Determinants of conservation agriculture-based sustainable intensification technology adoption in smallholder farming systems: Empirical evidence from Nepal
From Firenze University Press Journal: Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development (JAEID)
Surya Prasad Adhikari, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Kathmandu, Nepal
Krishna Prasad Timsina, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Kathmandu, Nepal
Maria Fay Rola-Rubzen, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia
Jagadish Timsina, Global Evergreening Alliance, Melbourne, and Institute for Study and Development Worldwide, Sydney, Australia
Peter B. Brown, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Canberra, Australia
Yuga Nath Ghimire, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Kathmandu, Nepal
Dinesh Babu Thapa Magar, Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Kathmandu, Nepal
The Eastern Gangetic Plain (EGP), located within the South Asian Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP), is heavily populated with a strong dependence on agriculture for food security and livelihoods (CIMMYT, 2015; Timsina et al., 2018). Average crop yields and total cropping system productivity in this region are low due to several biophysical (e.g., poor soils and fragmented land, occurrences of extreme weather events, inadequate utilization of ground and surface water resources, insect and disease pressures) and socio-economic factors (e.g. small farm sizes, poorly developed markets, fragmented and sparse agricultural knowledge and service networks, farmers’ lack of knowledge in the use of improved technologies) (Dixon et al., 2020; Islam et al., 2019; Krupnik et al., 2021). The majority of the farming systems of this region consist of water, capital and energy-intensive rice-based farming systems such as rice-rice, rice-wheat and rice-maize (Gathala et al., 2020b; Islam et al., 2019). These farming systems are less profitable than the non-rice based systems because of the costly labour and highuse of costly and scarce water, capital and energy. In addition to low productivity and profitability, the resource-intensive practices used in these systems also produce large quantities of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and create serious threats to the environmental sustainability of the cereal-based farming systems of the region (Bhatt, et al., 2021; Gathala et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2021; Dixon et al.,2020; Timsina et al., 1995).Nepal, located in the EGP, is an agrarian country but is challenged by agricultural labour scarcity due to out-migration, high dependence on rainfed farming, practicing agriculture with low or inadequate use of modern inputs such as irrigation water and fertilizers, thus resulting in high production costs and low crop productivity. In between 2009 to 2022, more than 4.7 million Nepalese issued new labour approval for work abroad (MoLESS, 2022),and this status is increasing. This data shows labour outmigration in Nepal in the last decade has created a chronic shortage of young and skilled human resources in agricultural production and agribusiness posing a critical threat to ensuring the country’s food security (Maharjan et al., 2013; Gauchan, 2018). This situation has also contributed to a higher wage rate in rural areas (Wiggins and Ketas, 2014; Wang et al., 2016).Nevertheless, due to the poor growth of farm mechanization, Nepalese agriculture is still labour-intensive which in turn results in higher production costs and lower farm profit (Paudel et al., 2019). Furthermore, cultivation practices like intensive tillage, removal of crop residues, and low or inappropriate use of chemical fertilizers have also contributed to declining soil fertility and crop productivity (Krupnik et al., 2021). In addition to that, out of total land, only 39.6% land have year round irrigationfacilities (CBS, 2023). The supply of chemical fertilizer is more than 50% low as compared to demand (Timsina et al., 2022). The fertilizer consumption per unit of land in Nepal is 97.8 kg/ha (World Data Atlas, 2021), which is far below as compared to neighbouring countries. The reason for low consumption is due to the low supply of fertilizer. Nepal In this context, production systems guided by the key concerns of agricultural sustainability are required to increase food production without compromising environmental integrity (Sapkota et al., 2018). Conservation Agriculture (CA) aims to make better use of agricultural resources through the simultaneous implementation of minimum soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop diversification (FAO, 2014; Friedrich and Kassam, 2009; Thiombiano and Meshack, 2009., Dixon et al.,2020). It is an approach to managing in agroecosystems for improved and sustained productivity and increased profits and food security while preserving and enhancing the resource base and the environment (Jat et. al., 2021, Fisher et.al., 2018.,FAO, 2014). CA, however, is a knowledge-intensive system, involving a complex set of technologies, to learn and apply by the farmers as they face several problems during its implementation (Giller et al., 2009; Stevention et al., 2014). These problems arediverse, encompassing intellectual, social, biophysical, technical, financial, infrastructure and policy-related issues.Farmer adoption of CA involves many components and decision steps and hence its outscaling is not necessarily straightforward (Brown et al., 2017; 2021b; Giller et al., 2009; Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Stevention et al., 2014). It is therefore very important to identify problems which are hindering the adoption decisions (Dixon et al., 2019; Friedrich and Kassam, 2009). Despite years of effort to enhance the adoption and scaling of CA practices and technologies, South Asian countries are facing difficulties in achieving their targeted adoption (Akter et al., 2021; D’Souza and Ashok, 2018; Dixon et al., 2019). In the EGP of Nepal, the spread of CA technologies also remains limited (Brown et al., 2021b). Concerted efforts are required from all stakeholders for scaling the CA technologies and practices across the EGP including Nepal (Dixon et al., 2019; Karki and Shrestha, 2015).Most adoption-related studies in the past, including the adoption of CA, only considered factors affecting the adoption (Anderson and D’Souza, 2014; D’Emden et al., 2008; Kassie et al., 2013; Uddin et al., 2017). Very little emphasis or priority was given to factors that influence the intensity of adoption. It has been accepted that the adoption of CA is not only a binary outcome but also involves a non-binary process and tends to be partial and incremental (Baudron et al., 2007; Umar et al., 2011). Thus, factors affecting adoption and intensity of adoption would be different. First, farmers make decisions to adopt CA practices in a part of their land and after that, they increase their area under CA (Akter et al.,2021). Arslan et al. (2014) and Brown et al. (2017) considered both adoption and the intensity of adoption of CA in their studies. A study conducted by Kunzekweguta et al. (2017) in Zimbabwe determined both decision and intensity of factors influencing CAusing a double hurdle model. They found that farm size and experience with CA technology influenced adoption decisions while the distance from town and ownership of an ox-drawn plough reduced the intensity of uptake. Similarly, Yigezu et al. (2018) reported that education, field day visits, demonstration, extension contact, membership in cooperatives and credit takers significantly affected either decision to adopt or the intensity of CA technology adoption. Ngwira et al. (2014) in Malawi used a two-step Heckman model to find factors affecting the decision and intensity of CA technologies.They mentioned that hired labour, land size, and membership in farmers’ groups influenced farmers’ decision to adopt CA, while total cultivated land and CA farming experiences influenced the decision to extend their land to CA.Conservation Agriculture-based Sustainable Intensification (CASI) practices have been widely promoted in the EGP including Nepal by various national and international organizations to improve the productivity, profitability and sustainability of smallholder farming systems (Dixon et al.,2020; Gathala et al., 2020a, 2020b, 2021; Islam et al., 2019; Thapa Magar et al., 2022). CASI practices decrease farm input costs (labour, fertilizers, irrigation, seed, etc.) and improve soil organic matter by retaining the crop residues on the soil surface or seeding crops into crop residues (Gathala et al., 2020a; 2020b; Islam et al., 2019; Sinha et al., 2019; Thapa Magar et al., 2022). The socioeconomic impacts of CASI have improved household food security and income, decreased input costs, improved returns to labour, benefits to women farmers, expanded social capital and strengthened system resilience (Dixon et al., 2019, 2020). In Nepal, CASI practices have increased productivity, lowered production costs, increased gross margins, increased energy-use efficiency and reduced GHG emissions at the farm level (Thapa Magar et al., 2022). However, factors affecting the adoption of agricultural technologies and practices differ across countries or regions due to diverse socioeconomic, cultural, and agroecological environments (Duong et al., 2019; Feder et al., 1985). Moreover, determinants of CA adoption are site-specific and hence a blanket approach to promote the adoption and scaling of CA or CASI would be unsuccessful (Chichongue et al., 2019). In Nepal and largely in the entire EGP, although CASI technologies and practices are beneficial to farmers, they have very limited spread. Due to different behaviours of adoption decisions across regions, factors influencing adoption decisions as well as the intensity of adoption decisions of CASI are important for better scaling of CASI technologies and practices in Nepal. Hence, there needs to be an improved understanding of the different components and processes of adoption. One of the approaches to improve such understanding is through the use of a double hurdle model which ascertains initial adoption decisions followed by the intensity of adoption decisions.Most of the past studies on CA or CASI in the EGP focused on farmers’ perceptions and economics of zero tillage (ZT) technology but none have considered the understanding of the adoption and intensity of adoption decisions of the farmers (Keil et al., 2016, 2017). Hence, in this study, we analyzed drivers influencing both the adoption as well as the intensity of adoption of ZT through a two-step process using a double-hurdle model in two eastern districts of Nepal. The key CASI intervention considered was ZT technology in wheat, maize and kidney bean grew after rice in two districts of the EGP in Nepal. An improved understanding of such adoption behaviour by farmers would help understand the sustainability or unsustainability of the CASI technologies and practices, which would be vital for their scaling not only in Nepal but in the entire EGP.
Read Full Text: https://www.jaeid.it/index.php/jaeid/article/view/14682
