2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Farm-level Economic Analysis - Is Conservation Agriculture Helping the Poor?

Abstract: Highlights  CA can be profitable without the use of external inputs.  Labour and weeding time is reduced under CA without the use of herbicides.  NPV analysis shows CA can have short-term and longer term benefits dependent on crop mix and opportunity cost of labour assumed.  CA cropping options for the poorest farmers are preferred under risk neutral and extremely risk-averse scenarios.  Probability of CA breaking even under the same crop mix is higher than under conventional for the poorest farmers.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
11
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…First, the well-recognized fact that smallholders in SSA are a very heterogeneous group, with different resources and capabilities ( Glover et al, 2019 ; Tittonell et al, 2010 ), incentives and aspirations ( Dorward et al, 2009 ; Mausch et al, 2018 ) and that farm-level technologies need to be designed accordingly if farmers are expected to adopt them. Second, that farm-level technologies that are effective for improving food security are not necessarily as effective in reducing poverty or vice versa ( Dorward et al, 2004 ; Harris, 2019 ; Lalani et al, 2017 ; Renkow and Byerlee, 2010 ). The two groups of farming households – those that have limited incentives and resources and those with the potential and incentives to effectively invest in increased production – should be treated as separate groups.…”
Section: The (Agriculture For) Development Debate Over the Past Decadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the well-recognized fact that smallholders in SSA are a very heterogeneous group, with different resources and capabilities ( Glover et al, 2019 ; Tittonell et al, 2010 ), incentives and aspirations ( Dorward et al, 2009 ; Mausch et al, 2018 ) and that farm-level technologies need to be designed accordingly if farmers are expected to adopt them. Second, that farm-level technologies that are effective for improving food security are not necessarily as effective in reducing poverty or vice versa ( Dorward et al, 2004 ; Harris, 2019 ; Lalani et al, 2017 ; Renkow and Byerlee, 2010 ). The two groups of farming households – those that have limited incentives and resources and those with the potential and incentives to effectively invest in increased production – should be treated as separate groups.…”
Section: The (Agriculture For) Development Debate Over the Past Decadmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Brazil, an FAO study that considered CA an improved cropland management technology reported an increase in average productivity and farm net income for maize, beans, bananas, and cassava in 2010 because of CA (Branca et al, 2011). A study in Mozambique found that CA provided better crop returns to smallholder farmers, especially the poorest, when intercropping was also integrated (Lalani, Dorward, and Holloway, 2017). Numerous studies comparing conventional tillage with CA in South Africa showed better maize yields under CA (Sithole, Magwaza, and Mafongoya, 2016).…”
Section: Benefits Of Camentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the level of individual farms, one of the main drivers for the adoption of CA is higher profits, resulting from lower labour costs and higher productivity (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). These benefits accrue for large-scale farms (Friedrich, Derpsch and Kassam, 2017;Pannell, Llewellyn and Corbeels, 2014), and there is emerging evidence that they can also benefit smallholder and family farms (Johansen et al, 2012;Lalani, Dorward and Holloway, 2017;Pannell, Llewellyn and Corbeels, 2014).…”
Section: The Agricultural Sector Needs To Reduce Environmental Degradmentioning
confidence: 99%