September 2004
by Clare Bishop-Sambrook2
The paper reports on the use of the livelihoods approach to conduct a detailed analysis of farm power in smallholder households in sub-Saharan Africa. Fieldwork was conducted in 14 communities in seven countries. Households were classified according to their main source of farm power for primary tillage and this distinction provided the framework for analysis. A qualitative scoring system was used to value a household’s asset base in order to enable comparisons to be made between the asset bases of different farm power groups, both within a community and between communities.
A strong association was found between the source of farm power, household wealth and livelihood outcomes. Households with the poorest asset base tended to rely on family labour as their sole source of farm power. Their weakest assets were their financial and physical assets. The asset-based wealth of households hiring draught animals was slightly stronger than households using family labour. Draught animal owners, hirers of labour and hirers of tractors had a much more robust asset base, making most gains in their financial and physical assets, and socially as they moved into leadership positions in the community. However, their asset-based wealth fell short of that of tractor owners. Households with a stronger asset-based wealth often had a range of livelihood strategies and achieved livelihood outcomes which were rated highly by the communities, such as food security, the ability to send children to school, to afford modern medication, and to purchase farm inputs.
Recommendations for the immediate and short term, place priority on protecting livelihoods through reducing the vulnerability and ensuring the survival of households most at risk from losing their farm power assets. Activities in the medium to longer term focus on maximizing the potential of existing power sources and supporting households and communities as they adopt new sources of farm power.
At the beginning of the new millennium, livelihoods in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa are under considerable stress. Economies and the political environment are experiencing a period of significant transformation and, in many countries, poverty remains endemic. Agriculture lies at the core of rural livelihoods and has a major influence on livelihood outcomes. Farm power is one of the more crucial inputs in the agricultural production process. Factors reducing the availability of farm power, compromise the ability to cultivate sufficient land and threaten the viability of smallholder livelihoods. This is precisely the challenge facing many parts of sub-Saharan Africa today.
Following the closure of tractor hire services and the decimation of the stock of draught animals (due to disease, drought, distress sales and theft) in communities throughout the region, many households have reverted to tilling the soil by hand. Simultaneously, the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic has begun to take its toll on the agricultural workforce. The loss of labour has been compounded by the effects of improved access to primary education and persistent migration, drawing children and young adults away from farming. An understanding of the interaction between farm power and livelihood outcomes is central to promoting sustainable smallholder livelihoods.
This paper reports on the use of the livelihoods approach to conduct a detailed analysis of farm power in smallholder households in sub-Saharan Africa. The study, coordinated by the Agricultural and Food Engineering Technologies Service (AGST), FAO, Rome, was undertaken in farming communities in seven countries (see Bishop-Sambrook, 2004a for the full report). The study elected to use the livelihoods approach because farm power strategies pursued by an individual household are not only determined by its asset base but also are influenced by the farming system, the profitability of agriculture, the infrastructure and the state of the economy. Hence such a study is well suited to the holistic and integrated approach provided by livelihoods analysis (DFID, 1998), giving rise to additional insights that would not necessarily emerge when using more conventional approaches. A separate paper reports on the principal findings of the contribution of farm power to smallholder livelihoods at community level (Bishop-Sambrook, 2004b).
Since the late 1980s, the sustainable livelihoods approach has become a well-established methodology for examining the dynamics of household resources, livelihood strategies and outcomes, and their vulnerabilities to shocks and changes (Carney, 1998). It is used widely by multi-lateral and bi-lateral development agencies, international non-governmental organisations, and research and academic institutions (Solesbury, 2003).
The livelihoods framework encompasses household assets (human, natural, physical, financial and social) and their use in farming, non-farm activities and other strategies used by a household to make a living (DFID, 1998). Livelihood strategies may be tempered by the influence of external factors (in particular, changes in the policy and institutional environment, market prices, natural calamities) and internal factors (such as the death of family members or the loss of assets). Households respond by adopting short-term coping strategies and longer-term adaptive strategies. The net effect is reflected in a range of livelihood outcomes, in terms of food security, income or other indicators of well-being and quality of life. The relationship is dynamic, and outcomes in one season have an impact on the asset base and strategies adopted in the following seasons. The livelihood outlook provides an overall statement as to whether a household’s livelihood is generally improving, remaining stable or deteriorating. An overview of livelihoods framework is presented in Diagram 1.
The study concentrated on the power inputs (human, draught animals and tractors, together with their associated tools and implements) used for primary tillage, either digging the land by hand or ploughing using draught animals or tractors. The study was undertaken in 14 communities from seven countries: Ghana and Nigeria in West Africa, and Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia in Eastern and Southern Africa3. The communities were chosen to be broadly representative of the region, covering six of the ten principal farming systems, with emphasis on the maize mixed system (the dominant food production system in east and southern Africa), and the mixed cereal-root and tree crop systems (typical of west Africa) (Dixon et al, 2001).
During the fieldwork, households were classified according to their main source of farm power for primary tillage4 and this distinction provides the basis for analysis. Households were grouped as follows:
Rapid Rural Appraisal methods were used to collect information at the community level and from the different farm power groups. Individual household interviews focused on livelihoods analysis and included households from each of the farm power groups present in the community, stratified by the sex of the household head. In total, more than 1250 people participated in the fieldwork, of whom one third were women.
A qualitative scoring system was used to value a household’s asset base in order to facilitate comparison between the asset base of different farm power groups, both within a community and between communities. For each of the five assets (human, natural, physical, financial and social) a maximum of five points was allocated per asset group, giving a maximum score of 25 points for a household’s asset base. At each field site, the assets of the different farm power groups were scored separately. The scoring was undertaken at a workshop attended by all country consultants in order to ensure a broadly common basis, albeit subjective, for valuing the assets across the 14 field sites.
An example of the scoring system is presented in Table 1. Whilst some values are common across the sites (such as education and skills level, financial assets, and social assets), others were location specific. Hence the scores allocated to area (under rainfed cultivation, irrigation and fallow) varied between sites since they are partly determined by farming system and the availability of land. Similarly, the scoring varied between sites for physical assets (such as the quality of housing, range of tools, and use of purchased farm inputs) since this reflects the general wealth within a community.
The individual asset scores can be aggregated to give an overall score for each farm power group (out of a maximum of 25 points). This can be taken to represent the asset-based wealth of a particular farm power group within a community. The relative strengths and weaknesses of individual assets results may be represented in an assets pentagon for different farm power groups. The overall strength of an assets base for a specific group is indicated by the size of the pentagon.
This paper focuses on farm power groups as the unit of analysis and it is conducted at four levels:
I: Asset base of individual farm power groups
II: Livelihood strategies of individual farm power groups
III: Livelihood outcomes of individual farm power groups
IV: Impacts of shocks and changes
Prior to presenting the findings, the methodology for valuing the livelihoods asset base of is demonstrated for two communities. Issues regarding the external environment, the supporting infrastructure, and the implications of different sources of farm power at community level are explored in the second paper (see Bishop-Sambrook, 2004b).
To demonstrate the livelihood asset base methodology, two examples are presented below for communities where households use different sources of farm power.
Kacaboi in eastern Uganda is typical of the Teso farming system which has long been characterised by the use of draught animals. DAP-owning households have a reasonably strong asset base (totalling 17 points out of a maximum of 25) (Table and Diagram 2). The asset base of those that can afford to hire or own tractors is markedly stronger (20 and 22 points, respectively). They tend to be users of multiple power sources: in addition to using tractors, they often also own DAP and are the major users of hired labour in the community. At the other extreme, households relying on family labour struggle to survive, with almost no financial assets (less than 8 points).
 |
 |
Sanchitagi, situated in the Middle Belt of moist savannah in Nigeria, has high growth potential, with a low population density, uncultivated lands and fertile soils. Tractor owners in Sanchitagi were the richest farm power group encountered in the whole study (23 points), particularly with regard to their natural and physical assets (Table and Diagram 3). Despite the wealth of the tractor owners and, to a lesser extent, households hiring tractors, households relying on hoe cultivation in Sanchitagi were still relatively poor (9.5 points). Full details of the livelihoods assets, strategies and outcomes for this community are at Annex I.
 |
 |
It is possible to extend the analysis from household to community level by calculating the farm power asset-based wealth for a community. The asset scores for each farm power group are multiplied by the proportion of households in each group and aggregated across all farm power groups in the community.
On this basis, the DAP community in Kacaboi (weighted average of 15.4 points) would appear to have a stronger farm power asset base than Sanchitagi (weighted average of 13.5 points). In Kacaboi, the dominance of the moderate wealth of the DAP owners outweighs the poverty of the hand power group. In Sanchitagi, the high proportion of relatively asset-poor households relying on family labour outweighs the wealth of the asset-rich tractor owners and hirers.
However, these community figures need to be interpreted with caution since the scoring method is subjective and, to some extent, site specific. Moreover, equal weight is attached to the value of different assets. For example, a high score for physical assets (such as ownership of draught animals and implements) is given the same weight as a high score for social assets (membership and leadership of groups). The community score is also highly sensitive to the accuracy of estimating the proportion of households in the different farm power groups.
The first level of analysis identifies the common characteristics of the asset bases of different farm power groups across the communities, drawing on results aggregated from the 14 study communities (Table 4). Households with the poorest asset base tend to rely on family labour as their source of farm power. Their weakest assets are their financial and physical assets (first column, Table 5). Even their human resource base is weak. Their relative strength lies in their social assets: this asset has the smallest difference in score between the family labour group and tractor owners (right hand column of Table 5). The asset-based wealth of households hiring draught animals is slightly stronger than households using family labour. DAP owners, hirers of labour and hirers of tractors have a much more robust asset base. They make most gains in their financial and physical assets, and socially as they move into leadership positions in the community. However, their asset-based wealth falls short of that of tractor owners who command the strongest asset base, particularly in terms of physical, financial and natural assets.
The characteristics of four livelihood assets which have direct implications for the use of different sources of farm power, namely human, physical, financial and social assets are discussed below; the use of natural assets is considered in the context of livelihood strategies.
The composition of the household plays a crucial role in agricultural production, even in households owning DAP or tractors because primary tillage is the only operation which is mechanized. In some communities, a large household (achieved through polygamy or the extended family) is a livelihood strategy that is adopted to ensure that sufficient labour is available to cover peak workloads. In others, a large family is considered to be a drain on household income and thereby inhibits the possibility of hiring tractors. The presence of daughters may provide a means for acquiring access to farm power through dowry payments. Events which draw family labour away from farm work, such as education, migration, off-farm employment, or prolonged ill health (Box 1), may compromise a household’s ability to farm effectively in the short term. However, in the longer term, households may benefit from better educated household members, remittances, and the ability to work off the farm.
Source: Lyimo and Semgalawe, 2002
The sex of the household head can be a major determinant of farm power status. Female-headed households (FHH) are present in all communities. They are more prevalent in the field sites in eastern and southern Africa where they typically account for 20 – 30% of total households. Their presence is symptomatic of male migration to urban areas, a high incidence of HIV/AIDS resulting in early widowhood, and, occasionally, divorce. Households headed by widowers are less common because men tend to remarry after the death of their wives and, in some areas, polygamy is common.
Households headed by women face three challenges with regards to accessing new sources of farm power. First, the loss of assets typically associated with the process of becoming a FHH through widowhood erodes their farm power base (Box 2). Second, they usually have a very weak financial base, lack collateral, and find it difficult to secure credit if they wish to purchase draught animals or implements. Third, although women are familiar with using DAP for transport, they generally lack experience and skills in using DAP technology for farm work.
However, out of necessity, traditions are changing. If FHH have access to external funds, such as remittances from children or windfall gains, they purchase and use draught animals on their own. At some of the field sites in west Africa, some FHH overcome the constraints of a small family labour base by hiring tractors.
Tractor owners are usually better educated and have a broader range of skills than the other farm power groups. Many have attended secondary school, some have tertiary education, and others have skills in non-farm professions which they gained prior to working in agriculture. In contrast, many hoe cultivators are illiterate or semi-literate, and have attended only a few years of primary schooling. Nevertheless, they have a range of livelihood skills which enable them utilise the natural resource base for farming and non-farm livelihood activities (such as fishing, forestry, pottery and handicrafts).
The number of hand tools varies according to the size and the wealth of the household. Most households own an essential range of hand tools which differs slightly according to farming system and region. Even tractor-owning households maintain a full complement of hand tools because so few operations are mechanized. Ideally households own a few axes, pangas/machetes or cutlasses (in west Africa) and a sufficient number of hoes and sickles for each member of the family who is able to work with them. In practice, poorer households do not have enough of the essential implements for all household members and some resort to borrowing from neighbours. Worn-out hoes and cutlasses are passed down from men to their wives and children for use for lighter tasks.
The range of other tools available within farming communities is usually limited. DAP owners have mouldboard ploughs and carts; and tractor owners have disc ploughs and harrows, carts or trailers. Other tillage equipment (such as tine chisel ploughs and sub-soilers) and secondary tillage equipment (such as ridgers, planters or weeders) are rarely found.
There are strong gender-based associations with the use and ownership of tools and equipment, in part reflecting gender differences in the performance of farm and household tasks. Women have access to many of the basic hand tools, such as hoes and sickles, which reflect their involvement in digging, weeding and harvesting. They also dominate the use of post-harvest equipment since food preparation is one of their main daily household activities. Men use axes, pangas/machetes, hoes and spraying equipment. They own most of the hand tools, even if they do not use them themselves. Men are the main users of draught animals, the sole users of tractors and the sole owners of both. They also dominate access to associated services, such as training, repairs and maintenance, veterinary and extension.
Cash, savings, remittances and access to credit determine a household’s ability to purchase and maintain tools, draught animals, tractors and implements, or to hire farm power services. Men, in their role as head of the household, usually make decisions regarding the purchase of new tools. Women contribute to the purchase of hand tools in some communities when they have their own incomes; they also contribute towards hiring farm power services. Men are solely responsible for all other expenditure associated with farm power, from buying draught animals, tractors and implements, through to paying for equipment repairs and maintenance.
A wide variety of organisations and groups exist at the study sites, ranging from those focusing on community activities, such as circumcision and burial ceremonies; to welfare groups providing members with essential household items, such as salt and soap, during times of hardship or assistance following childbirth; to groups improving access to farm inputs, in particular seed and fertilizer, through the provision of credit; to groups generating income from farming or non-farm activities.
In addition, many communities have arrangements which, to varying degrees, specifically focus on overcoming farm power constraints. Distinction may be drawn between arrangements which (a) tackle farm power shortages on an individual basis; (b) draw strength through operating in groups; and (c) offer farm power services to others on a commercial basis. Each type of arrangement exists within each farm power group but commercial considerations tend to dominate the tractor groups. The ways in which households access different types of farm power are discussed below.
The most common way for poorer households to address farm power constraints is through forming informal reciprocal groups and working together on each other’s farms for labour intensive tasks (such as digging, planting, weeding, harvesting and threshing). People join such groups because they are better motivated when they work with others. Sometimes the benefits of membership have a welfare dimension as well: if one member is sick, the others work on the farm to save the crops. They may also assist each other with household chores in times of crisis. Labour groups also operate on a commercial basis with members hiring themselves out in a group as casual labourers for farming activities.
Reflecting the vital role played by draught animals in many farming systems in Ethiopia, informal individual arrangements enable owners of a single ox or pairs of oxen to team up with others in order to utilise their extremely limited farm power base on a reciprocal basis. Similar arrangements exist in Malawi and are used by individual farmers either when they have lost part of their power base (draught animals or implements) or when they are in the process of establishing their farm power base in a piecemeal manner.
More usually DAP owners form groups to improve their draught animal management skills, access services (such as credit) and, in addition, may receive the benefits of external support. Group membership includes women and men in Tanzania but only men, as the owners of cattle, in Zambia and Ethiopia. In addition to addressing their own farm power needs, some groups operate hire services for others.
In Ethiopia, oxen owners’ associations, dating from the 1960s, provide mutual insurance in the event of the death of their work oxen. They are regarded as the most important social organisation in the community.
Groups serving the interests of tractor owners differ from those for hand power or DAP. Their membership is all male and represents the richer members of the community. While there is an element of service to the community through tractor hiring, there is also a degree of self interest, with members enjoying better access to these services than non-members. The Tractor Owners’ Associations found at some of the study sites in Ghana and Nigeria operate as cartels, with owners coming together to set hire charges for the following season.
In conclusion, there is a strong association between the source of farm power and household wealth. Households solely relying on family labour are invariably amongst the poorest, with a total asset score of less than 10 (out of a maximum of 25 points) (Diagram 4). Households hiring DAP are amongst the middle poor; DAP owners and tractor hirers amongst the lower rich; and tractor owners amongst the richest households with an asset score of over 20. The implications of different asset bases for livelihood strategies and outcomes are explored in the section below.
While households using family labour are amongst the poorest in any one community, the depth of their asset-related poverty varies between communities (Table 5). Hoe cultivators in some communities have a stronger asset base than DAP owners in other communities. Similarly, some DAP owners are as well endowed with assets as households hiring tractors. None, however, match the wealth of the richest tractor owners.
This section continues the livelihoods analysis by examining the livelihood strategies adopted by different farm power groups and, in the following section, the outcomes they achieve. Farm-based livelihood strategies are reflected in the area cultivated, the number of food and cash crops grown, and the inter-relationships between different farm power groups.
The area cultivated per household is strongly influenced by the source of farm power used to till the land, coupled with the ability to mobilise labour for subsequent operations. This relationship transcends any relationship between area cultivated and the farming system. Households reliant on hand power typically cultivate 1 – 2 ha, DAP hirers 2 ha, DAP owners 3 – 4 ha, tractor hirers approximately 8 ha, and tractor owners over 20 ha5. Whilst the increase in the area cultivated between hand power and DAP households is modest, the difference between these households and tractor owners is substantial. Not only do the latter have access to more power for primary tillage they also have financial resources to hire labour for planting, weeding and harvesting (or have large families).
Most communities in the study noted that it is the ability to cultivate land, rather than access to land, which is a major constraint on production. Loss of access to a source of farm power, such as tractor hire services or draught animals, invariably results in a reduction in the area cultivated. One of the strategies used by hoe cultivators to overcome farm power shortages is to rent out (or, in Ethiopia, to share-crop) land which they are unable to cultivate to power-rich households. Another strategy is to reduce tillage by planting in pre-prepared basins or directly into the soil without ploughing.
Another aspect of farm-based livelihood strategies is the degree of commercialisation of crop production. Generally, as households switch from hand power to DAP and tractors, the number of cash crops grown increases. Hoe cultivators grow food crops for household consumption and only sell small quantities in order to raise cash to meet their essential needs. Tractor owners not only produce significant quantities for the market but often grow a much wider range of cash crops.
The commercialisation of cropping patterns not only reflects the impact of mechanisation on increasing the area cultivated (thereby enabling some land to be devoted to cash crop production) but also the wealth of the household (being able to afford to purchase inputs, such as improved seeds, and follow improved management practices). The process of commercialisation is also influenced by market accessibility and the relative profitability of the various crops grown.
A mutual inter-dependence exists in many communities between the farm power rich and the farm power poor, and this inter-relationship is essential for the livelihood outcomes of both. Hoe cultivators play a pivotal role in enabling tractor owners and hirers and, to a lesser extent, DAP owners realise the benefits of mechanising land preparation. They rent out their land which enables households using tractors, in particular, to significantly increase their area under cultivation. They also hire out their labour which is vital for all operations following land preparation, none of which has been mechanised. In return, hoe cultivators receive inputs from tractor owners which are essential for their survival: cash, food during the hungry months, and seeds on loan. Tractor owners may also assist those hiring their tractors by enabling them to pay in kind after harvest rather than in cash at the time of ploughing. Similar arrangements exist between DAP owners and hirers. Thus the presence of tractors or draught animals can have a multiplier effect on activities within a community and their owners may act as social safety nets.
Nevertheless, these inter-relationships may have some equity implications. If the land rented out by poorer households is traditionally used by women to grow food crops for family use, not only do the women lose control over the crops but the food security of the household may also be compromised. Share-cropping arrangements, as practised in Ethiopia where half of the produce is shared with the oxen owner, may result in very small returns for households with no oxen.
Women are often involved in non-farm activities which are closely related to their household responsibilities, such as processing food, brewing beer, knitting and sewing, harvesting and selling wild fruits, as well as petty trading. Men engage in a wider range of activities, such as carpentry, brick making, blacksmithing, tailoring, trading, store keeping, charcoal burning, and harvesting and selling forest products. In communities adjacent to water bodies, men fish, and both women and men trade in fish. Men and women from poorer households often work as casual labourers.
DAP owners often prefer to diversify their livelihood strategies into non-farm businesses, such as shop keeping or grinding mills, rather than move onto tractor ownership. Tractor owners often have a diverse livelihoods portfolio and may not depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Their non-farm activities tend to be more capital intensive than other farm power groups.
In agricultural communities, the most fundamental livelihood outcome is food security. This is unattainable for most households relying on hand power, particularly just before harvest. Hoe cultivation imposes severe limitations on how much land these households can cultivate and the need to earn cash for survival draws them away from working on their own land at critical times of the farming season. Even if they grow enough to feed themselves, they are often obliged to sell a proportion of the crop to meet cash requirements for health and education, even when prices are not favourable. Access to small pockets of irrigated land for dry season cultivation is a crucial survival strategy. The only hoe cultivators who described themselves as food secure in normal years were found in the root-cereal farming systems of Ghana. Food security improve as households switch power sources, with tractor and DAP owners and tractors hirers generally being food secure.
Households with a stronger asset-based wealth and a range of livelihood strategies, also enjoy other livelihood outcomes which are rated highly by the communities, such as the ability to send children to school, to afford modern medication, and to purchase farm inputs. The labour intensive demands on hoe cultivators restrict their livelihood outcomes not only at the present but also in the future. Their children become trapped in subsistence agriculture with little opportunity to pursue their education and limited skills with which to seek alternative employment.
The livelihoods framework ensures attention is paid to the vulnerabilities of the farm power asset base to shocks, and opportunities arising from positive changes.
The availability and productivity of the agricultural workforce in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa is under severe stress through the effects of education, migration, poor nutrition, sickness, caring for the sick, death and attendance at funerals. When a key household member falls ill, the implications for family labour are substantial. During illness, a household suffers not only from the loss of labour of the sick person but also of the carer. This has implications for working their own land, casual labouring, earning non-farm income, and the opportunity to participate in reciprocal labour groups (which are often essential for the survival of hand power and DAP households). When the illness is due to AIDS, this period may be protracted over several seasons. After death, the household loses the labour and skills of the deceased.
The loss of labour in this manner may also have implications for other components of the farm power asset base. The need to raise money for medical treatment and funerals may trigger distress sales of draught animals and implements. Draught animals may be slaughtered to observe rituals. The loss of a husband/father can result in property grabbing by his relatives, including displacement from the family land and home, due to cultural norms, a lack of knowledge about property rights, and weak enforcement mechanisms. These threats cut across all farm power groups but have the greatest impact on households with the weakest asset base, in particular those headed by women and orphans.
The outflow of labour may be countered by the arrival of new dependants, such as young orphans or the returning sick who often swell the size of the household without being able to contribute substantially to livelihood activities.
DAP-based farming systems are particularly vulnerable to the effects of natural calamities which, to a large extent, are beyond the control of the affected communities. Draught animals in southern Africa (at the study sites in Malawi and Zambia) have been affected by East Coast Fever (Theileriosis), drought and theft. In east Africa the main losses have been due to cattle rustling (in Uganda) and drought (Ethiopia).
Owners of draught animals and tractors are dependent on a skilled and well-equipped supporting infrastructure, such as repairs and maintenance services, veterinary services, and financial services. The absence of an enabling policy environment curtails initiatives by would-be adopters, particularly given the weak state of agricultural profitability in many countries.
Different types of household are vulnerable to loss of specific sources of farm power. The loss of family labour is likely to hit the poorest the hardest; the loss of draught animals are more likely to affect the less poor and middle income households; whereas the closure of tractor hire services are more likely to have an adverse impact on middle income and richer households. However, due to the inter-relationship between households in a community, the loss of a power source for one household type has knock-on effects for the others (secondary losers). Poorer households suffer if they lose the opportunity to earn petty cash through hiring out their labour and renting out land to households using DAP or tractors. Conversely, a shortage of hired labour compromises the ability of owners of DAP or tractors to cultivate large areas.
The keys to spontaneous and sustainable farm power mechanisation are the returns to investment in agriculture and the condition of the wider economy. To enable farmers to undertake the risk of investing in new sources of farm power, they need to be able to recoup the costs of the investment through adequate returns, either through their own production or hiring their services to others. This, however, is not the case in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa today. Prices for principal agricultural commodities are low, access to international markets for value-added products restricted, the internal demand for staple foods is generally static, and market linkages are weak.
The impact of the low profitability of agriculture cuts across all farm power groups. One response is to postpone or cancel discretionary purchases. Expenditure on the maintenance and replacement of tools, draught animals and implements, and the hiring of farm power services, is low on a household’s list of priorities in the face of more pressing needs such as food, medical treatment, and school fees. Owners of DAP and tractors not only struggle to cover their operational costs from agricultural earnings but also have fewer opportunities to earn income through providing hire services to others. They often cross-subsidise activities, drawing on income earned from non-farm employment, pensions or remittances from children, to invest and sustain their sources of farm power.
Although the migration of family members for employment reduces the labour available for farm work, it may present an opportunity for remittances which can be used to purchase farm power from alternative sources (such as hired labour or hired DAP). Some returnees to rural communities (such as retired or retrenched professionals) offer a new stimulus, bringing with them broader horizons, greater exposure and receptiveness to change, a wider skills base, and capital for investment. They are often found in leadership positions within communities and amongst the early innovators.
Some households mechanise as a result of a windfall gain, by receiving draught animals, tools and equipment through dowry on the marriage of a daughter, inheritance or grabbing property from a deceased relative. Others acquire the full mechanisation package (for example, animals and implements) in stages, teaming up with other farmers in the interim to pool their resources until they complete their full acquisition.
The livelihoods methodology provides a comprehensive framework with which to examine the use of farm power at the household level. It recognises that the household asset base lies at the heart of the farm power system in sub-Saharan Africa and is a major determinant of livelihood outcomes. Households using farm power technologies other than a hoe gain considerable advantages in terms of the area cultivated, total yields achieved, levels of drudgery, and opportunities to redeploy family labour in non-farm activities. Households owning draught animals or tractors for primary tillage in arable crop production systems (and hiring labour or using reciprocal groups for subsequent operations) are more food secure than others.
The findings highlight the short term priority to protect livelihoods through reducing the vulnerability and ensuring the survival of households most at risk from losing their farm power assets. The immediate priority is to address the most pressing time and energy constraints faced by vulnerable households by supporting labour brigades, access to farm power hire services, and labour saving technologies and practices. The next priority is to stabilise the existing farm power asset base through prolonging the active and productive life of all household members, skills development in the use of farm power resources, and developing the supporting infrastructure. The threat of further losses to asset base may be reduced by providing access to short term credit for household needs to avoid distress sales; and encouraging communities to examine norms and practices which place livelihoods in jeopardy (including lack of awareness and weak enforcement of land and property rights; HIV/AIDS-risky environments; and absence of succession planning).
The profitability of agriculture is vital if farm power mechanisation is to contribute to enhancing livelihoods. In the medium term, the potential of existing power sources can be maximised by managing the power requirements of the farming system (such as spreading or reducing the demand for labour by changing cropping systems or practices) and extending the range of uses of existing power sources (to secondary operations, or by using fewer animals). In the longer term, some households may adopt new sources of farm power and mechanise operations other than primary tillage. The dynamism of the non-farm economy will influence the extent to which subsistence farmers will diversify and even exit from agriculture. For many, the latter will be the longer term livelihood strategy.
1 Further copies of this paper may be downloaded from www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040901_en.htm.
2Consultant, Agricultural and Food Engineering Technologies Service, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy (Email: agst-mail@fao.org). The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO.
3The in-country studies were undertaken by national consultants – see references. The study was initiated and overseen by Lawrence Clarke (Agricultural Engineering Group of AGST) and the implementation coordinated by Josef Kienzle.
4Many of these household types (with the exception of those relying solely on family labour) also hire labour for subsequent operations, particularly weeding.
5 In communities where there is severe pressure on land, the areas cultivated are much smaller
Bishop-Sambrook C (2004a) Contribution of Farm Power to Smallholder Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa, Synthesis Report of FAO Regional Study, Rome: Agricultural and Food Engineering Technologies Service, FAO
Bishop-Sambrook C (2004b) Farm Power and Smallholder Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa, Rome: FAO
Carney D (1998) Implementing the Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Approach, in Carney D (Ed) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, What contribution can we make? London: DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office
Department for International Development (1998) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets, (www.livelihoods.org)
Dixon J and Gulliver A with Gibbon D (2001) Farming Systems and Poverty, Improving Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World, Rome: FAO and Washington DC: The World Bank (www.fao.org/farmingsystems/)
Solesbury W (2003) Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID Policy, London: ODI (www.odi.org.uk/publications/working_papers/wp217.pdf)
Ajibola F and Sinkaiye T (2002) Nigerian Country Level Report, Case Study of Sanchitagi and Ojo Communities, FAO Regional Study on Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods, Nigeria: Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-life/Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute, Ilorin
Berhe K, Gebremedhin B and Astatke A (2001) Farm Power and Farm Household Livelihoods in the Ethiopian Highlands: Case Study of Two Peasant Associations, FAO Regional Study on Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods, Addis Ababa: ILRI
Kumwenda W and Nkhoma-Mbawa F (2002) Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods in Two Selected Areas of Malawi, FAO Regional Study on Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods, Lilongwe: Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Chitedze Research Station
Lyimo M and Semgalawe S (2002) Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods in Mvomero and Msingisi Village Communities, Morogoro Region, Tanzania, FAO Regional Study on Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods, Dar es Salaam: Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security
Odogola W and Olaunah C A (2002) Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case study of Kumi and Kapchowa Districts, Uganda, FAO Regional Study on Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods, Uganda: NARO
Sichembe H and Mukuka R M (2001) Farm Power and Implements for Sustainable Livelihoods, Zambia Country Report, Case Studies in Nteme, Monze District and Simupande, Singazongwe District, FAO Regional Study on Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods, Lusaka: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
Twum A and Drafor I (2002) Farm Power and Implements for Sustainable Livelihoods, Ghana Country Study, FAO Regional Study on Farm Power and Sustainable Livelihoods, Ghana: Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi/University of Cape Coast
|
