September 2004

Farm Power and Smallholder Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa

by Clare Bishop-Sambrook

This paper reports on the main findings from a study of farm power and its role in smallholder livelihoods undertaken in 14 communities from seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The paper commences with a review of developments in the use of farm power in the twentieth century, as communities moved from complete reliance on tilling the soil by hand to ploughing with draught animals or tractors. However, many of the gains made in mechanising tillage practices during the twentieth century were reversed during the closing decades of the century. At the very time when many communities have been reverting to hand power, the impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic has begun to take its toll on the agricultural workforce.

Three farm power systems are identified for grouping communities according to the relative significance of humans, draught animals and tractors as power sources for primary tillage: predominantly hoe cultivation communities where at least 50% of households use family or hired labour for land preparation; communities where at least 60% of households prepare their land using draught animal power (usually their own); and communities where over 35% of households use tractors for land preparation (usually hired). The livelihood activities and outcomes for communities in the different farm power systems are discussed. There is a sharp contrast between the poverty and general depression associated with the predominantly hoe systems of eastern and southern Africa where draught animal power was once more important, and communities in other farm power systems. In the hoe communities of root and tree crop farming systems of west Africa, the use of hand power (usually hired labour) is an integral part of the system rather than a sign of poverty. The paper explores some of the key characteristics of the farm power systems, focusing on livelihoods analysis at the household level, the inter-relationships between farm power groups within a community, the significance of the supporting infrastructure, the limited benefits reaped from mechanisation in the smallholder sector to date, and the implications of HIV/AIDS for farm power.

The paper concludes that, in the absence of a concerted effort by government, NGOs and the donor community to intervene to address some of the vulnerabilities of various farm power systems, it is likely that communities where the farm power base has already been damaged will face a continuing state of collapse. The extent to which other communities are able to maintain their existing farm power base and possibly achieve further mechanisation (including mechanisation beyond primary tillage), will depend on the state of their economies and supporting infrastructure, the profitability of farming, and the buoyancy of the rural non-farm economy. 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.

Click here to view the document (html format) or here for Word format (488 KB).

For related information, please see:

A livelihoods approach for analysing the farm power asset base at the household level