Adopting an agricultural technology comes with trade-offs. Here’s how to mitigate them.
Climate-smart agriculture, as defined, refers to practices that abide by certain principles. They aim to improve farming yields while helping farmers adapt to climate change or reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or both.
Some, however, understand the term to mean any agricultural solution that can bring about all the above benefits all at the same time.
That is a misconception.
No one practice can provide those benefits. Often, too, there’s a trade-off.
Using organic fertilizer, such as manure, is one example. It can improve soil health, but incorporating manure in the soil takes more time compared to doing the same but with mineral fertilizer, such as nitrogen.
Because it takes more time, adopting such a practice would require more labor. This prompts some questions: Who will have to provide that extra labor? What does this mean for the time they usually spend for leisure or with their families?
Availability of labor is another concern. In northern Uganda, for instance, it is difficult to secure adequate hired or even family help.
Trade-offs in adopting an agricultural technology is an issue that I and my colleagues at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, or CIAT, always strive to communicate and emphasize to farmers, donors, government authorities, and local organizations we work with.
We explore trade-offs as part of our ex-ante evaluation for the entire farm. This looks at what might result from a particular intervention — on and off the farm, as well as on the people involved in farming — in a particular context.
By assessing trade-offs, we aim to empower farmers and decision-makers. Knowledge generated through the evaluation can help them prepare for what is to come and prioritize the practices to adopt or support.
This awareness also helps prevent so-called disadoption. This happens when farmers stop using technologies or practices because they have become a burden for them. Understanding these trade-offs helps unpack and explore incentives that would enable farmers to continue using specific practices or technologies.
We hence strive to advise farmers on how to address trade-offs. Most often, we suggest a package of options, so they can enjoy all the benefits of climate-smart agriculture.
In the case of using organic fertilizer where labor is scarce, we may propose mechanization. Any mechanized implement, however, must be easy for farmers to learn how to use, handle, and maintain.
It should also be affordable. One option could be a system where someone provides service to the whole village, rather than each farmer buying equipment. This approach offers twin benefits: as a source of income for the service provider and savings for farmers because they need not purchase anything.
I know no single practice, tool nor approach that offers all the benefits of climate-smart agriculture. There will likely be trade-offs. The solution: to be aware of and act to mitigate them.
Additional information:
CIAT leads the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security, or CCAFS, which develops climate-smart agriculture (CSA) country and climate risk subnational profiles, which are based on work commissioned and led by the World Bank Group to identify country-specific baselines and entry points for scaling out CSA, through data analysis and series of dialogues with national stakeholders.
The official launch of the Africa CSA profiles will take place during the event, “Profiling climate risk and CSA opportunities to de-risk agriculture,” at the two-day (May 15–16, 2018) Africa Climate Smart Agriculture Summit in Nairobi, Kenya. The event will features a panel discussion involving representatives from multilateral banks, civil society and the private sector.
