriculture and
CIRAD decided to join forces in 2004 to contribute to a balanced documentation
of conservation agriculture experiences and to better networking internationally.
They were soon joined by RELMA-in-ICRAF and ACT, which had been actively
involved in promoting conservation agriculture in eastern and southern Africa
(Biamah et al. 2000; Steiner 2002; IIRR and ACT 2005) and which were also core
partners in organizing the Third World Congress on Conservation Agriculture,
which took place in October 2005.
Objectives
The overall objective of the conservation agriculture case study project was
to strengthen collaboration among a number of key stakeholders who were
preparing the Third World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, by improving
understanding of past and current conservation agriculture experiences, and by
improving networking among key stakeholders, with special emphasis on Africa.
Specific objectives for the case studies:
• Develop a framework for rigorously analysing ongoing conservation
agriculture projects2 and experiences and for characterizing in a holistic way
2 The word ‘project’ is used in this context with an inclusive meaning, as it can refer to
individual ongoing projects in a region or a country, or to a succession of projects having
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
xi
how conservation agriculture practices are adapted and adopted and their
effect.
• Develop a number of contrasting conservation agriculture case studies by
applying this framework in selected regions.
The aim was to provide the resulting outputs to conservation agriculture
practitioners, scientists and decision makers, so that they could contribute to
improving conservation agriculture project planning and implementation.
What does a case study entail?
Here, a case study is a short-term, mostly qualitative study that synthesizes
experiences and results obtained by applying and using conservation agriculture
principles and technologies in a specific region in past or ongoing efforts and
projects. It is developed around a unified, locally adapted framework focusing
on conservation agriculture techniques and processes, on key issues and lessons
learned, as well as on shortcomings and successes.
Majors phases of the case study project
The case study project on conservation agriculture began in late 2004 (table A).
Following agreement on an analytical framework in February 2005, most of the
fieldwork was developed during March–September 2005 by small teams of project
personnel based in the study site, with guidance from the project coordinators.
Early results and preliminary products were presented at the Third World Congress
on Conservation Agriculture, held in Nairobi in October 2005 (Boahen et al. 2005;
Baudron et al. 2005).
In the first half of 2006, drafts of individual case studies were developed through
an iterative review process. The review culminated in a workshop held in Moshi,
Tanzania, in August 2006, during which case study leaders and conservation
agriculture resource persons worked together to further improve the drafts and
compare results among case studies. The final step in developing the case studies,
during the last quarter of 2006, involved a new round of editing in interaction
between a team of editors and case study leaders.
Key methodological choices
Case study framework
The framework was developed in several stages. It integrated a series of previously
identified issues, such as those developed under the auspices of programmes such as the
Direct Seeding, Mulching and Conservation Agriculture Global Partnership programme3
of the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR), WOCAT4 and Sustainet.5
A major milestone for framework development was the workshop held in Nairobi in
February 2005, which made possible direct interaction between the coordinators of the
case study project and the future case study leaders.
taken place in one region or country over time, or to a number of projects operating
simultaneously in one given region or country.
3 Website: http://agroecologie.cirad.fr/dmc/index
4 Website: http://www.wocat.org/
5 Website: http://www.sustainet.org
xii
Nyende et al.
Table A. Milestones of the case study project on conservation agriculture
Date
Late 2004
February 2005
Product, activity, output
Preliminary case study selection, draft framework developed
Start-up workshop with selected team leaders for the case
studies; agreement on the framework
March–Sept 2005 Activities for developing the case studies in the various sites,
including midterm reviews in Kenya, Tanzania and Ghana
October 2005
Preliminary results reported as posters, papers and oral
presentation during Third World Congress on Conservation
Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya
March–July 2006 Review and revision of individual case study drafts
August 2006
Workshop n cross-analysing cases and discussing their
publication
Oct–Dec 2006
Final editing of individual case study documents
Early 2007
Case studies published as books and booklets
Eventually what became the reference framework for this project, guiding case
study development, was a list of questions and issues structured under six main
headings (see appendix 4 for details):
• biophysical, socio-economic and institutional environment of conservation
agriculture farming systems
• historical review of work related to conservation agriculture in the selected
site, region or project
• specific technologies, packages or systems being promoted, and how they
differ from existing practices and systems
• overview of adaptation and diffusion process towards conservation
agriculture
• qualitative overview of impact and adoption, in its agronomic, economic
and social dimensions
• key gaps and challenges in site-specific circumstances
Using this overall framework, each case study team selected and adapted the issues
most relevant to their own conditions and circumstances. Similarly, they developed
their own guidelines for interviews and workshops. Thus the actual application of
the framework remained specific to each case study.
Selection of case studies
Since this project could develop only a handful of case studies at the time, it was
important that criteria for selecting them be clear. They included:
• demonstrated strong local interest for participating in a case study and
helping develop it, and particularly local commitment for allocating staff
time and resources such as transportation and communication for related
activities
• overall value the case study would add towards addressing key issues related
to conservation agriculture, particularly in extracting original, worthwhile
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
xiii
lessons on how its technologies performed, on ways they are diffused and
adopted, and on links to sustainable agriculture and rural development6
• existence of at least a minimal body of local documentation on work related
to conservation agriculture, from which a case study could be built
• complementarities with ongoing documentation efforts—preference often
being given to situations for which no previous reports were available
• existence of a minimum trajectory of adaptation and diffusion, including
evidence of some initial effect among farmers using conservation
agriculture7
Based on a combination of these criteria, and following agreements reached among
key stakeholders, 11 case studies were eventually selected (table B), out of which 8
were selected in Africa. More than half were directly linked to ongoing projects
operating in eastern Africa.
How case studies were developed
The case studies were developed following an approach that presented a number
of prominent features.
• It emphasized collaboration between insiders (local project staff) and a
number of outsiders (case study coordinators and resource persons).
• It focused on a qualitative assessment of selected key issues and questions,
based on participatory rural assessment techniques (interviews with key
informants, collective workshops with selected stakeholders), which made it
possible to collect testimonies.
• It relied on available evidence as found in project reports and documents.
Within these overall methodological choices, the specific steps and procedures
followed to develop a case study included the following:
• Form a local case study team, typically comprising three to six members,
usually practitioners involved in promoting local conservation agriculture.
• Develop a detailed work plan.
• Identify and collect local formal and grey literature about past or ongoing
conservation agriculture activities in the region.
• Identify resource persons and institutions to serve as key informants.
• Hold interviews and workshops with key informants and stakeholders;
observe conservation agriculture plots that farmers and farmer groups have
implemented.
• Organize a mid-term review involving the local case study team, resource
persons and project coordinators:
• Review progress, difficulties, and preliminary findings.
6 The selection of cases was, however, not limited to ‘success stories’; some of the sites
experienced or still are experiencing difficulties. The important point was what useful
lessons could be gained from looking at what had happened so far.
7 Since it usually takes decades before large-scale adoption occurs, few potential case study
sites would have witnessed it. Hence projects were selected that were just beginning
to adopt (and thus were still significantly dependent on the project), provided that the
technologies were already being tested at commercial scale under farmers’ conditions.
xiv
Nyende et al.
Agree on priority activities for completing the case study and on
adjustments needed in the original work plan, framework or methods.
• Identify concrete products to be presented during the Third World
Congress on conservation agriculture (Nairobi, October 2005)
• Make a number of field visits to discuss with farmers and farmer groups
and observe conservation agriculture experiments and demonstrations.
• Write up the case study draft.
• Prepare and present preliminary outputs for the Third World Congress on
conservation agriculture (posters, oral presentations, papers).
• Develop the case study document in interaction with external reviewers.
•
The results obtained within the context of each case study outline an emerging
but as yet incomplete picture about conservation agriculture in a given site. The
case studies are qualitative in nature and relied principally on field observation.
The case study teams had only some three to five months in which to compile their
information. Their access to quantitative data was often limited. At times team
members found it quite difficult to separate their role of critically assessing how
conservation agriculture was functioning from their normal role as promoters of
conservation agriculture.
The evidence the teams uncovered, however, is a major step forward. The findings
are broadly consistent with the experiences and perceptions of most stakeholders and
resource persons, and as such, they provide a legitimate, unrivalled view of present
successes, challenges and the way forward. The studies are furthermore quite useful in
pointing out to which specific areas and issues future projects should direct their efforts.
This book focuses on a specific case study. A number of results and lessons, however,
can be drawn from a cross-analysis of all eight case studies selected. Such an analysis
offers a unique opportunity to look at key technical and process issues and will be
the focus of a separate publication.
The cross-analysis will summarize the information available to assess conservation
agriculture practices implemented by farmers and their effects on crop productivity
and profitability, and on labour use. It will discuss adoption trends. It will examine the
approaches used to develop and promote conservation agriculture practices and systems,
including the roles stakeholders, farmers’ associations and the farmers themselves play in
the process. It will analyse the extent to which adequate policy support is in place. In it,
the following topics receive special attention. Preliminary comments follow.
First-hand observations
Tillage intensity
All types of tillage intensities are found across case studies: from minimum tillage
to ripping to actual no-tillage. Most case studies highlight a number of difficulties
farmers face when abandoning conventional tillage. It seems many do not go
directly to no-tillage, and rely instead on reduced tillage as an intermediate step, if
only because of restricted access to no-till seeders. This applies to case studies in
Arumeru, Karatu, Laikipia and Zambia.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
xv
xvi
Table B. Key characteristics of case studies selected in Africa
Country, region
Kenya
Laikipia
Siaya
Tanzania
Karatu
Arumeru
Mbeya
Nyende et al.
Ghana
Brong Ahafo,
Ashanti
Uganda
Pallisa, Mbarara,
Mbale
Zambia
Southern
Province
Climate / type of farmers
Experience with CA
Adoption status
Supportive
project
Team leader
Semi-arid highlands / small- and large- > 10 yrs (large),
scale, manual and animal traction
2–3 years
(smallholders)
Humid lowland / small, vulnerable
3–5 years
households, manual agriculture
Growing adoption (large),
incipient (smallholders)
CA-SARD
Kenya
Tom Apina, Paul Wamai,
CA-SARD
Incipient
CA-SARD
Kenya
Philip Mwangi, Kennedy
Otieno, CA-SARD
Semi-arid to sub-humid, highland /
manual agriculture
Semi-arid to sub-humid, manual
agriculture, highly degraded soils
Semi-arid / smallholders, manual and
animal traction
Late 1990s /
early 2000
Late 1990s /
early 2000
Incipient
CA-SARD
Tanzania
CA-SARD
Tanzania
FAO-TCP
Dominick Ringo,
RECODA
Catherine Maguzu,
RECODA
Saidi Mkomwa, ARI
Uyole, TCP
Rainforest transition / smallholders,
purely manual agriculture
> 10–15 years
Significant but stagnant
FAO-RAFA /
RELMA
Philip Boahen,
consultant
Humid to sub-humid / smallholders
3–5 years
Incipient
FAO-TCP
Paul Nyende,
consultant
Semi-arid / smallholders, manual and
animal traction
> 10 years
Large-scale, increasing
adoption
CIRAD-WWF,
ASP
F. Baudron, CIRADWWF, H. Mwanza, ASP
Incipient
Incipient
ASP – Agricultural Support Project (Sida funded), Zambia; CA-SARD – Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (FAO, sponsored
by Germany), CIRAD – French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development; FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FAO-RAFA
– FAO Regional Office for Africa; RECODA – Research, Community and Organizational Development Associates; RELMA – Regional Land Management Unit of the World
Agroforestry Centre; SARI – Selian Agricultural Research Institute, Tanzania; TCP – Technical Cooperation Project (FAO sponsored); WWF – World Wide Fund for Nature
Soil cover
Providing adequate soil cover is a cornerstone of conservation agriculture. Yet most
farmers face great difficulties in achieving it. Farmers tend to collect residue or
allow livestock herds to graze freely on crop residue. This may be an individual
decision, or it may be the result of agreements and traditions regulating the
relationships between farmers and pastoralists, such as with the Maasai in northern
Tanzania. Producing enough biomass to cater for both, adequate soil cover and
livestock demands is a challenge. Replacing a food legume used traditionally in
intercropping (such as beans) by a cover crop (such as canavalia or mucuna) might
not be attractive to a farmer whose primary objective is achieving food security. This
may explain the success that Dolichos lablab is having with Kenyan and Tanzanian
farmers, as it is a multiple-purpose cover crop, able to provide food (both grain and
leaves are edible), income, forage and soil cover.
Weed control
Weed control remains a challenge, especially when farming is done manually. As
most farmers do not manage to keep their soils adequately covered, reducing tillage
tends to increase aggressive weed growth. Controlling weeds adequately, which is
critical to avoid crop failure, requires hoeing numerous times8 or using herbicides
such as glyphosate. For many farm families, neither option is feasible. Labour
resources are scarce or expensive, or access to herbicides and sprayers is restricted.
More efforts are definitely needed to identify suitable cover crops and to achieve soil
cover if herbicide dependency is deemed undesirable.
Equipment and inputs
Reduced tillage implements such as rippers and no-till seeders have been made
available to farmers on an experimental basis. Often implements are imported
from Brazil. Farmers are also being helped to get specific inputs, such as herbicides
and cover crop seeds. Many farmers have restricted access to both implements
and inputs; thus they are likely to delay planting, which adversely affects yield and
income.
Family labour is increasingly scarce. This situation should ultimately lead to
technologies such as reduced tillage systems, direct seeding technologies, herbicides,
weed wipes or sprayers that save labour, although many farmers may not find them
accessible or affordable.
Large-scale adoption of conservation agriculture practices requires a functioning
input supply chain. This means both private and public sectors must play a more
pro-active role in developing local capacity for manufacturing and making available
appropriate implements and in devising innovative implement-sharing schemes
(hire services, Laikipia) and adequate rural finance systems. Empowered farmers
groups are perceived as being the right entry point for making inputs and services
available.
8 For example, in southern Zambia conservation agriculture promoters recommend
weeding four to six times.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
xvii
Overemphasis on field-scale, technical issues?
Many projects and teams tend to focus on technical issues such as tillage, cover
crops, weed control and implements at the field scale. This focus often implies less
attention is given to non-technical issues, for example rural finance, marketing and
value chain development, organizational or policy issues.
Farmer groups
The role of government institutions and publicly funded projects is essential. Case
studies in northern Tanzania and Kenya emphasize participatory approaches, in
particular farmer field schools. Early indications are that these field schools are
a cost-effective way of participatory training. Groups of 10–30 farmers engage
in collective and individual experimentation and learn conservation agriculture
principles and practices. Beyond the issue of groups, projects and institutions can
potentially develop more participatory and responsive approaches, with farmers
more clearly in control.
Indigenous knowledge and innovative technology
Indigenous knowledge compatible with the principles of conservation agriculture is
widespread across case study sites. Such is the case for the ‘proka’ slash-and-mulch
system in Ghana, and for the farmers who are knowledgeable about the benefits of
cereal-legume intercrops.
Ongoing projects tend to undervalue indigenous knowledge. One reason may be
that conservation agriculture champions are keen to transfer external knowledge
and innovative technology packages as a means of replicating the success stories that
evolved in southern Brazil over a period of decades. Another reason is the tendency
to perceive more the negatives of local traditions and farmer practices, such as
grazing rules, without trying to understand the reasons for them. Tapping into
indigenous knowledge and farmer innovation combined with imported innovative
technology could well prove important in the long run.
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
This booklet now focuses on the situation of conservation agriculture in Uganda. It
illustrates precisely some of the successes, and some of the challenges, that farmers
and conservation agriculture projects alike face in their efforts to understand and
implement conservation agriculture.
References
Baudron F, Mwanza HM, Triomphe B, Bwalya M, Gumbo D. 2005. Challenges for the
adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholders in semi-arid Zambia. Proceedings,
Third World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, 3–7 October 2005. CD available
through ACT.
Biamah E, Rockström J, Okwach GE. 2000. Conservation tillage for dryland farming:
technological options and experiences in eastern and southern Africa. Nairobi: RELMA.
151 p.
Boahen P, Addo Dartey B, Delali Dogbe G, Asare Boadi E, Triomphe B, Ashburner J,
Damgaard-Larsen S. 2005. Experiences with the development and diffusion of conservation
agriculture in Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions of Ghana. Proceedings, Third World Congress
on Conservation Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, 3–7 October 2005. CD available through ACT.
xviii
Nyende et al.
Bolliger A, Magid J, Carneiro Amado TJ, Skorra Neto F, dos Santos Ribeiro MF, Calegari
A, Ralisch R, de Neergaard A. 2006. Taking stock of the Brazilian ‘zero-till revolution’: a
review of landmark research and farmer’s practice. Advances in Agronomy 91:48–110.
Derpsch R. 2005. The extent of CA adoption worldwide: implications and impact. Keynote
paper presented at the Third World Congress on Conservation Agriculture, Nairobi,
Kenya, 3–7 October 2005.
do Prado Wildner L, Hercilio de Freitas V, McGuire M. 2004. Use of green manures / cover
crops and conservation tillage in Santa Catarina, Brazil. In: Eilitta M, Mureithi J, Derpsch
R, eds., Green manure / cover crop systems of smallholder farmers. experiences from
tropical and subtropical regions. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
p. 1–36.
Ekboir JM. 2003. Research and technology policies in innovation systems: zero tillage in
Brazil. Research Policy 32:573–586.
Erenstein O. 2003. Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and sub-tropics: a guide
to the development and dissemination of mulching with crop residue and cover crops.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 100:17–37.
[IIRR and ACT] International Institute of Rural Reconstruction and Africa Conservation
Tillage Network. 2005. Conservation agriculture: a manual for farmers and extension workers in
Africa. Nairobi: IIRR.
Scopel E, Triomphe B, Séguy L, dos Santos Ribeiro MF, Denardin JE, Kochhann RA. 2004.
Direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems (DMC) in Latin America. Communication
presented at the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26
September to 1 October 2004.
Steiner K. 2002. Producing in harmony with nature through conservation tillage. African Conservation
Tillage Network Information Series No. 1. Harare: ACT.
Triomphe B, Goulet F, Dreyfus F, de Tourdonnet S. Forthcoming. Du labour au non-labour :
Pratiques, innovations et enjeux au sud et au nord. Proceedings, Colloque « Techniques
de travail de la terre, hier et aujourd’hui, ici et là-bas », Saint-Vincent des Landes, 25–28
octobre 2006, France.
Swedish field study reports
Essen C-F, Nolin J. 2004. Conservation farming in Zambia. Part 1: A study of adoption
among small stakeholders in the southern province. Part 2: Minor soil fertility study
comparing conventional tillage and conservation tillage. Master of Science thesis, no. 141,
2004. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala.
Loefstrand F. 2005. Conservation agriculture in Babati District, Tanzania. Impacts of
conservation agriculture for small-scale farmers and methods for increasing soil fertility.
Master of Science thesis no. 145, Swedish University of Agricultural Science Department
of Soil Science, Uppsala.
Loefstrand M, Loefstrand F. 2005. Conservation agriculture in Babati District, Tanzania.
The impact of conservation agriculture for small scale farmers: how it is taught, learnt
and adopted. Thesis no. 10 p HT 2005. Stockholm Institute of Education Department of
Social and Cultural Studies in Education, Stockholm.
Molin J, Aastroem A. 2001. Conservation tillage, a study on adoption constraints and
biophysical properties in semi-arid Tanzania. Minor field studies, thesis no. 168. Swedish
University of Agricultural Science, Uppsala.
Websites
www.relma.org
www.act.org.zw
www.worldagroforestry.org
www.cirad.fr
www.fao.org
www.fao.org/ag/ca
www.fao.org/sard/en/sard/754/2322/2317/index.html
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
xix
Acknowledgements for Uganda study
This study was developed under a multiple partnership, supported by the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in collaboration with
the National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO), Africa 2000 Network,
a non-governmental organization; the Faculty of Agriculture at Makerere
University; and the Sida-supported Uganda Land Management Project/Regional
Land Management Unit (ULAMP/RELMA). Other important partners were the
local governments of Mbale, Pallisa and Mbarara Districts, as well as the farming
communities at the catchment sites of Busano and Busiu in Mbale, Sapiri and
Petete in Pallisa, and Bisheshe in Mbarara District.
The project was supported by both the FAO office in Uganda and the Agriculture
Department at FAO headquarters in Rome. Special thanks go to Sally Bunning
(Land and Plant Nutrient Management Service) and Josef Kienzle (Agricultural and
Food Engineering Technologies Service) for their support throughout the Technical
Cooperation Project and, together with Bernard Triomphe of CIRAD, the case
study coordinator, for their technical input in preparing this case study. Many
thanks go to the various consultants who contributed useful materials during their
missions in Uganda. Lastly, special appreciation goes to Abdul Kokas of KOKAS
Excel Ltd., whose committed effort made the production of a video documentary
of this case study possible.
xx
Nyende et al.
Executive summary
This case study presents experiences and lessons learned from two pilot conservation
agriculture projects implemented in three districts of Pallisa and Mbale in eastern
Uganda, and in Mbarara in south-western Uganda. Conservation agriculture was
introduced in Uganda through two pilot projects, a FAO Technical Cooperation
Project (TCP/UGA/2903) in eastern Uganda in 2002 and a Sida-funded project
in western Uganda in 2000. Conservation agriculture activities were piloted in
contrasting microcatchments that represent areas where land degradation is
accelerated. The pilot projects introduced smallholder farmers to conservation
agriculture principles through farmer field schools that emphasized the integral
nature of improved land management and livelihood strategies. Projects focused on
demonstrating how conservation agriculture principles could be applied in Uganda,
illustrating their multiple benefits in terms of productivity (labour saved, income
augmented, diversity of products), sustainable use of natural resources (biodiversity
and resilient land-use systems), and environmental services (better water quality,
reduced costs of erosion).
This case study, conducted between March and September 2005, involved 32
farmer field school groups and incorporated views of various stakeholders such as
research and extension personnel who promoted conservation agriculture in the
region.
Practices introduced and promoted included minimum tillage with the use of
herbicides; direct planting using a jab planter, jobbe, and ripper planter; permanent
planting oblong holes, permanent raised beds; slash-and-mulch without burning;
and the use of cover crops such as mucuna, lablab and canavalia.
Results show that conservation agriculture positively affected crop yield, labour use,
timeliness of field operations, weed control and farm incomes. Major challenges
were encountered in adapting some of the conservation agriculture equipment
such as knife-rollers and jab planters, assuring availability after the project closure
of conservation agriculture tools and cover crop seeds and planning for diffusion of
the successful technologies.
The conservation agriculture initiatives through the pilot projects yielded
commendable achievements. There was evidence of farmers’ eagerness to learn,
adapt and adopt the practices, although no adoption figures could be obtained.
The pilot projects also demonstrated that land degradation and food insecurity
can be reduced and livelihoods improved. Now needed are concerted efforts
from government and donors to invest in conservation agriculture and to scale up
dissemination of strategies whose success has been well shown through the pilot
projects.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
xxi
1
History and background
Conservation agriculture is a term summarizing a farming concept that embraces
three basic principles: 1) reduced or minimal moving of the soil (reduced or notillage practices); 2) permanent soil cover (either with dead mulch or with cover
crops); 3) useful crop rotations or associations that are in line with local preferences
and circumstances.
History of conservation agriculture in Uganda
In Uganda both government and non-government organizations have initiated
programmes and projects geared towards promoting elements of conservation
agriculture. These technology-driven projects have focused on individual principles
of conservation agriculture, and not all three concepts together. The projects have
promoted the use of cover crops, soil and water conservation structures for erosion
management, reduced or no tillage using animal draught power, etc. Though these
technologies and projects have had pockets of success, problems of land degradation
have continued and adoption has been limited to farmers participating in the
projects. Figure 1 summarizes some of the projects with elements of conservation
agriculture in Uganda using the farmer field schools approach.
The farmer field school (FFS) model is a farmer training approach, which is based
on principles of adult education. It is based on an innovative, participatory, learning
by discovery approach, which enables farmers to acquire an understanding of
principles of Integrated Production and Pest Management (IPPM) that can be
applied in any situation. Farmers learn how to analyse pest and disease problems in
the field and how to make sound management decisions from both ecological and
economic viewpoints. A farmer field school is a forum where farmers and trainers
debate observations, apply their previous experiences and present new information
from outside the community. The results of the meetings are management decisions
on what action to take. Thus FFS as an extension methodology is a dynamic process
that is practised and controlled by the farmers to transform their observations to
create a more scientific understanding of the crop and livestock agro-ecosystem.
After an initial pan-African workshop on conservation tillage held in Harare,
Zimbabwe, in June 1998, the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industries and Fisheries
(MAAIF) and the National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) became
increasingly aware of the considerable potential for conservation agriculture
in Uganda. This was further affirmed through a World Bank-led study tour on
conservation tillage in Brazil (November 2001), attended by a high-level Ugandan
delegation, alongside other country delegations and partners such as FAO and
RELMA—the Regional Land Management Unit (now in ICRAF, the World
Agroforestry Centre). As a follow-up to the study tour, the Uganda delegation
composed of senior government officials and technical specialists in the Soil
Management Task Force proposed a number of actions to pilot and develop conservation agriculture. It sought FAO’s technical support of the initiative, particularly
to strengthen farmer-driven approaches to participatory technology development
in conservation agriculture and land management and to assess implications.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
1
2
Nyende et al.
Figure 1. Land and water management projects implemented in Uganda
using the farmer field school approach. (See legend on next page.)
1
Arua
Moima
Marahorwa
3
Balisa
Mbai
Mbaale
Tororo
Kabarole
2
Kasese
Ibanda
Bushenyi
Rukungiri
Bugiri Busia
Wakiso
Kampala
Kamwenge
Sembembule
Masaka
Kiruhura
4
Mpigi
Kalanga
Mbarara
Lake Victoria
Kanungo
Kabingo
Rakai
International boundary
Implementation districts
Other districts
Implementation subcounties
Water bodies
1
2
Project name:
Uganda Land Management Project (ULAMP)
Project sites:
1
Implementing
agencies:
Mbarara District (subcounties:
Kashongi, Kikagati, Rugaaga, Mwizi,
Bugama, Nakayojo, Bukiro, Kikyenkye,
Bisheshe, Rikiri, Buremba)
2
Kabarole District (subcounty: Ruteete)
3
Arua District (subcounty: Pajulu)
4
Kapchorwa District (subcounties:
Tegeres and Kaptanya)
•
Regional Land Management Unit
(RELMA)
•
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry
and Fisheries (MAAIF)
•
District local governments
Project name:
Integrated Nutrient Management to Attain
Sustainable Productivity Increases in East
African Farming Systems (INMASP)
Project sites:
1
Wakisho District (subcounty: Wakisho)
2
Pallisa District(subcounty: Agule and
Pallisa)
•
Environmental Alert (EA)
•
Makerere University, Soil Science
Department
•
District local governments
Implementing
agencies:
Number of FFS
established:
6
Number of FFS
facilitators:
16
Number of FFS
established:
1187
Donor:
European Union
169,319
Number of FFS
facilitators:
882
Project funding
(USD):
Period:
March 2002–April 2006
Donor:
Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (Sida)
Project funding
(USD):
1,750,000
Period:
July 1999–October 2003
4
Project name:
Integrated Soil Productivity Initiative
through Research and Education (INSPIRE)
Project sites:
1
Tororo District (subcounties: Osukuru,
Kisoko, Kwape, Molo, Nagongera,
Mella, Petta)
2
Busia District (subcounties: Busitema,
Dabani, Masaba, Lunyo, Buhehe,
Buteba)
•
Africa 2000 Network Uganda (A2N)
•
CIAT/TSBF
•
National Agricultural Research
Organisation (NARO)
•
Makerere University, Soil Science
Department
•
District local governments
3
Project name:
Management and Livelihoods for
Smallholder Farmers (TCP/UGA/2903 (T)
Project sites:
1
Mbale District (subcounties: Busano
and Busia)
2
Pallisa District (subcounties: Budaka
and Petete)
•
National Agricultural Research
Organisation (NARO)
•
Africa 2000 Network Uganda (A2N)
•
District local governments
Implementing
agencies:
Implementing
agencies:
Number of FFS
established:
48
Number of FFS
established:
48
Number of FFS
facilitators:
88
Number of FFS
facilitators:
62
Donor:
Food and Agriculture Organization
Donor:
Rockefeller Foundation
Project funding
(USD):
371,000
Project Funding
(USD):
221,450
Period:
July 2002–December 2005
Period:
May 2002–June 2005
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
3
In 2002, the government of Uganda sought technical and financial assistance from
FAO to implement a conservation agriculture pilot project, which aimed at introducing
the three principles through an approach using farmer field schools as an integral part
of improving land management and livelihood strategies of smallholder farmers. This
was the first such project in the country that focused on demonstrating the applicability
of conservation agriculture systems in Uganda and its multiple benefits in terms of
productivity (saved labour, enhanced income, products diversified), sustainable use
of natural resources (biodiversity and resilient land-use systems) and environmental
services (better water quality, reduced erosion).
The pilot project areas
This case study presents experiences and lessons learned from two pilot conservation
agriculture projects implemented in three districts of Pallisa and Mbale in eastern
Uganda, and Mbarara in south-western Uganda (see colour section). Conservation
agriculture was introduced in Bisheshe Subcounty, Ibanda District (formerly
part of Mbarara District) in 2000 through a Sida-funded project, Uganda Land
Management Project (ULAMP), and in eastern Uganda in 2002 through a pilot
FAO Technical Cooperation Project (TCP/UGA/2903). In Mbale and Pallisa
Districts, activities were piloted in four contrasting microcatchments that represent
areas undergoing accelerated land degradation in selected parishes, two in Mbale
(Busano and Busiu) and two in Pallisa (Budaka and Petete).
Project activities with farmers were, to the extent possible, concentrated within the
selected catchments to facilitate monitoring and observation of aggregate benefits of
better land management in terms of hydrological regime, water quality and erosion
control. This is possible by eliminating or reducing tilling in preparing the land and by
introducing efficient technologies for managing weeds and saving fuelwood. According
to the 2002 population census Mbale District has a population density of 487 persons/
km2, Pallisa 229 and Mbarara 410. Most are smallholder farming families.
Mbale and Mbarara Districts are medium-altitude zones lying between 1200 and
2100 m, although Mbale, lying in the foothills of Mount Elgon, has high altitude
and steep land. Pallisa is a lowland area lying between 1000 and 1200 m with
a gently rolling landscape and wide valleys draining into Lake Kyoga. The soils
in Pallisa are generally sandy loams, low in soil organic matter and fertility, and
often acidic. In Mbale crops grown on the steep, highly dissected slopes include
perennials like banana and coffee and annuals like maize, beans, irish potato and
vegetables. Mbarara is in a coffee–banana–livestock agricultural zone. The major
crops grown are banana, coffee (arabica), maize, beans, groundnut, millet and sweet
potato. Others crops, grown mainly on a small scale, are cassava, irish potato, field
pea and yam, mainly as reserve food. Exotic and local vegetables are grown on a
small scale, mainly as a backyard activity by women. A limited number of livestock,
mainly cattle, goats, pigs and chicken are kept. Most of the cattle are the local longhorn Ankole breed, but with introduction of zero-grazing units, a large number of
farmers have started keeping upgraded crosses of cattle. Local goats are also being
upgraded with pure breeds of exotic species. In Pallisa District, the major crops
grown include cassava, sweet potato, sorghum, rice, cowpea and groundnut.
4
Nyende et al.
Threats to agricultural productivity and rural livelihoods in Mbale and Mbarara
include loss of soil through erosion and landslides, intensified by loss of vegetative
cover on the steep slopes through agriculture and deforestation. The soils in Mbale
have a moderate-to-high clay content and are productive if well managed; those of
Mbarara are predominantly sandy loams prone to severe degradation due to soil
erosion triggered by deforestation of the hills, overgrazing and poor land-cultivation
practices. The range of soils is shallow and sandy mixed with gravel on the hilltops,
predominantly sandy loams on the gentle slopes, and fairly deep silty-loams in the
valleys. In some parts of Bisheshe, underlying layers of limestone make the soils
unstable and prone to severe soil erosion.
Due to the hilly topography and high population density in both Mbale and
Mbarara, the land holdings per household are small, ranging from 0.25 to 1 ha.
Land fragmentation in all sites is a common practice, and the land shortage means
that the existing arable land is intensively cultivated. Most of the arable land is
located on the foothills, three-quarters of which is under banana and coffee. The
degraded hillsides are being increasingly cultivated to produce annual crops such as
millet, maize, beans and sweet potato. Cattle are mainly grazed communally on the
hilltops during the rainy season and in valleys during the dry season.
Average annual rainfall in Mbale is over 1500 mm and in Mbarara over 1300 mm;
Pallisa receives about 1000 mm per year (figs. 2, 3). All sites have a bimodal rainfall
pattern: the first rains are from mid-February to the end of May and the second rains
from August to the end of December. The rainfall season averages 100 rain days for
both. Most of the rainfall in Mbarara is experienced during the second rain season,
from August to December. The intense downpours during this period cause heavy
runoff that triggers severe soil erosion, soil capping, and occasionally landslides. High
population pressure has led to encroachment into marginal lands and wetlands. Rice
growing in the wetlands has increased tremendously from 300 ha to 5000 ha in these
areas in the last 30 years. Due to land degradation in the upper zones, rivers and
streams are heavily silted and the zone experiences frequent flooding.
25
No. of rain days
20
Pallisa
Mbale
15
10
5
0
Jan 03
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov Jan 04
Mar
May
Jul
Month/Year
Figure 2. Number of rain days per month in Pallisa and Mbale catchments.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
5
Pallisa
Mbale
No. of rain days
300
200
100
0
Jan 03
Mar
May
Jul
Sep
Nov Jan 04 Mar
May
Jul
Month/Year
Figure 3. Total monthly rainfall in Pallisa and Mbale catchments recorded over
18 months by farmer field school groups.
2
Type of conservation agriculture practices
Once they realized they needed to reverse land degradation, farmers in the project
sites have employed improved land-management practices such as establishing soil
and water conservation structures (fanya juu and fanya chini), using cover crops in
improved fallows, and rotating crops in various combinations. Despite these efforts,
there have been serious shortfalls in individual practices in addressing loss of soil
fertility and land degradation, resulting in adverse effects on crop and livestock
productivity and on the environment.
To address these shortfalls, conservation agriculture was introduced as an alternative
land-management practice. The concept emphasized the use of site-specific
combinations of practices aimed at:
• checking and minimizing soil erosion mainly through reduced or no-tillage
practices
• building soil organic matter content by not burning crop residue, thus
improving the chemical and physical properties of the soil
• controlling weeds
• increasing soil cover to protect soil from the negative effects of rainfall
energy and solar radiation, and to improve the water infiltration rate and
conserve soil moisture during dry spells
The entry point of conservation agriculure in these microcatchments varied
greatly depending on site- or situation-specific constraints in a given catchment
or household. Some considerations when promoting conservation agriculture
included differences in wealth status or resource endowment (rich, poor or
medium), availability of household labour, and crop and or livestock farming
system. Conservation agriculture practices were promoted as a package and not as
individual practices as known by many farmers. Several combinations of practices
were demonstrated and tested on fields depending on the field operation being
carried out and cropping system in use as shown below.
6
Nyende et al.
Land preparation
Land is prepared principally to rid the fields of weeds and to make a fine seedbed
for planting annual crops. Instead of using a traditional hand hoe, weeds were
sprayed with herbicide, slashed or smothered with legume cover crops like Mucuna,
which were also either sprayed with herbicide or slashed before the plot was planted
(colour section).
Planting
Different planting tools are used to reduce tillage, soil compaction from traffic
and the amount of labour required during planting. Tools include the planting stick
(colour section), the ox-drawn ripper planter, the jab planter, and a hand hoe.
The permanent oblong hole method was demonstrated for producing maize;
it is similar to the zai method used in Zambia (FAO 2005). The planting pits (colour
section) are dug (approximately 35 cm long, 15 cm wide and 15 cm deep), spaced at
intervals of 70 to 90 cm. Each hole is filled with 1–2 kg of compost manure, which
is mixed with topsoil and planted with nine seeds of maize per hole, thus giving an
optimum seed rate of 25 kg/ha of maize (Longe 5 maize variety).
Weed control
Weed control constitutes planting cover crops in banana, coffee and vanilla (colour
section) plantations in combination with soil and water conservation structures,
mulching and applying manure. The study team evaluated several cover crops
including Mucuna pruriens, Dolichos lablab, Canavalia ensformis, Phaseolus vulgaris (bush
bean), pumpkin and yellow passion fruit.
In soil and water management, water-harvesting pits are constructed in
trenches aligned on contours in which new banana stools are planted (colour
section). The raised bands are mulched and planted with cover crops.
Soil fertility improvement
To improve soil fertility, permanent narrow-based terraces are dug on which
vegetables are planted after compost manure and mulch have been applied (colour
section). Cover crops are later planted to cover the surface of the terraces after the
vegetables are harvested.
Crop rotations and associations. A participatory diagnosis of constraints and
opportunities with regard to crop rotations and associations was carried out in two
different cropping systems: banana–coffee for Mbale and cotton–cereal in Pallisa
Districts (FFS AESA reports 2003). This revealed that:
• Most farmers did not rotate crops or rotated inappropriately, especially with
their annual crop. For example, farmers planted maize in the first season
(March to June) and in the following season (July to December) planted
cotton, which has similar crop pests and diseases. Farmers and extension
officers attributed this neglect of alternative potential crops in the rotations
to a number of reasons:
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
7
traditional attachment to certain crops like beans
food security
risk aversion
land shortage
suitable soils for certain crops
lack of alternative crop seed
market and income forces
ignorance of the need for improved rotations and the benefits and
opportunities they afford
• In some cases farmers practised rotations that were appropriate but so short
that they did not break pest and disease cycles, or improve soil fertility such
as was the case of rotation of groundnuts with finger millet or sorghum.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The farmer field schools learned the importance of choosing appropriate crop
combinations and associations to avoid possible competition between different
plant species. For example, through their study plots, farmers in Petete and Sapiri
microcatchments learned that mucuna and lablab are not suitable for intercropping
with cotton, whereas pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) and canavalia (Canavalia ensiformis)
make beneficial associations. Farmers also found that appropriate crop rotations
and combinations were important in managing weeds. Crop combinations and
rotation with habits that are morphologically different (variable plant size and
form) and physiologically different (variable response to factors such as nutrient and
moisture stress) were seen to suppress weeds and to break pest and disease cycles.
Optimal plant spacing of different crop associations and combinations minimized
the opportunity for weeds to establish and suppressed weed growth.
Farmers greatly preferred cover crops with multiple uses such as for food and fodder
and disliked those that had pest problems such as Crotalaria grahamiana.
3
Effects, benefits and results of conservation
agriculture practices
Farmer field school experimentation with conservation
agriculture
Through the conservation agriculture study and experiment plots in farmer field
schools farmers were exposed to a variety of options for land preparation that
could reduce demand for labour in preparing land and weeding—the most timeconsuming tasks for households. Before farmer field schools introduced conservation
agriculture, farmers knew only one way to prepare land and weed which involved
much moving of soil (tillage) using either the hand hoe or the ox plough. During
farmer field school studies, farmers evaluated several options that would minimize
soil disturbance and at the same time reduce the demand on the household for labour.
These options or practices included using herbicides, slashing, and managing cover
crops. The practices were evaluated in terms of labour requirements, productivity
(crop yield), weed prevalence and overall economic assessment.
8
Nyende et al.
Labour requirement for field operations for maize
Given the low and erratic rainfall in the study areas, timeliness of field operations is
critical to achieve a good crop yield. But good timeliness is made difficult by labour
bottlenecks HIV, AIDS and malaria are causing and by rural–urban migration,
especially of the youth. An assessment of timeliness and labour requirement to
prepare a hectare of land for maize was carried out. Eight farmer field schools
compared conventional use of a hand hoe or an ox plough with conservation
agriculture practices. Evaluation showed that options involving cover crop
management required four times less labour than the other options—herbicides and
weed slashing on their own, or conventional ploughing and hoeing of weeds (table
1). Because farmers perceive herbicides to be expensive and not readily available,
they found managing cover crops by slashing the most feasible option.
Farmers learned that the cheapest options (that is, of those within their resources)
were slashing and using cover crops, as shown in table 2. From the knowledge and
skills obtained in these farmer field schools, 60% of the members subsequently
adopted slashing and using cover crops. The Mucuna cover crop used was particularly
appreciated for suppressing weeds effectively.
Weeding labour and associated costs
Weeding absorbs over 50% of smallholder farmers’ production costs. It also occurs
at times when the demand for labour is quite high and needed for many farm
activities. Farmers found that adopting conservation agriculture practices greatly
reduces the labour they need for weeding. Options that used and managed cover
crops, either by slashing or by using herbicides, required less labour and were
therefore more cost effective than other practices (table 3).
Table 1. Labour requirements for land preparation (workdays per hectare)
Activity,
operation
Time spent
clearing bush
Time spent on
1st ploughing
Time spent on
2nd ploughing
Time spent
spraying
herbicide
Time spent
slashing
weeds/cover
crop
Total
Conventional
Herbicide use
Slashing
Cover crop Cover crop,
+ slashing no herbicide
Oxen Work- Oxen Work- Oxen
days days days days days
Workdaysa
Oxen
daysb
Workdays
Oxen
days
Workdays
17.5
5
17.5
5
17.5
5
0
0
0
0
37.5
2
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18.7
1
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0
5.0
5
0
0
0
0
5
5
0.0
0
0.0
0
5
5
5
5
0
0
73.7
8
22.5
10
22.5
10
5
5
5
5
Source: FFS – AESA reports 2003
a
1 workday = 4 hours of effective working, b 1 oxen-day = 6 hours of effective working
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
9
Table 2. Land preparation costs per hectare of maize (USD)
Activity/operation
Conventional Herbicide Slashing
use
Bush clearing
Cost of 1st ploughing
Cost of 2nd ploughing
Inputs
Cost of herbicides
(Round-Up max)
Cost of herbicides
(Laso, atrazine)
Cost of hiring a sprayer
Cost of labour for
spraying
Total
Cover
Cover crop
crop + + herbicide
slashing
20.8
20.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.8
0.0
0.0
20.8
0.0
27.8
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
25.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
3.9
0.0
0.0
3.9
62.4
79.2
20.8
20.8
76.1
Source: FFS – AESA reports 2003/2004
Table 3. Labour requirements (workdays) and cost (USD) for weeding 1 ha of maize
Weeding
1st
2nd
3rd
Total
Conventional
Labour
17.5
17.5
0.0
35.0
Cost
20.8
20.8
0.0
41.6
Slashing
Labour
17.5
17.5
17.5
52.5
Cost
20.8
20.8
13.8
55.4
Cover crop +
slash
Labour
Cost
9
7
0
0
0
0
9
7
Cover crop +
herbicide
Labour
Cost
9
10
0
0
0
0
9
10
Source: FFS – AESA reports 2003/2004
Herbicides were not used alone; 1 workday = 4 hours of effective working
Using cover crops gave higher yields (table 4) because they provided more fertility
by fixing nitrogen and restoring organic matter (root and leaf litter), and they
suppressed the weeds. The data presented were collected by farmers with the
guidance of facilitators from farmer field schools, but no scientific statistical analysis
was carried out (Sapiri and Petete FFS end of season AESA report, 2003).
Table 4. Maize yield with different land preparation treatments in farmer field school plots
Land preparation (treatment)
Conventional
Herbicide use
Slashing
Cover crop + slashing
Cover crop + herbicide
Grain yield (kg/ha)
2458.6
2618.6
2453.8
3126.0
3008.0
Source: FFS AESA reports 2003/2004
10
Nyende et al.
Farmer monitoring and evaluation
Mr Kasimire of Bisheshe, Mbarara District, is one of the farmers who monitored
physical and agronomic changes on his farm—plant growth and vigour, occurrence
of pests and diseases, weed prevalence, soil conditions and yields. Table 5 gives Mr
Kasimire’s results when using or not using conservation agriculture practices.
4
Adaptation and adoption
The farmer field school approach was chosen as an alternative to the traditional
extension approach in which farmers are passive recipients of externally formulated
extension messages. This approach involves discovery-based learning, with extension
agents acting as facilitators to support the learning as well as the adoption of new
technologies that the farmers themselves test directly. It was adapted to promote
conservation agriculture by developing a curriculum that addresses it and other
livelihood-related issues.
As part of the learning process in farmer field schools, farmers’ groups were helped to
establish study plots or experiments in their own fields to test the conservation agriculture
practices and principles through discovery-based learning by doing. The simple
studies and experiments centred on the three principles of conservation agriculture: 1)
permanent soil cover through cover crops or mulch, 2) no or minimum tillage with direct
seeding, and 3) improved crop rotation. The studies were carried out for three seasons in
16 farmer field schools, each ‘school’ representing a replicate of the experiment, using
maize (variety Longe 5H) as a test crop. Data were collected using a farmer field school
monitoring tool—Agro-EcoSystem Analysis (AESA)—weekly or fortnightly depending
on the nature of the data, and compiled into AESA reports. Generating AESA
reports involves field observation by members of the farmer field schools, recording
key field observations in sub-groups, discussing observations in plenary, and drawing
relationships, action points and conclusions from the observations.
The farmer field schools assessed the following aspects, through monitoring and
evaluating studies for one season:
• agronomic crop performance—percentage of crops that germinated, crop
vigour, weed profiles, grain and stover yields
• economics—labour efficiency; cost of inputs and outputs per treatment
• farmers’ qualitative assessments
In each microcatchment the schools were coordinated by an elected network whose
role included mobilizing farmers towards field school activities, networking and sharing
information, resolving conflict among members within groups, managing a revolving
fund, and influencing local policy and advocacy (table 6).
Farmers acquired knowledge and skills through experiential learning that enabled
them to adapt conservation agriculture on their farms; this was observed among
innovative farmers particularly. Some of these farmers applied this knowledge to
diversify their agricultural activities by setting up high-value enterprises such as
pineapple, vanilla and banana plantations. Improved soil fertility and improved
moisture management led to improved production that eventually resulted in a good
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
11
Table 5. Field observations of practices on maize and beans, as reported by
Mr Kasimire after four cycles (seasons) in 2002
Factor
Conservation agriculture plots
Control plots (non-conservation
agriculture)
Plant health and Maize and beans crops grew with The maize crop remained weak
growth
vigour.
and was stunted. Some plants
failed to produce cobs. The
bean crop showed some vigour
Each plant of maize produced 2
but the number of pods, an
cobs. On average, beans (K132
average of 10 pods on each
variety) produced 35 pods per
plant, was far less than those in
plant
conservation agriculture plots of
the same variety.
Pests and
diseases
At the seedling stage cutworms
(Phyllophaga spp) destroyed
some plants. They were replaced
at the start of the rains and the
damage ceased. Maize streak
disease was widespread and
caused severe crop damage
There was no pest invasion at
seedling stage.
Maize streak was observed on
many plants.
Weeding
No serious invasion of weeds
Many weed species; needed
except wandering Jew
intensive weeding twice during
(Commelina benghalensis), which the growing period.
was removed during weeding
from the planting sites
Soil conditions
Soils remained moist and
soft even during dry spells.
Accumulation of organic matter
and litter on the topsoil led to
the presence of earthworms.
Topsoil particles had a smooth
feel; sticky on rubbing (indicating
moisture)
Maize plots affected by soil
erosion because the land
remained bare. After the rains,
the soil dried quickly and the
topsoil particles remained
separate (loose, dry and prone
to erosion).
Maize
Farmer got 3800 cobs or 28
basins of dried maize seeds
equivalent to 452 kg or 4.5 100kg sacks
2625 cobs from which the
farmer got 13 basins of dried
maize seeds, equivalent to 260
kg or 2.5 100-kg sacks
Beans
Farmer got 105 kg (1 sack) of
beans
Farmer got 97 kg (1 sack) of
beans
Yield
Selling price of maize per kg = USD 0.14
Selling price of beans per kg = USD 0.22
Income
12
Maize: 452 kg x USD 0.14 =
USD 62.7
Maize: 260 kg x USD 0.14 =
USD 36.4
Beans: 105 kg x USD 0.22 =
USD 23.1
Beans: 97 kg x USD 0.22 =
USD 21.6
Nyende et al.
Table 6. Typical conservation agriculture curriculum for a farmer field school
Phase
Pre-experiment phase
(preferably before the
season starts)
Experimental phase
Post-experiment
Weeks Learning themes
(no.)
11
Concepts and principles of farmer field schools
20
9
Experimenting with technology, agroecosystem
analysis
Graduation, second-order generation schools,
linked to other development initiatives
See details in appendix 1
crop harvest and hence improved food security. In the long run, farmers feel that
food will be more available for a range of household types that will have a positive
impact on the household nutritional status. Boxes 1, 2 and 3 give testimonies of
farmers’ experience with conservation agriculture under different situations.
5
Key challenges and lessons
Providing and managing a permanent soil cover
In the conservation agriculture study plots, field school farmers experimenting with
cover crops learned that they have both positive and negative effects. The choice of
what cover crop to use depends on the site-specific needs to be addressed. Table 7 gives
farmer assessment of cover crops tried in the Mbale and Pallisa field schools. Earlier
studies by Nyende and Delve (2002) in Tororo District, close to Pallisa and Mbale
Districts, had indicated that farmers’ preference for cover crops is quite site specific.
Equipment trials conducted by the Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate
Technology Research Institute (AEATRI) within farmer field schools show that to
effectively manage cover crops using the mechanical animal-drawn knife-roller, the
cover crop should be at its final vegetative cycle stage. For legumes this is between
full flowering and formation of the first pods; for grass species it is during the milky
stage; and for other species like oil radish, between flowering and maturation of
seeds. If a mixture of cover crops is used, it is important to choose species with a
more-or-less uniform growing cycle. Under Ugandan conditions, however, as farm
size is small and may not allow legume and grass rotations as, for example, in Brazil,
the knife-roller will also be used to knock down, flatten and score cereal crop straws
(maize, sorghum, finger or pearl millet) and other agricultural residue ready for
direct planting through the vegetative mulch.
Local evaluation of alternative cover crops and dead mulches showed:
• Appropriate and sufficient biomass for mulching was in short supply and
regulatory bylaws on wild fires were lacking. Widespread burning destroys
available material that could be used for mulch. Farmers also fear burning
of their mulched gardens.
• Predators like rats and pests such as cutworms destroyed the early germinated
plants under mulched fields, causing loss and uneven growth.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
13
Box 1. Mr Kasimire tells what conservation agriculture means for his
livelihood
Kaanama common interest group in Bisheshe, Mbarara District, received demonstrations
on conservation agriculture. Mr Kasimire is an active member. He lives on sloping land
whose soils are gravelly and barren. As these gravelly soils do not hold water long, growing
crops was difficult. Mr Kasimire was frustrated with his barren land and wanted to sell it
but he neither found a buyer nor had enough money to buy an alternative plot. He failed to
provide for the family. He could not pay school fees for his children. Finally quarrels with
his wife became frequent. Mrs Kasimire had to spend most of her time working at other
people’s farms for food and money. She was jealous of women in the village who had better
land and could grow and sell good crops. The Kasimire children also suffered. They not
only failed to get school fees but were also poorly fed and suffered from malnutrition. As
a coping mechanism, some of the children were sent away to live with relatives, simply to
get enough to eat.
Learning about conservation agriculture through the Kaanama common interest group
transformed Kasimire’s life, shaped his destiny, and helped others too. Using permanent
planting stations and Mucuna cover crop, Kasimire planted maize (Longe 5 variety) on the
most degraded piece of land, a plot about 50 m2. From it alone he harvested 100 kg. In
the second season he planted beans (K132) on the same piece of land and harvested 60
kg. During the third season he planted about half a hectare of maize and harvested 4 bags
estimated to weigh 450 kg. The fourth season saw him planting climbing beans; from one
plastic cup of climbing beans he got 100 kg. Mr Kasimire kept record of his production in
an exercise book.
Using the same conservation agriculture principles he planted onions on another plot. He
harvested 14 basins from two plots each measuring 1.5 m x 8 m, out of which he sold
12 basins for the equivalent of USD 66.70. In the following season he planted tomatoes
on the same piece of land. He harvested 97 basins and sold each for USD 1.70, earning
USD 161.70 in total. Before the season ended he planted cabbage seedlings and sold 140
heads, in addition to what the family consumed. On the other half of the plot, he planted
carrots and sold them for USD 7.80. In the third season, he planted 9 lines of onions and
harvested 40 basins. In all he earned USD 149.30.
Since this experience with conservation farming, Kasimire has abandoned his plan to sell
his land or migrate. During the three years he has practised conservation agriculture he
has been able to pay school fees of up to USD 111 a term and purchase materials for his
one child in secondary school and four in primary school, mainly by selling crop produce.
In addition, he has renovated his house.
Mr Kasimire has now bought more land that includes banana and coffee. He has also
bought a cow for USH. 140,000 from sales of honey. He has bought household utensils
and other equipment. He is now a member of a credit and savings group and is up to date
with his subscription.
Mr Kasimire has noted changes. The soils are darker coloured, stones in the fields are
covered, and the layer of topsoil is thicker. Soil erosion is controlled. He has also noticed
changes in the family—family income has improved and there are no more quarrels with his
wife. They need less labour and the children willingly participate in the family chores. They
no longer throw away household waste as they compost it. The cropped area on the farm
is less yet productivity has increased. He has adopted goat rearing and bee-keeping. The
animals provide manure and the bees pollinate his crops.
Conservation agriculture in Bisheshe started with 10–14 people and has now been taken
up by over 80 farmers.
Source: Anthony Nyakuni, ULAMP Project Manager
14
Nyende et al.
Box 2. What conservation agriculture means to Emmanual Mukari and
fellow villagers
The Nabikyenga Farmer Field School is one of 16 farmer field schools initiated under
the FAO-funded conservation agriculture project in Nabikyenga village, located 400 km
from Kampala. The village is in Busano Parish, Busano Subcounty, Mbale District. Rainfall
is bimodal with the first rains occurring from March to July, and the second rains from
September to November. The area is characterized by steep slopes—60o or even more.
Farmers in congested households whose average family size is 10 persons cultivate small
tracts of land from as small as 100 m2 to half a hectare. Main crops are banana, field peas,
beans, onion, cabbage, carrot, irish potato and coffee.
Emmanuel Mukari is a member of the Nabikyenga Farmer Field School. With a family of
eight children (six boys and two girls) deriving a livelihood from half a hectare of land, he
is considered one of the richest people in the village. Meeting the needs of his family such
as health and education is a big concern for him. He knows very well that this half hectare
cannot support his children, and into the future, their children.
Fortunately, the conservation agriculture approach to land management has given him some
hope. The learning by discovery that occurs in the field school, using the agroecosystem
analysis (AESA) tool, with guidance from the school facilitator, has had a miraculous effect.
‘I volunteered to give my land as a study plot for our field school,’ Mr Mukari says. ‘We
then recorded the problems on the 100-m2 plot of coffee, which included low soil fertility,
extreme erosion and poor agronomic practices. In the study plot I implemented a number
of practices the group agreed on: harvesting water, stabilizing soil with grass bunds, and
mulching that. After two seasons of practising conservation agriculture, we recorded our
observations using AESA. My plantation now looks better. I used to get 1 bag (70 kg) of
coffee but now I get 2 bags (140 kg). The size of the coffee berries has increased and
now I get 1 kg of processed coffee from 2 kg of raw coffee, implying that I now get more
processed coffee from my raw coffee. So I never intend to sell raw coffee again at USH
500 per kilogram (and get only USH 2000 from 4 kg). Instead, I will process my 4 kg of
raw coffee, get 2 kg of processed coffee, sell it at USH 2000 per kg and get USH 4000.
My revenue from my coffee has doubled. All we need now is a coffee-processing machine
for the group to cater for the increased demand of its services.’
Conservation agriculture practices have spread through the whole village like a bush fire
and to-date over 80% of the members in the four schools and about 50% of non-members
in the microcatchment have adopted conservation agriculture practices, mainly harvesting
water using trenches (fanya juu and chini), stabilizing trenches using grass bunds and tree
shrubs, capturing rainwater runoff from roads and courtyards, and mulching with both live
and dead mulches. ‘Farmers on this footslope have now become serious about practising
conservation agriculture. They are now forming groups and consulting us to advise them
on what to do,’ says Mukari.
Mukari has a daughter at Makerere University whose fees he is paying privately. He says
she has drained his small resources to the extent that he is not able to pay to educate his
other children. He however hopes and believes that from the results he has seen so far, his
worries will be no more and all his children will be able to attend school.
Source: John Peter Opio, Agricultural Training Expert (TCP/UGA/2903 Project)
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
15
Box 3. Sapiri assesses conservation agriculture in their
microcatchment
The Sapiri community (in Budaka Subcounty, Pallisa District) and its local leaders perceived
-poor roads as one of the priority problems in the area. Farmers got a raw deal whenever
they wanted to market their produce because buyers could not reach them due to the
poor road infrastructure. According to Mr Shiny, the Budaka chief, the subcounty allocated
more than 40% of the budget to road maintenance. The road would require repairs and
maintenance twice every year. Mr Shiny noted that it cost USH 4 million every year to repair
and maintain a 10-km road that passes through Sapiri Parish. The major cause of road
destruction has been rainwater runoff.
When several farmers adopted conservation agriculture, however, the Sapiri
microcatchment showed significant change in just two years. The adopted conservation
agriculture practices, which they initially thought would only improve water harvesting for
crop use, also provided significant positive benefits for road maintenance. Initially, only
members of the farmer field school adopted the recommended practices for conserving
soil and water in the microcatchment. But later non-members too adopted them, when they
saw how the farmers who had adopted earlier had benefitted. Practices include fanya juu
and fanya chini, water diversion channels to direct runoff away from roads, grass bunds,
and water basins locally known as bafus. Farmers who own land along roadsides also
learned to divert water from the road to their crop fields, a practice they copied from road
maintenance workers.
Within two and a half years, local leaders together with the entire community noted that
gullies and potholes, water ponding in low-lying areas and impassable bridges in the road
caused by running water have all been greatly reducing, simply by managing rainwater
runoff on the roads.
Mr Shiny says that the road-maintenance budget the subcounty allocates to Sapiri Parish
has been slashed to half, because the roads are now repaired and maintained only once
instead of twice in a year as formerly. Farmers are directly benefiting from water diverted
from roads and from their compounds into their crop fields. ‘We have recommended to
the subcounty council that a bylaw be passed by the council for community members
to adopt conservation agriculture practices that prevent destruction of roads. We would
rather spend money to support farmers on such conservation agriculture practices than
hire or buy expensive equipment for road construction and maintenance,’ says Mr Shiny.
Source: Paul Nyende, Land Management Expert, (TCP/UGA/2903 Project)
• Due to shortage of land, grazing animals often invade cover crops in
conservation agriculture plots, especially during the dry periods. There is a
need to introduce and ensure sustained control of livestock.
For wider adoption of cut-and-carry mulch, farmers’ fields must be located near
land that will produce mulch material, that is, fallow land, low-lying grazing lands,
road margins or poor uncultivated lands. Livestock grazing and burning across the
community’s territory must be controlled. Rats should be controlled by using bait
or encouraging birds of prey. Damage by pests such as cutworms is expected to
diminish with improved soil health and crop rotation.
16
Nyende et al.
Tools and equipment
Animal-drawn knife-roller
The AEATRI model of a knife-roller consists of a metallic frame with a cylinder
made from 4-mm steel sheet with up to 10 sets of cutting knives attached to the
axle. The cylinder has an opening with a plug; it is filled with either water (up to
100 litres) or dry sand (up to 160 kg) to increase its weight, but the weight must be
matched to the size and capacity of the animals being used.
To date, four units each of knife-roller models with cylinder diameters of 0.30, 0.35
and 0.40 m and a working width of 1.20 m have been made and are being tested
with farmers. A typical unit has a working weight of 200–220 kg when empty, and
a maximum weight of 380 kg when fully loaded with sand. The weight is adapted
to East African zebu oxen, which weigh on average 200–250 kg. In contrast, the
Brazilian knife-roller model weighs over 1000 kg and is suited to their heavier
draught animals, which may weigh between 800 and 1000 kg (Odogola et al. 2004).
An example of the AEATRI knife-rollers is shown in the coloured section.
Adaptation and field testing of the animal-drawn knife-roller reveals the following
factors that limit its use and performance:
• Non-uniformity in establishing cover crops. In areas where cover crops were not
uniformly established, the knife-roller did not effectively flatten them,
especially canavalia.
• Wet soils. In areas where soils were extremely wet, the knife-roller simply
bent the cover crops but did not break up the stalks sufficiently to let them
desiccate rapidly. The knife-roller should be used when soils are relatively
dry, for example, before the onset of rains.
• Uneven ground surface. In areas where the ground surface was uneven and
irregular, the knife-roller simply rolled over the cover crops without breaking
up the stalks as required. To effectively manage weeds and cover crops, the
ground surface should be relatively flat.
• Untrained oxen and ox drivers. To effectively use the knife-roller to mechanically
manage cover crops, both the draught animals and their handlers must be
adequately trained and given enough practice. The weight of the kniferoller should be matched to the capacity of the animals used and to the type
of cover crop being handled.
Jab planter
Two types of hand-operated jab planters (one for dropping seed only and the other
for dropping seed and fertilizer), known as matracas in Brazil, were imported and
tested with maize and beans at all farmer field schools in the two districts. At all sites,
farmers preferred the jab planter that delivers seed and fertilizer because it reduces
the number of field activities and helps make operations timely. To plant in straight
lines a string was used with internodes marked at appropriate intervals corresponding
to the spacing recommended for the crop. The person using the jab planter walked
along the string while carefully jabbing the soil at the marked intervals.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
17
Table 7. Farmers’ assessment of local cover crops and shrubs
Cover, shrub
Mucuna
pruriens
Canavalia
ensiformis
Crotalaria
paulina
Crotalaria
grahamiana
Tephrosia
vogellii
Dolichos
lablab
Sesbania
sesban
Pigeon pea
Pumpkin
Positive aspects
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Suppress weeds effectively
ü Produces plenty of biomass
ü Quick maturing
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Has fodder value
ü Suppresses weeds
ü Easy to multiply (heavy seed
production)
ü Good for intercropping
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Suppresses weeds
ü Leaves used as a vegetable
Negative aspects
ü Not edible
ü Not good for intercropping
(climbs the crops)
ü Requires much labour for
clearing and incorporation
ü Can harbour snakes and wild
cats if planted near the home
ü Beans not edible
—
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Suppresses weeds
ü Caterpillar pests
ü Very good fodder
ü Edible by humans
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Suppresses weeds
ü Poor establishment
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Controls mole rat
ü Pests eat pods, leading to
poor seed formation
ü Excellent fodder
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Provides firewood
ü Suppresses weeds
ü Produces too many seeds;
plant can become a weed
ü Improves soil fertility
ü Has food and fodder value
ü Suppresses weeds
ü Easy to multiply (heavy seed
production)
ü Good for intercropping
ü Has food value
ü Suppresses weeds
ü Easy to multiply (heavy seed
production)
ü Good for intercropping
—
ü Does not improve soil fertility
Source: Nyende and Delve 2002
18
Nyende et al.
The following limitations requiring further investigations were experienced with
the Fitarelli hand jab planter:
• The fertilizer dropped at rate that was two times that recommended; the tool
had no provision for adjustment. Feedback is required from manufacturers,
either locally established or foreign suppliers, to provide for fertilizer
adjustments in new jab-planter designs. Later models in Brazil have been
fully adjusted for fertilizer monitoring.
• The wood used in making the jab-planter tool frame is weak and
cannot sustain the force exerted when planting. This aspect also requires
reinforcement.
• When soils are heavy clay or are wet, they tend to clog the jab planter,
negatively affecting operations. Although attention must be paid to the soil
moisture content, the jab planter may not be suitable for clay soils.
• The planter can be used effectively only with larger seeds such as maize, beans,
soybean and groundnut and not with small seeds like millet and sorghum.
• On initial trials, the jab planter was tricky to operate. This aspect was solved
through regular practice and training.
Despite these shortfalls with the jab planter, farmers appreciated its positive
attributes:
• It reduces drudgery and only about a third of the time needed when using a
stick for direct seeding. With the jab planter, only one person is required to
make the hole and drop the seed and fertilizer.
• It can improve the timeliness of establishing a crop.
• Smallholder farmers can afford the tool.
• With relatively dry and light sandy loam soils, the jab planter can be very
effect.
Calibration, repair and maintenance of conservation agriculture equipment
Equipment used in conservation agriculture such as pesticide and chemical
applicators and direct planters must be calibrated if they are to operate at the
required capacity and expectation. Although calibration procedures have been
explained and demonstrated on farm, the procedures are complicated and present
serious challenge to both farmers and facilitators. More training and demonstrations
will be needed to counter this challenge
Local blacksmiths and artisans can easily repair and replace soil-acting parts such as
planter shares and discs These artisans (for example those at Kibuko village near Mbale)
have generations of experience and are well known and respected in their localities.
The facilities available are quite basic. Metal is heated on a charcoal-fired forge and
temperatures are raised with hand-operated fans. The main demand is for repair of
agricultural tools, animal-drawn implements and bicycle parts. Items repaired and
replaced include hoes, axes, plough shares, landsides, plough handle supports, and
sometimes mouldboards. Hand tools (hammers, files, hacksaws, spanners, drifts and
punches) are used, but electricity is not available. Raw materials are in short supply
and artisans must get their materials from Kampala, especially 3- and 4-mm mild steel
sheets and carbon steel for parts exposed to abrasive soil conditions.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
19
Acquiring and financing conservation agriculture equipment
NARO-AEATRI has been involved in developing prototypes and in testing and
manufacturing new equipment such as hand hoes, animal-drawn implements and
processing equipment. However, poor links with the market and high production
costs pose a serious problem in stepping up to larger-scale production. Currently
production and supply in the private sector is limited to Soroti Agricultural
Implements and Machinery Manufacturing Co (SAIMMCO) in Soroti District and
Agricultural Engineering Industries Ltd (AEIL) in Kampala.
Manufacturers prefer to work with development projects, of both government and
non-governmental organizations, on a batch production basis. Traditionally there
has been little contact with the end users. The FAO–TCP/UGA/2903 project
sought with little success to change this situation by involving all stakeholders,
including private manufacturers, through community demonstrations, field days
and technology fairs. Local private manufacturers’ fears include the fact that they
do not know how much demand there is for these products so feel that commercial
production is too risky without a firm order from an intermediate organization.
In the long run, farmers must buy the tools and equipment adapted for conservation
agriculture. A realistic appraisal of the purchase cost was not available and has not
yet been clearly thought through with farmers. Before such costs can be estimated
with accuracy the practices have to be introduced and tested and conservation
agriculture equipment adapted and manufactured by suppliers. Only then can
farmers be sure that they will be able to afford the initial outlay and that the
increased output will cover the ongoing costs.
Farmer field schools for introducing conservation agriculture
practices and principles
Though the farmer field schools approach requires much effort to establish, it clearly
strengthens farmers’ voice for advocacy and enhances their ability to demand
services and assess value for money, which is in line with the Uganda government
plan for modernizing agriculture.
Farmer field schools were strengthened by providing training in group dynamics,
registering the schools and developing constitutions. These steps have built farmers’
confidence and trust. The community itself is now able to form second-generation
schools and district farmer field school networks.
Farmers preferred the training method using short modules (appendix 1) as this
allowed them to carry on with their daily activities. Trainers should provide
handouts and training guides for future reference, especially for farmers who qualify
as trainers. Unfortunately, such materials were not available in this pilot project.
Materials should be in English and local language of farmers’ choice.
Resource mobilization—savings, revolving funds and loans
As much as farmers yearned for knowledge, acquiring an income played a big role
in strengthening the groups. Farmers appreciated the fact that the conservation
agriculture–farmer field school project tried to address their economic needs by
20
Nyende et al.
setting up a revolving fund. Credit institutions existing in the areas do not favour
agricultural enterprises, especially when they consider the long repayment period.
The risks and uncertainties involved in agricultural enterprises prevent farmers from
gaining access to credit or make them ineligible for loans at reasonable commercial
interest rates. Having access to a group revolving fund increased the interest of
participating farmers in conservation agriculture and enabled them to adopt its
technologies. Field school farmers were also eager to take out individual loans.
Although the farmers groups made their own decisions on how to implement and
repay loans, the field schools still need to work out strict repayment terms to avoid
high repayment failure, which would lead to the revolving fund collapsing and the
field schools disintegrating.
Farmers deposit group savings weekly to raise funds for their respective groups.
Some field schools have also devised other ways to raise funds weekly for individual
members. This has strengthened the groups; some members wanted individual
loans for own activities and this is being addressed by group effort. The capacity of
field schools to mobilize their own resources is a good initiative that deserves to be
strengthened and replicated by others.
Farmers perceive field school membership, the farmer field school network, local
councils and the local government as important avenues for scaling up conservation
agriculture activities. These are interlinked, especially when it comes to drawing up
work plans and budgeting. The bottom-up planning system adopted in the district
could easily support conservation agriculture activities if grassroot farmers can get
their requirements incorporated into the subcounty action plans.
Policy issues
The land-tenure system where land, especially on the hills and in the valleys and
swamps, is owned communally and where other farmers hire land, makes it difficult
for some farmers to practise and invest in conservation agriculture on such land as
they do not have security of tenure.
All the conservation agriculture–farmer field school development initiatives
documented in this case study are supported by donors. The measures they have
put in place to ensure sustainability and to scale up are limited. Consequently,
without government investment and support the programmes and projects are
likely to collapse almost immediately once donor support is withdrawn. Therefore,
wider scaling up of these initiatives at national level is needed through links with
the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) programme and other
development partners including the private sector and NGOs.
6
Conclusions and recommendations
The following recommendations need consideration:
• The farmer field schools need to be strengthened to make them self-reliant,
improve access to conservation agriculture tools and equipment and other
inputs, and encourage establishment of facilities like micro-finance to help
farmers purchase the required tools and equipment.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
21
• The three pilot districts should use farmer field schools structures,
experiences and success stories to advocate school development and mobilize
communities in that direction.
• MAAIF through NAADS should consider turning the pilot project into a
programme and extending it to other subcounties within the pilot districts,
and to other districts.
• The pilot districts should consider including conservation agriculture–farmer
field schools in their annual budgets at all levels (district and subcounties) to
continue and sustain the initiatives.
• Conservation agriculture–farmer field schools should carry out campaigns
in the country to sensitize civic leaders and the entire public about the role
they play in modernizing agriculture and in protecting the environment.
• MAAIF/NAADS and FAO should mobilize funds to produce the training
manuals of the conservation agriculture–farmer field schools so that the
NAADS extension service providers can disseminate them.
References
Alokit-Olaunah, Christine. 2004. Piloting conservation agriculture and improved land
management for enhanced livelihoods of smallholder farmers (Project No. TCP/
UGA/2903 (T)). Short-term impact case study. Report to FAO Uganda. Unpublished.
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. Piloting conservation
agriculture and improved land management for enhanced livelihoods of smallholder
farmers using the FFS approach (Project No. TCP/UGA/2903 (T)). Guidelines for
monitoring and evaluating impact. Unpublished report, available at FAO Uganda Office.
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. Visions and
technologies for animal traction and conservation agriculture. International Workshop on
Modernizing Agriculture, Sunset Hotel and Conference Centre, 19–25 May 2002, Jinja,
Uganda. Workshop report.
Mbale and Pallisa Farmer Field School. 2003/2004. Agro Ecosystem Analysis (AESA)
reports. Unpublished.
Nyende, P., and Delve, R.J. 2002. Farmer participatory evaluation of legume cover crops
and biomass transfer technologies for soil fertility improvement using farmer criteria,
preference ranking and logit regression analysis. Experimental Agriculture 40:77–88.
Odogola, Wilfred R., Okurut, Samuel, Wanyama, Joshua, and Candia, Alphonse. 2004.
Adaptation and promotion of conservation tillage equipment with smallholder farmers
in Mbale and Pallisa Districts. TCP/UGA/2903 (T) Project terminal report to FAO
Uganda.
22
Nyende et al.
Appendix 1
Curriculum for conservation agriculture–farmer
field schools
Period
Topic
Contents
Practical exercise(s)
Pre-experiment phase: Before the first rain season starts (preferably December–
March)
Energizer
Weeks 1–2
Farmer field school Concepts and
development
(FFS) methodology principles of FFS
Steps in establishing
a FFS
Music, dance, drama
Group dynamics
Organization and
management of FFS
Weeks 3–7
Weeks 8–9
Participatory
diagnosis of
constraints and
opportunities
(PDCO)
Community action
planning (CAP)
Tools for PDCO
Transect walks
Problem prioritization
analysis
Resource maps
Solution prioritization
analysis
Problems/potential
solutions synthesis
Participatory selection
(agreement) on
specific constraints to
address with specific
technologies, within
project mandate
Institutional
diagrams
Problem trees, etc.
Community and
individual household
dreams
Visioning
Selecting commercial
enterprise
What, who, when,
where, how to do
Weeks 10–11
Participatory
technology
development (PTD)
Objectives and
rationale for PTD
Field experimental
design and layout
Designing on-farm
experiments
Selecting test crop
Reviewing constraints
Treatment and
technology
Monitoring and
evaluation of
experiments
Exposure/field visit to a functioning FFS to observe group dynamics and application
of PDCO, CAP, PTD
Experimental phase during which the study crop is growing, from planting to
harvesting, processing and storage
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
23
Period
Weeks 12–13
Topic
Agroecosystem
analysis (AESA)
Contents
Principles and
concepts of AESA
Developing
participatory
monitoring and
evaluation (AESA)
indicators
Weeks 14–15
Soil properties and
functions
Physical
Chemical
Practical exercise(s)
Making observations
in the field on crop
growth cycle, soil
improvement, etc.
Simple, field soil
testing
Biological
Weeks 16–17
Local indicators of
soil quality (LISQ)
Terminologies/
language to describe
soil processes and
characteristics
Field observations
of LISQ
Weeks 18–19
Land-use planning
Land suitability
classification
Farm tour
Weeks 20–24
Agroforestry (AF)
Role of AF in managing Setting up a tree
nursery
the environment
AF shrubs and trees for Grafting fruit trees
improving soil fertility
Tree nursery
establishment and
management
AF technologies (fodder
banks, woodlots,
improved fallows, etc.)
Fruit tree establishment
and management
Weeks 25–26
Crop husbandry
Pest and disease
management
Field identification of
soil-borne diseases
Agronomic practices
Weeks 27–32
Conservation
agriculture
principles and
concepts
Tillage systems
Cover crops
Weed management
Soil and water
conservation
Field observation of
cover crops
Practical handling
of conservation
agriculture tools and
equipment
Conservation
agriculture (CA) farm
machinery and power
The catchment
approach
24
Nyende et al.
Period
Topic
Contents
Practical exercise(s)
Exposure through field visit to a functioning FFS, research station, individual farmers,
etc. to see success stories
Post-experiment phase: after experimentation, and includes period after FFS
graduation
Weeks 33–34
Adoption and
adaptation of
conservation
agriculture
Challenges to adoption Microcatchment
and adaptation
transect walk
of conservation
agriculutre in farming
systems
Cost–benefit analysis
of conservation
agriculture
technologies
Weeks 35–36
FFS networking and Importance of FFS
advocacy
networking
Exposure visit
Weeks 37–38
FFS sustainability
and scaling-up
Revolving fund
Exposure visit
Weeks 39–40
Market research
Group marketing
Market visit
Weeks 41–42
Graduation of FFS
Review of what has
been learned
Party
Challenges, learning
process and way
forward
Graduation
preparations
Exposure or field visit to a second-generation FFS to see success of adoption,
adaptation, networking and sustainability
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
25
Appendix 2
Checklist for household and group case study
interview
Checklist for household interview
A.
B.
Location
District:………………
Parish:……………………
Subcounty:…………………
Village:…………
Farm household type
Name of household head…………………………………
Sex……….
Number of household members……………………………………..
Number of household members involved in agriculture:………………………
Highest educational level in household:………………………………………
C.
26
Asset base
a.
Physical capital (buildings, tools, machines)………………………
b.
Natural assets (land, water, forests-woodlot)………………..
c.
Social assets (groups, associations)…………………………..
d.
Financial capital (access to credit, savings, remittance, goats, cattle,
chickens) ……………………………………………………..
1)
What was your understanding of the conservation agriculture project’s
purpose?
2)
Have there been any changes in your expectations of the project over time? If
so, in which way?
3)
What CA–FFS technologies and practices were you trained in? (give examples
of what you have learned)
4)
What do you think were the most relevant conservation agriculture
technologies and practices to your situation among those you learned? Why?
5)
Which technologies and practices do you consider not very relevant to your
situation? Why?
6)
How was knowledge and information about the project shared among
household members?
7)
What have you managed to adopt or adapt among the technologies and
practices learned? Any indicators?
8)
What problems has the household experienced in implementing conservation
agriculture practices and technologies? How can these be solved?
Nyende et al.
9)
What was your main farming system (technologies and practices) before
practising conservation agriculture?
10) In what ways has conservation agriculture affected or will affect your land
management, and hence farming system?
11) Are there any changes and effects experienced on livelihood (food security,
income levels, basic needs access) as a result of practising conservation
agriculture?
12) In what ways has the conservation agriculture project affected or has
potential to affect sociocultural patterns and perceptions? (gender and social
relations)
13) What specific assets and capital does your household own that are relevant
for the adoption and adaptation of conservation agriculture? (Any problems
with the assets or capital experienced?)
14) What tools and equipment demands are necessary to adopt and implement
the new conservation agriculture technologies and practices?
15) In what ways can the household acquire the necessary capital, tools and
equipment?
16) How do you think your neighbours and other community members who
are not members of the FFSs/CIGs will adopt conservation agriculture
technology?
17) What have been the effects of adoption of conservation agriculture
technologies and practices on:
a.
Gender and age-group relations: labour, time, culture, resources
b.
Enterprise (crop–livestock) selection and mix
c.
Social relations within the community
18) How do you think you are going to adopt and continue the conservation
agriculture activities on your farm? What opportunity exists?
19) What negative benefits or effects have you observed so far as a result of
practising conservation agriculture? (cause, reason)
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
27
Appendix 3. Checklist for focus group discussions
A.
Farmer group identification
Name of group…………….
Number of members: male………., female………….youth………….
Date of formation………………..
Group goal, mission, vision………………………………
B. Farmer group knowledge of conservation agriculture principles and concepts
1. How did you come to know about conservation agriculture?
2. What does conservation agriculture mean to you?
3. What are your roles and responsibilities in implementing the
conservation agriculture project?
4. Who are your partners and what are their roles and responsibilities?
5. What conservation agriculture technologies and practices have you
learned and adopted?
6. What conservation agriculture technologies and practices have you
learnt BUT NOT adopted? Why?
C. Group benefits/effects as a result of practising or adopting conservation agriculture
a. What have been your benefits and fears about conservation agriculture?
(household, group and community benefits and fears)
b. What benefits do you hope to achieve from conservation agriculture in
future, for example in 5 to 10 years’ time?
c. What changes have occurred within and around the group as a result
of practising conservation agriculture?
d. What general changes have occurred that were not planned?
e. What are the unintended or unexpected benefits or changes?
f. What are your fears or perceived threats about conservation
agriculture?
D. conservation agriculture continuity and sustainability
1. What opportunities exist within the group or community for continuity
of conservation agriculture initiatives?
2. What organizations and institutions exist in the community that have
potential for further promoting?
3. How can conservation agriculture initiatives be scaled out to the entire
community? What will be your roles and responsibility?
28
Nyende et al.
Appendix 4
Reference framework
Based on the activities developed in the early stages of the project, the following
questions appeared critical for structuring the framework around which all case
studies would be based. They are grouped under three overarching headings:
• Specific technical aspects related to conservation agriculture
systems
• What are the key obstacles, challenges and way forward for controlling
weeds in conservation agriculture?
• Under what conditions does conservation agriculture lead to saving
farmers labour?
• What are the key obstacles, challenges and way forward related to crop–
livestock interaction while using and adopting conservation agriculture
systems?
• What are the key obstacles, challenges and way forward for conservation
agriculture in low-rainfall (semi-arid) areas?
• Conservation agriculture learning and adoption processes
• What does it take to ‘learn’ conservation agriculture, both individually
and collectively (activities, processes, etc.)?
• What influence does the mindset of farmers, technicians and researchers
have on adapting and adopting conservation agriculture practices?
• What are the relative roles of technology transfer and local adaptation in
gaining large-scale adoption of conservation agriculture systems?
• What are the entry points and pathways that lead to large-scale adoption
of conservation agriculture? Are some more effective than others?
• Have large-scale farmers a comparative advantage in adopting
conservation agriculture? What advantages and why? Under what
conditions can conservation agriculture work for smallholders and
resource-poor households?
• What are the key lessons learned in scaling up adoption? Do’s and don’ts,
and why.
• Generic description of the conservation agriculture project
• Biophysical, socio-economic and institutional environment of conservation agriculture work.
• Trajectory of related work in the selected region, site, project.
• Overview of the conservation agriculture adaptation and diffusion
process.
• Conservation agriculture impact.
• Present gaps and challenges in conservation agriculture work.
Conservation agriculture: a Uganda case study
29
Busano, Mbale microcatchment
Conventional practice—hand
Petete, Pallisa microcatchment
Soil cover (mucuna) sprayed with herbicide
then planted
Bisheshe, Mbarara microcatchment
Soil cover (mucuna) knocked down by oxendrawn knife-roller before direct planting
Kasimire plants in a mulch with a planting stick locally known as a ‘jobbe’ Bisheshe, Mbarara
Farmers plant a demo with a stick in a mulch in
Busiu, Mbale
Demonstrating direct seeding with Triton
planter using oxen
Demonstrating calibration of a Triton planter
Conventional planting using a hand hoe
Demonstrating direct seeding using a jab
planter
Maize at one week after planting in a permanent
planting station
Farmers in Bulumbi FFS learning how to use a
jab planter
Banana interplanted with mucuna cover crop
and well managed
Banana interplanted with mucuna cover crop but not well managed
Banana/coffee interplanted with mucuna cover
crop and well managed
Vanilla interplanted with mucuna cover crop but
not well managed
Newly established banana in pits constructed in
trenches
Permanent narrow-based terraces planted with
onions
An established banana plantation with mulch
A typical vegetable crop-rotation field (beans
and cabbage) on permanent narrow-based
terraces, Busano, Mbale
Preparing permanent narrow-based terraces
ready for planting
Cotton interplanted with canavalia-compatible
association
Cotton interplanted with canavalia; cotton was completely suppressed
Cotton interplanted with Cajanus cajan, a
compatible association
Maize intercropped with Cajanus cajan, both
providing food
Banana interplanted with pumpkin, both providing food
Farmers and extension facilitators together
plan a demonstration and experiment in
Sapiri, Pallisa District
A farmer field school in Bisheshe; learning
how to construct planting pits for banana
A three-size set of animal-drawn knife-rollers adapted by AEATRI, the
Agricultural Engineering and Appropriate Technology Research Institute
Local artisans at work in Kibuko village, Pallisa