conservation agriculture & sri for climate change adaptation and food security

Inception and Planning Workshop: Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in the Lower Mekong River Basin (SRI-LMB),

Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok Thailand, 09-12 April 2013

Looking at Conservation Agriculture through the Lens of Sustainable Production Intensification

Amir Kassam OBE, FSB

University of Reading

Tropical Agriculture Association (TAA) European Conservation Agriculture Federation (ECAF)

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN

There is now a structural response to harness sustainable production intensification based on

what I will present This is backed by: -International agencies – FAO, WB, IFAD, EU, ADB, GEF, CIRAD, CBD, CGIAR Centres … -Donor agencies - GIZ, NORAD, AFD … -Foundations - Aga Khan, Howard Buffet … -NGOs – CARE, Oxfam, World Vision, Concern Inter … -Corporations – when farmer driven e.g. Syngenta, … -Universities – Ponta Grossa, Londrina, Evora, Reading, Alberta, California, Earth, Ludhiana, Teramo, Cornell … -Farmer associations – Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Canada, US, Europe … -NARS – Embrapa, Canada, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, India…

• Save and Grow: is about implementing a new paradigm of sustainable production intensification.

• No single overall solution but all productivity solutions

need to be based on ecologically sustainable

production intensification principles such as those of

Conservation Agriculture.

• Mobilize the whole ecosystem rather than fight or degrade it, and enhance natural capital and the flow of ecosystem services.

For example, FAO’s response to SPI challenge

Cross Slot Conference and Tour 2012 – Germany/France 3

Technical objectives of sustainable intensification

• Agricultural land productivity – yield and output

• Enhanced input-use efficiency – production

factor productivities

Simultaneously!

• Natural capital and ecosystems services

• Use of biodiversity – natural and managed

(and carbon) to build farming system resilience

But how? What does this mean in practice?

4

Conventional productivity approach regular tillage, clean seedbed, exposed

Effects: • Loss of organic matter • Destruction of biological life & processes • Soil compaction

5

Land degradation due to tillage

6

Depleted water infiltration due to

soil compaction

Iguassu Falls, Brazil

This is millions of tonnes of topsoil going over the edge.

7

A healthy soil in which roots can perform its functions looks like this

8

Sustainable productivity approach

Empirical and scientific evidence internationally shows .... • No or minimum mechanical soil disturbance by – seeding or planting directly into untilled soil

• Maintenance of organic matter cover on the soil surface – using crop residues and cover crops to build soil health

• Diversification of species -- both annuals and perennials - in associations, sequences and rotations Plus complementary crop, nutrient, water & pest Management == Conservation Agriculture

9

Sustainable Land Management in CA Planting holes, ripping or mulching, direct drill

10

Ecological foundation of sustainable agriculture production (CA)

Minimum soil disturbance

Soil Cover Crop Diversity

11

CA does not solve ALL problems (NO panacea) but complemented with

other practices CA base allows for high production intensity and

sustainable agriculture in all land-based production systems.

Ecological Base of CA

Minimum soil disturbance

Soil Cover Crop Diversity

Integrated Pest

Management

Integrated Plant Nutrient Management

Integrated Weed

Management

Integrated Water management

Sustainable mechanization

Compaction management, CTF

Permanent Bed and

Furrow Systems

System of Rice Intensification

Good seed Genetic potential Genetic resources mgmt

Pollinator/ Biodiversity

management

Organic agriculture

12

Conservation Agriculture

13

Benefits are documented where CA has been applied over a longer time and large area: Canada, Brazil, Australia, Argentina.

Conservation Agriculture: Imapcts

Cross Slot Conference and Tour 2012 – Germany/France


14

Similar reports are now appearing increasingly from small scale farmers and from other regions:

Conservation Agriculture - Impacts



CA opens the way for diversified and integrated production:

• Horizontal integration of other production sectors (agro-forestry, crop-livestock integration!)

• Ecosystem services

• Labour saving allowing vertical integration in the value chain

• Employment generation and local and national economic development

15

Conservation Agriculture – Wider picture


•Erosion & loss of productivity: North America, Brazil, China • Drought & loss of productivity: China, Australia, Kazakhstan, Zambia, Kenya

• Cost of production & energy

efficiency: global

• Ecosystem services with

productivity: global • Increasingly a preferred choice for SPI including CC: global


AG department brainstorming, April 12, 2012

Drivers for adoption of CA

16

USA 26.5

Canada 13.5

Australia 17

Europe 1 Kazakhstan 2

Africa 1

Brazil 25.5

Conservation Agriculture globally 125 Million ha (9% of cropland -- 2011)

Argentina 25.5 (10.5)

Paraguay 2.4

China 3.1

tropical savannah

continental, dry

temperate, moist

temperate, moist

continental, dry

irrigated

smallholder

smallholder

smallholder

arid

arid

large scale

large scale

large scale

large scale

large scale

large scale

subtropical, dry

tropical savannah

other LA 2.4

>50% W (30%)

15%

79%

100% West (35%)

Russia, Ukraine 5.1

FAO Impact

?

?


World total 2008 = 95 Million ha 17

Global CA area (million ha) over time

History and Development

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00125

Increasing at 10 M ha p. a.


Pattern of impacts of CA Conservation Agriculture

• Increase yields, production, profit (depending on level and degradation)

• Less fertilizer use (-50%) less pesticides (-20%)

• Less machinery and labour/drudgery & fuel

consumption (-70%)

• water needs (-30%)

• More stable yields – lower impact of climate (drought, floods, heat, cold) – CC adaptability

• Climate change mitigation (C sequestration)

• Lower environmental cost (water, infrastructure)

Wheat yield and nitrogen amount for different

duration of no-tillage in Canada 2002 (Lafond

2003)

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

0 30 60 90 120

nitrogen (kg/ha

Gra

in y

ield

(t

/ha)

20-year no-tillage

2-year no-tillage

AG department brainstorming, April 12, 2012 19

Advantages: livelihood/income Smallholder farmers:

• 50% labour saving • less drudgery • improved food security • better livelihood/income • stable & increased yields

Mechanized Farmers: • less machinery • 70% fuel saving • better livelihood/income • stable & increased yields

20

Itaipu dam today (source: Itaipu Binacional)

Water resources are threatened by conventional tillage agricultural practices. Conservation Agriculture is an alternative to reduce impacts on river’s quality and to maintain a high level of productivity and

sustainability.

Cultivating Good Water Programme

And what happened to Brazil’s river of tea?

21


• Conservation Agriculture is capable of serving as a basis for sustainable food and agriculture production intensification

• Conservation Agriculture spreading exponentially world-wide

• Transformation to CA has been farmer-driven

• CA shows globally similar positive results, including for women

• CA is only in very few cases promoted by policies

• Several constraints but can and are being addressed but needs to be accelerated

22

Concluding remarks


CA is proving to be widely applicable and a good solution for:

Sustainable production intensification with ecosystem services in all field-based production

systems, and can contribute to resilient rural livelihoods and poverty reduction.

23

Thank you for your attention. More information: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca

And finally ….

Experiences in Asia

24

•Special challenge: convert paddy rice to CA

• India, Bangladesh and Pakistan experiment with components of CA

• 5 million ha of no-till wheat in Indo-Gangetic Plains across India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh, in the wheat-rice double cropping system, but only marginal adoption of permanent no-till systems and full CA because of puddled rice. • Double no-till wheat-rice system now being ‘rolled’ out. • In India no-till systems being tried out in rainfed areas.


Experiences in Asia

25

Growing interest in CA in Cambodia, Laos,

Vietnam

•China promotes CA officially as means against

drought, dust storms, erosion; subsidies for

equipment

• Kazakhstan promotes CA in wheat growing areas in the North

• DPR Korea promotes CA to fight hunger


No-till Rice: • no puddling • no flooding • less CH4

• less N2O • less water

Surface mulching with no-till wheat, Pakistan/India

Conservation Agriculture in Bangladesh

example of 2WT-based CA technologies: (a) strip-tillage in Bangladesh; (b) direct seeding with the

Australian designed Rogro seed drill; (c) Brazilian two-row direct seeder; and (d) bed planter in Bangladesh.

28

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Example of 2WT-based CA technologies: (a) strip-tillage in Bangladesh; (b) direct

seeding with the Australian designed Rogro seed drill; (c) Brazilian two-row direct

seeder; and (d) bed planter in Bangladesh.

CA adoption in sub-Saharan Africa (‘000 ha) – Total 1.01 Million ha in 2011, 600,000 since 2008

Ghana, 30.00

Kenya, 33.00

Lesotho, 2.00

Malawi, 16.00

Madagascar, 6.00

Mozambique, 152.00

Namibia, 0.34

South Africa, 368.00

Sudan, 10.00

Tanzania, 25.00

Zambia, 200.00

Zimbabwe, 139.30


Experiences in Sub-Saharan Africa Conservation Agriculture

30

• Commercial farmers use CA mainly due to drought and cost problems

•CA is part of regional agricultural policy (CAADP)

• Increased interest by governments and development organizations – CA successful model for emergency and rehabilitation projects

• Increase of CA adopters among small scale farmers in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Malawi

due to development projects and support programmes


Situation in Malawi

31

Longer term maize grain yields on farmers fields in Malawi - Lemu

32 Harvest year

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Ma

ize

bio

ma

ss

yie

ld (

kg

ha

-1)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Conventional control, maize (CPM)

CA, maize (CAM)

CA, maize/legume intercropping (CAML)

aa

a a

b

b

aa

bb

a

a

b

aa

b

a a

Longer term maize grain yields on farmers fields in Malawi - Zidyana

33

Zidyana

Year

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Yie

ld d

iffe

rence

bet

wee

n C

A a

nd C

P (

kg h

a-1

)

-4000

-2000

0

2000

4000

6000

CAML

CAM

C

Regional perspective – Southern Africa

Conventional tillage yield (kg ha-1

)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

Conse

rvat

ion a

gri

cult

ure

tre

atm

ent

yie

ld (

kg h

a-1)

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Planting basins, Mozambique

Jab planter, Mozambique

Direct seeding, Zimbabwe

Ripper, Zimbabwe

Direct seeding, Zambia

Ripper, Zambia

Direct seeding, Malawi

Intercropping, Malawi

34

Economic viability-Malawi

Lemu Zidyana

CP CA CAL CP CA CAL

Gross Receipts 528.6 881.5 979.7 1047.2 1309.5 1293.7

Variable costs

Inputs 238.5 341.0 353.6 221.7 323.7 346.1

Labour days (6 hr days) 61.7 39.9 49.4 61.7 39.9 49.4

Labour costs 159.5 103.2 127.9 155.6 100.7 124.7

Sprayer costs 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.2

Total variable costs 398.1 445.9 482.8 377.3 426.1 472.1

Net returns (US$/ha) 130.5 435.5 497.1 669.9 883.3 821.9

Returns to labour (US$/day) 1.8 5.2 4.9 5.4 9.8 7.6

Source: Ngwira et al., 2012

Adoption of CA in Malawi.... (16,000 ha; 35,000 farmers)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Are

a o

f far

mer

s p

ract

icin

g C

A (h

a)

No

of f

arm

ers

pra

ctic

ing

CA

wit

h T

LC s

up

po

rt

Farmers Total Area

36

Conservation Agriculture: an approach to reducing food insecurity

Current CA area in Malawi is: 16,000 ha; 35,000 farmers

“In both study locations (Lemu & Zidyana) CA monocrop maize and CA maize–legume intercrop gave higher water infiltration than the conventional treatment. Improvements in crop productivity, overall economic gain and soil quality have made CA an attractive system for farmers in Malawi and other areas with similar conditions. However, for extensive adoption of CA by smallholder farmers, cultural beliefs that crop production is possible without the ubiquitous ridge and furrow system and residue burning for mice hunting have to be overcome.” Ngwira, Theierfelder & Lambert (2012) Journal of Renewable energy and Food Systems, August issue

37

What can we learn from these examples? From CIMMYT

• Yield comparisons are good BUT, more important, are the initial socio-economic benefits.

• Under the same fertilizer level, signficant yield increases can be expected after 3-5 cropping season.

• CA benefits appear in high potential and low potential areas.

• Women benefit at various levels. Land preparation is manual labour reduced by 20-25 labour days per ha. With herbicides for weeding, another 15-20 labour days per ha which mostly benefits women.

38

Itaipu dam today (source: Itaipu Binacional)

Water resources are threatened by conventional tillage agricultural practices. Conservation Agriculture is an alternative to reduce impacts on river’s quality and to maintain a high level of productivity and

sustainability.

Cultivating Good Water Programme

And what happened to Brazil’s river of tea?

39

CA is proving to be widely applicable and a good solution for:

Sustainable production intensification with ecosystem services

that can contribute to resilient rural livelihoods

and poverty reduction.

40

Thank you for your attention. More information: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca

And finally ….

conservation agriculture & sri for climate change adaptation and food security

Technology

soil surface

healthy soil

sustainable land management

agriculture organization

productivity solutions

natural capital

cover crops

complementary crop