enhancing agricultural resilience and …legume cropping systems to improve food and income security...

ENHANCING AGRICULTURAL RESILIENCEAND SUSTAINABILITY IN

EASTERN AND SOUTHERN AFRICA

Key Findings and Recommendations for Rwanda

Pascal N. Rushemuka, Leonidas Dusengemungu, Zahara Mukakalisa, Jacqueline Tuyisenge

Contents

Agriculture in Rwanda 5

A New Approach to Agriculture 6

Project Overview 6

SIMLESA-Rwanda 7

Strategic Approach 7

Project Sites 7

Key Findings 8

Results in Runda 8

Results in Bugesera 9

Results in Cyuve 10

KnowledgeGapsIdentifiedandAddressed 12

Community Networks that Support the Adoption of Conservation Agriculture 13

Findings from Scaling out SIMLESA-Rwanda’s Activities 14

Factors Driving Adoption 15

Barriers to Adoption 16

Future Plans for Scaling of Conservation Agriculture in Rwanda 17

Conclusion 18

References 19

2

List of Figures1. Conservationagriculturebasedonsustainableintensification 6

2. MaizeyieldsinKamonyi,2017 8

3. BeanyieldsinKamonyi,2017 9

4. MaizeyieldsinBugesera,2017 9

5. BeanyieldsinBugesera,2016and2017 10

6. MaizeyieldsinCyuve,2017 11

7. BeanyieldsinMusanze,2016and2017 11

8. AfieldunderconservationagricultureafterbeanharvestinCyuve 12

9. A conservation agriculture system integrated with agroforestry

hedgerows along contour lines as a permanent source of mulch 13

10. ClimbingbeansinCyuve,2017 13

11. AfieldofbushbeansunderconservationagricultureinRunda,2017 13

12a.Waterloggingassociatedwithtillageagriculturehasnegativeeffectsoncropgrowth 15

12b.Theuseofsoilridgestopromotedrainage 15

12c.Thepositiveeffectofconservationagricultureonsoildrainage,waterinfiltrationand

crop health 15

13. Chickeninmaizeplotsunderconservationagricultureindicatepositive

soil microbial activity in Cyuve 15

14a.Reduceddamagetomaizefromfallarmywormsunderconservationagriculture 15

14b.Severedamagetomaizefromfallarmywormsundertillageagriculture 15

15. Theeffectoflime,manureandfertilizeronmaizeyieldsintheNyaruguruDistrict 18

List of Tables1. SIMLESA-Rwanda intervention sites 7

3

List of AcronymsACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

AIP(s) agricultural innovation platform(s)

CASI conservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensification

CIAT nternationalCenterforTropicalAgriculture

CIMMYT InternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter

FAO FoodandAgricultureOrganizationoftheUnitedNations

GDP gross domestic product

ICRISAT InternationalCropsResearchInstitutefortheSemi-AridTropics

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

NGOs nongovernmentalorganizations

QAAFI QueenslandAllianceforAgricultureandFoodInnovation,Universityof

Queensland,(Australia)

RAB Rwanda Agricultural Board

SIMLESA SustainableIntensificationofMaize-LegumeCroppingSystemsforFoodSecurity

in Eastern and Southern Africa

4

A NISR study [1] estimates that Rwanda’s agricultural sector employs 72 percent of the population andcontributes 33 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP). The mismatch between the highproportion of the population engaged in agriculture and its low contribution to GDP is indicative of an unproductive sector (despite its intended role as an engine of economic development) and a lack of serious alternativeeconomicactivities.Asaresult,themajorityofthepopulationisunder-utilized.

The dual concerns of low productivity and foodinsecurity stem from frequent crop failure due to semi-humid conditions and very low crop yields due to acidic soils—bothofwhichaffect45percentofthecountry’sarable land [2]. The low productivity of Rwandanagriculture is basically attributable to inherently poor soil parent materials, such as granite, gneiss andschists,which create soilswith low concentrations ofbasic cations (calcium,magnesium,phosphorousandsodium) and very low cation exchange capacity. Soil infertilityisexacerbatedbysoilnutrientdepletion.This,inturn,arisesfromsoilwatererosionduetointensivecultivation (two seasons per year) and steep slopes (up to 60 percent or more).

Another considerable constraint relating to soil quality is declining soil organic matter due to high population density (400 inhabitants per square kilometer) and intensive land use. Farmers’ low purchasing power is also a considerable constraint to the adoption of sustainable intensification technologies, such as theapplication of lime, manure and fertilizer [2]. Finally,Rwandan agriculture is highly vulnerable to climate change because rainfed agriculture dominates due to theunfavorable topography.Moreover, thehighrisksassociated with climate change create disincentives for farmers to invest their limited resources in improving soil fertility.

Almost all farmers in Rwanda are smallholders,cultivating less than two hectares. Yet most of the country’s farm households (60 percent) cultivate plots of less than 0.7 hectares [1]. Despite efforts by theRwandangovernmentinthepastdecade,morethan4.4million people remain in poverty [3]. Almost 38 percent of children under five years of age are chronicallymalnourished, with stunting levels of more than 40percent [4]. A survey by theWorld Food Programme[5] showed that the high shares of households with unacceptably low food consumption levels were located in thewesternandsouthernprovinces,alongside theCongo-Nile Crest. Soils are acidic in these areas, and70 percent of the households located there face food insecurity.

In the past, farmers adapted to climate change byintercropping combinations of maize, beans, andcassava, or by planting drought-tolerant crops, suchassorghumandsweetpotatoes [2,6].Extensive landuse has made these approaches obsolete because the resulting productivity is too low. In response to this situation the government of Rwanda promoted the rotationofthestaplesmaizeandbeansasprioritycrops[7].Asa result, theproductionofmaizerosesharply,from167,000metrictons(mt)in2008to668,000mtin2013;itsubsequentlydeclined,however,to370,000mtin2017 [8].WhileRwanda’sbiophysicalenvironmentwould seem only marginally suitable to producing maize,thecountry’spotentialmarketformaizeislarge,with a total consumption of 550,000 mt in 2012 [9].Beans are the country’s major source of protein and calories [10]. Climbing beans are cultivated in the wet highlands (more than 1,800meters above sea level),whereas bush beans are cultivated in the humid middle and semi-humid lowlands (1,800–2,300meters abovesealevel).Therefore,thesustainableintensificationofmaizeandbeanproduction inRwandaappears tobejustified.

AGRICULTURE IN RWANDA

5

A New Approach to AgricultureSustainable IntensificationofMaize-LegumeCroppingSystems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) was a project implemented between 2010and2018infiveAfricancountries(Ethiopia,Kenya,Malawi,MozambiqueandTanzania)andtwospillovercountries (Rwanda and Uganda). The project’s goalwas to increase African smallholders’ food security,productivity and income levels by integrating sustainable intensification practices to increase productivity,while simultaneously protecting the natural resource base. The particular mix of technologies developedby SIMLESA are known as “conservation agriculture-basedsustainable intensification,”orCASI (Fig.1). Byutilizing these technologies, SIMLESA sought the dualoutcomesof sustainably raising yields by 30percent,while decreasing the risk of crop failure by 30 percent. Inshort,SIMLESAfocusedonandpromotedmaizeandlegume cropping systems to improve food and income security and resilience to climate change on African farms.

The project — financed by the Australian Centre forInternational Agricultural Research (ACIAR) — was led by theInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT) in collaboration with numerous partners,including national agricultural research institutes (NARIs), inthiscase,RwandaAgriculturalBoard(RAB);

CGIAR centers, such as the International Center forTropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International CropsResearch Institute for theSemi-AridTropics (ICRISAT),andtheInternationalLivestockResearchInstitute(ILRI);and the Queenland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation (QAAFI) of the University of Queensland,Australia.

Project OverviewSIMLESAundertookonfarmresearchindifferentagro-ecologicalzonestoassessthebenefitsofconservationagriculture-basedsustainableintensificationandtode-velop appropriate technology packages for smallholder farmers.Theprojectsucceededinincreasingtherangeofmaize,legumeandfodder/foragevarietiesavailable,and involved farmers in seed-selection trials so they could identify their preferences. SIMLESA helped es-tablish agricultural innovation platforms (AIPs) to prog-ress members— including farmers, seed producers,agro-input dealers, nongovernmental organizations(NGOs) and extension workers — along the value chain. Theplatformsservefarmingcommunities,helpmobi-lizeresources,andsupportup-andout-scaling.SIMLE-SA also provided training and capacity strengthening for national agricultural research systems and worked with government, business and civil society organiza-tions to provide an enabling environment for the bene-fitsofthenewlyintroducedtechnologiestoberealizedby farmers.

• Improved agronomy

• Improved varieties

• Crops and livestock

• Reduced tillage

• Intercropping/rotation

• Residue and mulch

Note:Improvedagronomyincludestheuseoffertilizerandherbicide;cropsandlivestockincludefodderandforage.

CASI

Conservation Agriculture

Sustainable Intensification

Figure 1. Conservation agriculture based on sustainable intensification

Source: SIMLESA-Rwanda

6

SIMLESA-Rwanda The overall objective of the interventions promotedby SIMLESA-Rwanda was to evaluate conservation agriculture approaches and demonstrate and promote the best performing options to farmers,field technicians, scientists and policy-makers. Ifyields under conservation and tillage agriculture do notdifferstatisticallyatthebeginningoftwotothreefirstgrowingseasons, it isassumedthatconservationagriculture should be considered based on its associatedenvironmentalandlaborsavingbenefits.Inaddition, cropyieldsareexpected to riseovertimeassoil properties — such as soil carbon and nitrogen — improve under conservation agriculture, as opposedto continuing to deteriorate under tillage agriculture. The specific objectives were (1) to demonstrate thecomparative effects of conservation agriculture andtillageagriculturepracticesonmaizeandbeanyieldsinrotationwithineachsite,(2)tocomparetheeffectsofdifferentsoilfertilityinputsonmaizeandbeanyields,and (3) to identify the adoption drivers of conservation agricultureinthreeagroecologicalzones.

Strategic Approach The SIMLESA-Rwanda approach was unique inthat, rather than having different farmers applyingeither conservation agriculture or tillage agriculture approaches, it allowed individual farmers toexperiment with both kinds of practices side-by-side on plots, providing them with first-hand experience

of the differences over time. Statistical comparisonsof the results by scientists remained viable, but thecomparative approach facilitated easy and rapid learning on the part of the farmers. Another strategy involvedconductingaminimumofonefarmerfielddayduring the growing season so farmers could compare differencesbetweenthetwokindsoftreatments.Thegoal was to form cooperatives of farmers practicing conservation agriculture, ultimately leading to thedevelopment of AIPs around conservation agriculture technologies.

Project Sites SIMLESA-Rwanda implemented activities in three agroecological zones based on altitude, rainfalllevels, topography and soil fertility (Tab. 1). Theexperiment fields acted as an “adoption desk,”tangibly demonstrating the feasibility and benefitsof conservation agriculture practices both to farmers and to reluctant scientists. Each plot was subdivided to receive one of three treatments:manure;manureandfertilizer;ormanure,fertilizerandbiofertilizer.Thetrialplotwasoffivebyfivemeters(25squaremeters).Treatments were applied uniformly in the split plotsusing conservation agriculture and tillage agriculture. The project worked with 30 farmers: 12 located inNyaruguru,12locatedinRundaand6locatedincyuve.Theresultingareatotaled750squaremeters(30x25square meters).


Site Agroecological zone

District Altitude (m)

Rainfall (mm/year)

Site topography

Soil fertility

Gashora Semi-humid lands of Bugesera

Bugesera 1,000–1,400 900 Flat Very good

Runda Central plateau Kamonyi 1,400–1,800 1,200 Hilly Good

Cyuve Volcanic lands of Birunga

Musanze >2,000 >2,000 Flat Excellent

Table 1. SIMLESA-Rwanda intervention sites

7

Inthefirstseasonof2017,tillageagricultureinRundayielded statistically higher results across all treatments compared with conservation agriculture (Fig. 2). Thesecondseasonof2017,however,yieldednoobservabledifferences between conservation agriculture andtillageagriculture.Theseresultsmayindicatealearningcurve,whereby thenewerpracticeswere inefficientlyimplemented,or that thesoilwasstill lackingorganicmatter and nitrogen. The difference between twokinds of approaches was smaller in the second growing season. More appropriate application of the techniques by farmers and subsequent improvement in the soil properties under conservation agriculture could explain the reduced performance margin in the firstseason.Duringthesecondseason,thedifferences

betweenTreatments1,2and3werenotsignificant,butyieldsundertillageagricultureweresignificantlyhigherunder Treatment 3. In all cases, however, Treatment3 outperformed Treatment 2, and Treatment 2outperformedTreatment1.

Bean yields under conservation agriculture and tillage agriculture were not significantly different in Rundaovertwoconsecutivegrowingseasons,butsignificantdifferences were observed between seasons andtreatments (Fig. 3). The benefits of conservationagriculture were apparent in the second season based on the use ofmulch in the first season and farmers’familiarity with the new techniques (such as mulching and timely weed control).

Results in Runda

T1

5

7 7.5

10.2 10.2

11.7 11.712.1

10

9

12

15

T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

2017A 2017B

CA TA

KEY FINDINGS

Figure 2. Maize yields in Kamonyi, 2017

Source: SIMLESA-Rwanda.Notes: Yield is measured as cobs and grain. Treatment 1 (T1) = manure only; Treatment 2 (T2) = manure and fertilizer; and Treatment 3 (T3) = manure, fertilizer, and biofertilizer. 2017A indicates the first growing season for the year, and 2017B indicates the second.

Conservation Agriculture Tillage Agriculture

8

1.3

1.8 1.7

1.3

1.5

1.9 1.9

2.2

2.4

2.2

2.6

2.9

2017A 2017B

T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

CA TA

Looking at maize yields in Bugesera, no significantdifference was observed between the two kinds ofagricultural practices in one season in 2017 (Fig.4). Treatment T1 was, however, less effective thanTreatments 2 and 3, which prompted the inclusionof soil fertility management as the fourth principle of conservation agriculture [11]. The significantimprovementinyieldswiththeapplicationoffertilizercanbeattributedtodepletedsoilsinBugesera,whichrequiredamendmentformaizeproduction.Theeffectof biofertilizer was not statically significant, however.

ProductioninBugeserainthefirstseasonof2017wasatotalfailureduetodrought,irrespectiveofthefarmingpractices used.

Bean yields for the second growing seasons of 2016and2017 inBugeserawerenot significantlydifferenteither in terms of the method of farming practices or the treatments used (Fig. 5). Bean production might havebeenlesssensitivetoinputsthanmaizebecausebeansrequirefewersoilnutrients.Inaddition,thesoilsin Bugesera were more fertile than those in Runda.

Results in Bugesera

T1 T2 T3

7.7

9.6

11

12 1213

CA TA

Figure 4. Maize yields in Bugesera, 2017

Figure 3. Bean yields in Kamonyi, 2017


Source: SIMLESA-Rwanda.

Notes: Yield is measures as grain. T1 = manure only; T2 = manure and fertilizer; T3 = manure, fertilizer, and biofertilizer.

Notes: Yield is measured as cobs and grain. T1 = manure only; T2 = manure and fertilizer; T3 = manure, fertilizer, and biofertilizer.



9

InCyuve,inthesecondseasonof2017,thecombinationof conservation agriculture with manure was the most productive (Fig. 6). Once again, little difference wasobserved between the two kinds of farming practices andthe threekindsof input treatments.Thismaybebecause the rich volcanic soils provided adequate nutrientstosupportmaizeproduction.

In the second growing season of 2016, maize yieldsundertillageagricultureweresignificantlyhigherthanunder conservation agriculture (Fig. 7). One possible explanation is that farmers were not yet used to conservation agriculture techniques (mainly mulching andweeding).Differencesamongthethreetreatmentswerenotsignificantbecauseoftheregion’srichquality.ThisisconsistentwithastudythatfoundthatRwanda’sfertile soils (pH > 6.0) can produce good yields with the applicationofmanureonly [12].Themostproductiveoption for this season was tillage agriculture with

manure only; interestingly, the most productiveoptioninthesecondseasonof2017wasconservationagriculture with manure only. Yields under conservation agriculture in the second season of 2017 wereconsistentlyhigher,andthedifferencewassignificantwhen combinedwith the applicationofmanure. Thisis consistentwith studies indicating that the benefitsof conservation agriculture increase overtime as soil conditions improve, whereas they decline over timeunder tillage agriculture as soil quality deteriorates [13].Nevertheless,thebenefitsofapplyingmanurecanbe minor under conservation agriculture if the soil’s organiccarboncontent issufficientforoptimumcropproduction. This is consistent with a study indicatingthat2percentorganiccarbonissufficientinRwandansoils for optimum crop production if other factors are provided[2].

Results in Cyuve

1.53 1.55

1.3

1.8 1.71.9

2.83.2 3.2

2.75

2.62.6

2017A 2017B

T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

CA TA

Figure 5. Bean yields in Bugesera, 2016 and 2017


Notes: Yield is measured as grain. T1 = manure only; T2 = manure and fertilizer; T3 = manure, fertilizer, and biofertilizer.

2016 2017


10

2.3

3.3

2.6

3.5

2.6

3.5 3.4

3.12.9

3.4

2.5

3.3

2017A 2017B

T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3

CA TA

T1 T2 T3

11.8

14.813.8 14

12

16.2

CA TA

Figure 6. Maize yields in Cyuve, 2017

Figure 7. Bean yields in Musanze, 2016 and 2017



Notes: Yield is measured as cobs and grain. T1 = manure only; T2 = manure and fertilizer; T3 = manure, fertilizer, and biofertilizer.

Notes: Yield is measured as grain. T1 = manure only; T2 = manure and fertilizer; T3 = manure, fertilizer, and biofertilizer.

2016 2017



11

Conservation agriculture has only been introduced in Rwanda through research stations [14]. SIMLESA-Rwanda’s onfarm experiments are among the few known examples where the practices were directly introduced to smallholder farmers. SIMLESA-Rwanda’s short-term results indicate that conservation agricultureandtillageagricultureperformsimilarly,yetthe reduced requirement for labor — at least long term — makes conservation agriculture more advantageous forsmallholders(Figs.2–7).Underfertilesoilconditions,yields were higher under tillage agriculture in the first growing season, but yields were higher underconservation agriculture in the second season (Fig. 7). This suggests that conservation agriculture is moreeffectiveandtakeseffectmorequicklywhensoilsarefertile (Cyuve being more fertile than Bugesera, andBugesera more fertile than Runda) [15].

The benefits of conservation agriculture also dependontheeffectivenessoffarmers’fieldmanagement.Themoreengagedandinformedthefarmer,thebettertheresults. In general,without theuseofherbicides, theeffectiveness of conservation agriculture increased inthe third growing season. In field trials, farmers hadbecome proficient in the use of the new techniquesby this stage, so the effects of mulching on soilproperties were significant, and weed control hadbecomemanageable.Asaresult,thebenefitsoftillageagriculture were completely eliminated (Fig. 8).

These encouraging results support the scaling ofconservation agriculture, but additional efforts are

needed to promote adoption. Outreach and extension will help inform farmers on the new principles and practices,whichwereunclear tomanyparticipantsofthisstudy.Farmershadmanyquestions,concernsandreservationswhenfirstintroducedtothenewpractices.Theseincludedwhetheritwaspossibletogrowcropswithout cultivation, how weeds could be managed,and where to obtain mulch. In addition to farmers,extension agents, policy-makers and scientists werealso skeptical about the new practices in the absence of empiricalevidence,training,andimplementation.

Thefirst twoprinciplesof conservationagriculture—minimum soil disturbance (no tillage) and permanent soil cover — were the most challenging to newcomers. Minimum soil disturbance is a fundamental principal on Rwanda’s degraded lands, where farmers havehistorically practiced deep tillage (30–50 centimeters)touprootweeds.Inaddition,mostweedinginRwandaisdonebyhoeorhand,soweedmanagementdependson the availability of labor, especially at increasingproduction scales. Mulching also raises issues because crop residues in Rwanda are an important source of fuelandfodder.Theproblemofwhattouseasmulchunder conservation agriculture poses a common problem in the highly populated regions of Africa [13]. Thesolutionisintegratingconservationagriculturewithagroforestry,wherebymulchingmaterialsand fodderare produced in contour lines (Fig. 9).

Knowledge Gaps Identified and Addressed

Figure 8. A field under conservation agriculture after bean harvest in Cyuve

Notes:Thebeanswereplantedinthesecondseasonof2017aftermaizewasharvestedinthefirstseason.Thisfieldisreadytobesownwithouttillage,but with the addition of water and mulch.

Photo credit: SIMLESA-Rwanda.

12

Community Networks that Support the Adoption of Conservation AgricultureSIMLESA-Rwanda was able to initiate three community networks from which large-scale extension can develop. ThenetworkscomprisedfarmerswhocollaboratedwithSIMLESA-Rwandaduringfieldstrialsandconvertedtheirland for large-scale conservation agriculture practices. These farmers were also enthusiastic and active inencouraging their neighbors to adopt conservation agriculture.Theneighbors’interestwaspeekedbytheirfirsthandexposuretothenewpractices.Theirsurpriseat seeing vigorous crops under production was evidence

that labor-intensive tillage practices were unnecessary (Figs.10–11).Withinthisframework,SIMLESA-Rwandagenerated interest in the conservation agriculture,and demand for related inputs in Runda, Bugeseraand Cyuve. Moreover, because SIMLESA-Rwanda’stechnicians had themselves become convinced of the efficacy of conservation agriculture practices, theyacceptedadoptionintheGatsiboDistrict,inRwanda’sextremeeast,andintheHuye,Nyanza,NyaruguruandNyamagabedistricts,insouthernRwanda.

Figure 10. Climbing beans in Cyuve, 2017

Note:Thefieldisplantedwithplotsusingbothconservationagricultureandtillageagriculture(leftandright,respectively).

Figure 11. A field of bush beans under conservation agriculture in Runda, 2017

Notes:Thefieldwasplantedinthefirstseasonof2017afteraprecedingseasonofmaizein2016.Noticetheuseofmulch.

Figure 9. A conservation agriculture system integrated with agroforestry hedgerows along contour lines as a permanent source of mulch

Note:Thebiomassofthehedgeprovidesmulch,freeingcropresiduesfortheirtraditionalusesasfuelandfodder.Thisisanefficientsystemforcontrollingsoilerosion,improvingsoilfertilityand sustainably increasing crop yields.

Photo credit: SIMLESA-Rwanda. Photo credit: SIMLESA-Rwanda.


13

Allocate a budget for the implementation of CASI practices given that conservation agriculture has already been incorporated into strategic planning documents

Develop and disseminate user guidelines as a manual for implementing conservation agriculture,specificallyadaptedfor Rwanda

Develop and implement a capacity building program

Promote the integration of conservation agriculture with agroforestry as a main component

Thefollowingprioritieswereidentifiedforthefuturelarge-scalepromotionofconservationagricultureinRwanda:

FINDINGS FROM SCALING OUT SIMLESA-RWANDA’S

ACTIVITIES

Promote appropriate use of otherinputs,suchasmanureandfertilizer

UseAIPstopromotelarge-scaleadoption

Initiate more in-depth research to provide quantitative data on thepositivelongertermeffectsofconservation agriculture on soil nutrients,pestmanagementandcrop yields

14

Carbon sequestration and improved microbial activity in soils. As was indicated by the presence of chickens and the health of crops in plotsutilizingconservationagricultureasopposedtotillage agriculture (Fig. 13), conservation agricultureis likely to have increased the organic carbon levels in the soil, thereby increasing beneficial insects andmicrobes(bacteria,fungiandprotozoa).

Crop health.Maizecropsundertillageagriculturewere severely attacked by fall armyworm, but theincidencewasminimalinplotsutilizingconservationagriculture in the same fields (Figs. 14a and 14b).A recentstudyofmaize inEastAfrica reported thepositiveeffectsofecologicallybasedapproachesonthe same insect [16].

Erosion control, water infiltration and water-use efficiency. In flat volcanic areas,tillage agriculture is problematic due to water logging,whichnegativelyaffects thegrowthofcrops(Fig. 12a). Farmers usually manage this problem byconstructing soil ridges to induce intensive erosion (Fig.12b).Conservationagriculturehasbeeneffectiveinincreasingsoildrainageandinfiltration,controllingsoil erosion and promoting efficient water use (Fig.12c).

Initial efforts at introducing conservation agricultureto Rwanda have yielded numerous benefits acrossvariousfieldsofscience.Suchbenefitscouldconstitutedriversofadoption,asisdescribedbelow.

Factors Driving Adoption

Figure 12a. Water logging associated with tillage agriculture has negative effects on crop growth

Figure 12b. The use of soil ridges to promote drainage

Figure 12c. The positive effect of conservation agriculture on soil drainage, water infiltration and crop health

Figure 13. Chicken in maize plots under conservation agriculture indicate positive soil microbial activity in Cyuve

Figure 14a. Reduced damage to maize from fall armyworms under conservation agriculture

Figure 14b. Severe damage to maize from fall armyworms under tillage agriculture



15

The mindset of scientists. Scientists who have been trained in the practice of tillage agriculture can be reluctant to promote conservation agriculture. They require a clearunderstandingofthepracticeandbenefitsofconservationagricultureinordertochangetheirmindsetandsupporttheproblem-solvinginnovationsconservationagricultureoffers.

The mindset of farmers. Farmers taught tillage agriculture by extension agents across generationscanalsohavedifficultyopeningtheirmindstonewapproaches.Effortsareneededtodemonstratethebenefitsofinnovationsunderconservationagriculturetosupportfarmersin shifting their mindset.

Lack of mulching materials.Theavailabilityofmulchconstitutesaseriousconstrainttothe adoption of conservation agriculture in Rwanda because crop residues are either used as fuelforfiresorasfeedforlivestockunderazerograzingsystem.

The drudgery of manual weeding. Introducing conservation agriculture requires considerable commitment in terms of manual labor in the form of weeding — at least the two firstseasons—forthosewithoutaccesstomachinery.Thiscanpresentasignificantdisincentiveto adopting the new practices.

Insufficient knowledge of conservation agriculture. Conservation agriculture has yet tobeproperly introduced inRwanda’s agricultural teaching curricula.Moreover, detailedmanuals and user-guides on the subject are needed.

Barriers to AdoptionThefollowingfactors,whilenotinsurmountable,canbeconsideredbarrierstotheadoptionofconservationagriculture in Rwanda.

16

It is recommended that CASI practices be scaled out across Rwanda’s major agricultural regions:

1. In the low altitude region (900–1,600 meters),technologies would spread from the Gashora andGabirodemonstrationfieldsintherespectivedistricts of Bugesera and Gatsibo in eastern Rwanda. In these areas, the new technologiescouldcoveralsoatleast20percentofthecroplandby2023.

2. In the medium altitude region (1,600–1,800meters),technologieswouldexpandfromthesitesofRunda,Kinyogoto,NyakageziandNyabyunyuinthe respectivedistrictsofKamonyi,Nyanza,Huyeand Nyaruguru in central and southern Rwanda. Intheseareas,thenewtechnologiescouldcoveratleast10percentofarablelandby2023.

3. In the high altitude region (1,800–2,300 meters),technologies would be scaled out from the Cyuve demonstrationfields in thedistrictofMusanze innorthern Rwanda. In this area, the technologiescouldcoverat least20percentofthearable landareaby2023.

SIMLESA-Rwanda’s maize-bean rotation is therecommended foundation for scaling out the new technologies,combinedwithminimumtillage,mulchingand the correct use of inputs. In Rwanda these practices are integrated with agroforestry in the use hedgerows along contour lines that serve both as erosion control and as a vital source of mulch. Hedgerows of legumes (such as Calliandra Callothyrsus) and nonlegumes (such as Alnus Acuminata) also serve as fodder where conservation agriculture is integrated with livestock.

In both the volcanic highland regions and nonvolcanic lowland regions — where the soil quality is good (that is, a pHof 6.0)—practiceswould focuson reducingintensive fertilizer use, which is costly. Differentfertilizerlevelswouldbetestedtodetermineoptimumlevels.Intheseregions,thecontroltreatment(manureonly) usually yields acceptable results [2, 12]. In thenonvolcanic highland and medium altitude regions,wheresoilsarehighlyacidicandsoilnutrientsdepleted,the new technologies would also be integrated with agroforestry, but a liming program using locallyavailable liming stones would also be incorporated. Herealso,limeandfertilizerlevelswouldbetestedtodetermineoptimumlevels.Despiteitslocalavailability,lime constitutes a high investment for farmers because of its associated transportation costs. Yet lime is another vital input in the successful production of cereals and legumes in Rwanda [17] (Fig. 15).

Across all regions, outscaling would incorporatethe use of adapted crop varieties, including theestablishmentof a seedproduction system, togetherwiththeintegrationoflivestock.Cost-benefitanalysesand environment impact assessments are also recommended, along with determinations of thenumber of farmers benefited, and the impacts ontheirlivelihoods/wealthlevels.TransformingRwandanagriculturerequiresasignificantinvestmentonthepartof farmers. Agroforestry seedlings used to introduce much-needed soil organic matter in all Rwandan soils represent a high investment for farmers. Similarly,seed and fertilizer are also costly, butwithout them,otherinvestmentsarerenderedineffective.

FUTURE PLANS FOR SCALINGCONSERVATION AGRICULTURE

17

SIMLESA-Rwanda was unique in providing smallholder farmers with first-hand experience of the differencesbetweenconservationagricultureandtillageagriculture,utilizingsplitplotsintheirownfields.Thenewpracticesfocusedonmaize-beanrotationsusingzero/minimumtillage andmulching; soil fertility improvementwhereneeded,suchaslimingandtheapplicationofmanure;and the supply of additional plant nutrients as needed thoughtheapplicationofinorganicfertilizer.Giventhecountry’stopography,agroforestryinterventions,intheformofhedgerowsalongcontourlines,wereintegratedwith the new approaches to reduce soil erosion and provide a much-needed source of mulch.

In addition to the sustainability of these practices,farmers benefited from the reduced requirement forlabor in themedium to long term, overcoming a keyconstraint to scaling production. Rwanda was also able to initiate three community networks from which large-scale extension can develop. A number of barriers to adoption remain to be overcome, mainly througheffectiveeducationandinformationdissemination,notonlyoffarmers,butalsoofscientists,extensionsagents,and policy-makers.

CONCLUSION

Figure 15. The effect of lime, manure and fertilizer on maize yields in the Nyaruguru District

Notes:Thecontroltreatment(thatis,zeroinputs)isshowninthemiddleofthephoto.Theplotsoneithersideweretreatedwithlime,manureandfertilizer.


18

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS1. NISR(NationalInstituteofStatisticsRwanda).(2012)“EICVPovertyAnalysisforRwanda’sEconomic.”

Availableat:http://www.rwandapedia.rw/cmis/views/workspace.(Accessed:monthday,year).

2. Rushemuka,N.P.,L.Bock,andJ.G.Mowo.(2014)“SoilscienceandagriculturaldevelopmentinRwanda:Thestateoftheart.”Biotechnology,Agronomy,SocietyandEnvironment18(1):p142–154.

3. IFAD(InternationalFundforAgriculturalDevelopment).(2018)InvestinginruralpeopleinRwanda.https://www.ifad.org/web/knowledge/publications/asset/39319916.(Accessed:November15,2018).

4. UNICEF(UnitedNationsInternationalChildren’sEmergencyFund).(2013)ImprovingChildNutrition:Theachievableimperativeforglobalprogress.Availableat:https://www.unicef.org/publications/index_68661.html.(Accessed:November15,2018).

5. WFP(WorldFoodProgramme).(2014)Rwanda:FoodandNutritionSecurityMonitoringSystem.Round9.Availableat:wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp284404.pdf.(Accessed:November15,2018).

6. Clay,D.C.,andL.A.Lewis.(1990)“Landuse,soilloss,andsustainableagricultureinRwanda.”Human Ecology 18(2),p147–161.

7. MAAR(MinistryofAgricultureandAnimalResources).(Nodate)“Cropintensificationprogram(CIP).”Availableat:http://www.minagri.gov.rw/index.php?id=31.(Accessed:November15,2018).

8. IndexMundi.(2018)“Rwandacornproductionbyyear.”http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=rw&commodity=corn&graph=production.(Accessed:November15,2018).

9. MAAR (Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources). (No date) Replacement reference needed for link that isnotworking:http://www.minagri.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/INVESTORS_GUIDE/Maize.(Accessed:monthday,year).

10. FortuneofAfrica.(Nodate)“Beanfarming.”http://fortuneofafrica.com/rwanda/bean-farming/.(Accessed:November15,2018).

11. VanlauweB.,WendtJ.,GillerK.Eetal(2014).AfourthprincipleisrequiredtodefineConservationAgricultureinsub-SaharanAfrica:Theappropriateuseoffertilizertoenhancecropproductivity.FieldCropsResearch.155,10-13.

12.Rutunga,V.,andH.Neel.(2006)“Yieldtrendsinthelong-termcroprotationwithorganicandinorganicfertilisersonAlisolsinMata(Rwanda).”Biotechnology,Agronomy,SocietyandEnvironment10(3),p217–228.

13. Rodriguez,D.,P.deVoil,M.C.Rufino,M.Odendo,andM.T.vanWijk.(2017)“Tomulchortomunch?Bigmodellingofbigdata.”Agricultural Systems153,p32–42.

14. Kabiligi,M.,F.K.Ngetich,K.K.Mwetu,P.Rushemuka,etal.(2017)“Implicationsoftillagepractices,managementofsoilsurfaceandfertilizerapplicationonsustainabledrylandagriculture:AcasestudyofEasternRwanda.”AfricanJournalofAgriculturalResearch12(31),p2524–2532.

15. Birasa,E.C.,I.Bizimana,W.Boucaert,A.Deflandre,J.Chapelle,A.Gallez,G.Maesschalck,andJ.Vercruysse.(1990)CartepedologiqueduRwanda.Kigali,Rwanda:MINAGRI.

16. MidegaC.A.O;.PittcharJ.O;PickettJ.A.etal(2018).Aclimate-adaptedpush-pullsystemeffectivelycontrolsfallarmyworm,Spodopterafrugiperda(JESmith),inmaizeinEastAfrica.CropProtection.105,10-15.

17. RushemukaN.P.andBockL.(2016).Tailoringsoilfertilitymanagementinputstospecificsoiltypes:casestudyofapotexperimentinRwanda.Nature&FaunaJournal,aflagshippublicationofFAORegionalOfficeforAfrica:Nature&Faune:30,1,InPress.Theme:Sustainablesoilmanagement:anindispensableneedforenvironmentally sound food security in Africa.

19

ThisreportwaspreparedasoneoftheoutputsoftheSIMLESAprogram.SIMLESAwasfinancedbytheAustralianCentreforInternationalAgriculturalResearch(ACIAR)andimplementedbytheInternationalMaizeandWheatImprovementCenter(CIMMYT)incollaborationwithnumerouspartners,includingnationalagriculturalresearchinstitutes,otherCGIARcenters(ILRIandCIAT),andtheQueenslandAllianceforAgricultureandFood

Innovation(QAAFI)oftheUniversityofQueensland,AustraliaandASARECA.WewouldliketoespeciallyacknowledgethemanyyearsoftechnicalandadministrativesupportofCIMMYTscientistsduringtheimplementationoftheSIMLESAprogram,includingthepreparationofthisreport.The

contribution of all our collaborators (those mentioned here and many more notmentioned),includingfarmerswhohostedtrials,localbusinesses,

government departments and researchers are gratefully acknowledged.

20

Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation & Water Development

enhancing agricultural resilience and …legume cropping systems to improve food and income security...

Documents