The Promotion of Conservation Agriculture in the South African LandCare Programme during the Last Decade: Evolution and Impact of Action

Research

HJ Smith, MC Matlou, L Maribeng, MV Kidson, G Trytsman

WCCAWCCA25-29 September 2011, Brisbane, Australia25-29 September 2011, Brisbane, Australia

Background

• 1997 - South African LandCare Study Tour to Australia– National LandCare

conference in Adelaide

• 1998 - LandCare South Africa was established as a top priority initiative for the South African government

• 1999 – funding to ARC

The goal of the South African LandCare programme is to:

‘optimise productivity through the sustainable use of natural resources to improve food security,

job creation and the quality of life of the South

African people’

The goal of the South African LandCare programme is to:

‘optimise productivity through the sustainable use of natural resources to improve food security,

job creation and the quality of life of the South

African people’

A tentative start …• Aim: Promote

sustainable practices to combat soil related production problems among small-scale farmers, e.g. poor soil fertility and acidity

• YES to CA• Totally inappropriate

training and background – CA and community-

based NRM and research

Natural Science-based approach

• On-farm, researcher-managed trials (demo plots)– Statistical ‘white-peg’

approach

• Monitoring on farmers fields– Soil, leave and yield samples

• Feedback– Information days– Pamphlets – Scientific reports– Scientific conferences– Post-graduate qualifications– Peer-reviewed articles

Testing “LandCare theories”

• “Pre-development” survey (semi-structured interviews)

• Training– Once-off training

session for farmers and extension

• Farmer-managed trials

• Multi-disciplinary teams

• Cooperatives

Action Research as Methodology

Critical reflection

Action (Implementation)

IdeasFrequent

events (e.g. weekly,

monthly)

Action research allows experimentation with ‘ideas’ and real world experience where learning is in the hands of the participants.

This learning can then be tested in subsequent learning cycles.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK From Paradigms to Practice

PARADIGM Constructivism

METHODOLOGIESAction Research:

Landcare, FPR, FSA, FFS, M&E, experiential-, social- and discovery learning

TOOLS, METHODS & TECHNIQUESVisioning, farmer-led experimentation, farmer

groups / networks

Development of Action Research process in PhD research (Smith, 2006)

Learning

Learning

Real World problem situation A(Area of application)

Real World problem situation A(Area of application)

ACTION: in LandCare Project

ACTION: in LandCare Project

REFLECTION using SSM and cognitive mapping

REFLECTION using SSM and cognitive mapping

Findings / Theories about: F, M, A

Findings / Theories about: F, M, A

Learning

Learning

Research

Themes

Research

Themes

F: Framework of ideasM: Methodology

F: Framework of ideasM: Methodology

Action Research ProcessAction Research Process

Where are we now?

Implementation & Integration

process

Season-long awareness & training processes• Initiate with awareness

event• Based on cropping

calendar• Frequent very practical

sessions in farmers’ situations

• Part of continuous learning process

Farmer-led experimentation… using CA principles

Plan

Observe

Reflect

Act

• Participating farmers• Some inputs &

equipment• Simple paired designs• Reflection, learning,

adaptation… socially constructing

individual CA systems

Indicators Sustain- ability

dimensions

Baseline values

(2001)

1 year after start

(2002)

2 years after start

(2003)

3 years after start

(2004)

4 years after start

(2005)

Soil Organic Carbon (% C) [3] % Residue Cover [30] pH (topsoil) [5.5] Ca – topsoil (mg kg-1) [240] Mg – topsoil (mg kg-1) [80] P – topsoil (mg kg-1) [8-12] K – topsoil (mg kg-1) [120] Acid Saturation (%) [20-30] Earthworms # conservation tillage implements

converted

Bio

-techn

ical

feasibility

1.654

343108

61394600

1.610-15

4.1425139

71423900

1.610-15

4.362022310

1532400

215

4.1556018111.3239300

143

215

4.1053717311.3241320

143

Farmer-to-farmer extension: # number of farmers trained

Participation in farmer forums Number of farmer-managed trials

(# leader farmers) Number of training courses for

leader farmers (cumulative) # field days (cumulative) # PSE tools for group learning Estimated area under CA (ha) Farmer cooperatives

So

cial

acceptab

ility

0

00

0

0002

0

1018

2

1022

85

8018

5

100

4824

214

7018

5

202

175?

365

5020

5

253

400?

Maize Yield (ton ha-1) [4 ton ha-1] Gross Margin (R ha-1)

[R3000 ha-1]

Eco

no

mic

viability

1.5

-R200

3.2

Maize: R800

Soya: R1000

Intercrop: R2480

3.1

Maize: R800

Soya: R1000

Intercrop: R2480

4.9

M – R1500

S – R2500

IC – R3442

LEISA – R2800

4.2

M – R1500

S – R2500

IC – R3442

LEISA – R2800

Performance on Farmer-led trials

(Bergville / Emmaus LandCare Project)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Avg Score (%)# Above 70%

Social learning

• Small learning groups (5 persons)

• Larger group of 25-35

• Farmer networks• Community

structures• Multi-stakeholder

(innovation) platformsPlan

Act

Observe

Reflect

Act

Plan

Observe

Reflect

Act

Future Implications

• The impact of action research in the promotion of CA in the LandCare Programme during the last decade – Led to an increasing awareness, demand and

response on all levels that [CA x AR] has the potential to bridge the gap between science and society and address critical environmental and societal challenges.

• What we are aiming for in the next decade:– Scaling out and up/down (mainstreaming)

• ‘Framework’ for awareness, funding, integration and wider impact

– Innovation platforms / networks driven by action research (all levels)

– Capacity building in CA and Action Research (all levels)

Thank You