The major conclusions presented here focus on the role of farm power in smallholder livelihoods at the household level and the vulnerabilities of the different farm-power systems at the community level. Four recommendation domains have been identified for improving the contribution of farm power to the smallholder sector. Modes of implementation are also discussed. The chapter concludes with a review of potential follow-up activities for FAO.
At the household level, farm power is closely associated with a household’s asset-based wealth and plays a determining role in livelihood strategies and outcomes.
The household asset base lies at the heart of the farm-power system. Household composition and group membership determine the labour available for farm work. The education, skills and off-farm employment experiences of the household head are often associated with specific power sources. Savings, remittances and access to credit determine a household’s ability to purchase and maintain tools, draught animals, tractors and implements, and hire farm-power services. Indeed, the strength of the association between farm power and wealth suggests that the source of farm power may be taken as a proxy for a household’s asset-based wealth within a given community.
Social assets play a vital role in enabling poorer households to address their farm-power constraints. Some households tackle farm-power shortages on an individual basis through reciprocal labour or by pooling their draught animals and implements. Others draw strength by working in groups to improve their motivation; some groups also include a welfare dimension offering assistance to members in time of need.
There is no doubt that farm-power technologies other than a hoe offer considerable advantages in terms of area cultivated, total yields achieved, levels of drudgery, opportunities to redeploy family labour, and household food security. Households relying on family labour for all their farming needs survive at the margin of subsistence. Many do not have even have enough essential hand tools for all household members, and they are extremely vulnerable to the loss of key household members. Their lives are a continual struggle and they race against time from the initial preparation of their land for planting through to harvest, and the untimely sale of produce to raise essential cash. The timeliness of their operations is often compromised by the need to hire out their labour to others at the busiest times of the year. Households headed by women tend to be overrepresented among this group, partly as a result of the loss of assets typically associated with widowhood, and, consequently, they are often among the poorest in a community.
The livelihood outcomes for 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 those relying on family labour and the hoe. While hoe households typically cultivate up to 1.5 ha per year, draught-animal-owning households cultivate up to 4 ha per year, and households owning tractors more than 20 ha per year. Their cropping patterns are more diverse and there is greater emphasis on cash-crop production.
Households hiring farm power do not enjoy the same level of security as owners of farm power. They have less certainty of when the hire services will be available as DAP and tractor owners meet their own needs first, and the hire services may be monopolized by more influential farmers. The areas cultivated tend to be smaller than that of owners; DAP hirers typically cultivate 2 ha, and tractor hirers up to 8 ha.
The motivation to mechanize is primarily driven by a wish to increase a family’s food security, increase household income, or improve the quality of life. There are significant economic and social benefits to be reaped from farm-power mechanization:
economic: increasing the efficiency of labour, reducing costs, increasing the area cultivated, undertaking more timely production, improving the quality of cultivation, increasing yields, adopting new crops, reducing harvest and post-harvest losses, and earning a rental income through hiring farm-power services to others;
social: reducing drudgery and workloads (particularly for women), improving safety, gaining prestige, and encouraging younger and more innovative people to remain in rural areas and work on the land.
Some households mechanize as a result of a windfall gain, by receiving draught animals, tools and equipment through dowry on the marriage of a daughter, inheritance or seizing property from a deceased relative. Others acquire the full mechanization 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 main impact of mechanizing primary tillage operations is to increase the area under cultivation. In turn, this creates a demand for additional labour for subsequent operations and, in some communities, also creates a demand for renting land. Tractor owners in particular play a pivotal role in a community, hiring in labour and renting land, and hiring out their tractors. They may also provide support to poorer households in the hungry season, supply inputs on credit, and act as innovators in commercializing smallholder production. In communities where the tractor owners are newcomers, they receive farming advice from indigenous households.
To date, most of the benefits of mechanization have been confined to primary tillage and transport. There are relatively few instances where secondary operations have benefited, such as planting, weeding or harvesting. Hence, the full potential of farm mechanization for improving the quality of life through reducing the drudgery of farm work and contributing to sustainable livelihoods has yet to be realized.
There are four main reasons why the benefits from mechanization have been limited. First, in each study community, a sizeable proportion of households (at least one-third on average) are too poor to access farm-power services other than their family labour for primary tillage. Second, apart from the initial reduction in drudgery associated with land preparation, the partial adoption of DAP and tractors usually results in an increase in the area cultivated, creating additional demand for labour for planting, weeding and harvesting. Labour availability, affordability and productivity for subsequent operations becomes crucial to increasing production. Third, with the bias towards primary tillage, men are the principal beneficiaries. Women benefit where improved tillage reduces weed infestation, but this is offset where the opportunity of additional power is used to prepare larger areas, thereby increasing the workload associated with weeding and harvesting. Women derive most benefit from draught animals and tractors when they are used to transport goods that they would otherwise carry, such as fuelwood and water for domestic use. In some communities, women have access to engine-driven technologies for processing. Fourth, there is a natural ceiling of DAP ownership or tractor hire beyond which ordinary smallholders are unable or unwilling to pass. Tractor ownership is generally unattainable from farmers’ own resources and, even where they have the financial capacity, they usually prefer to diversify into non-farm activities in order to spread their livelihood risks. Tractor owners tend to have access to non-farm income or remittances, and most have at least secondary education complemented by formal employment experience outside the local community.
In the absence of the widespread adoption of alternative cropping systems and practices, tillage and weeding are the major labour bottlenecks in the arable cropping calendar. Improved access to farm power for primary tillage and subsequent cropping activities will be vital to overcoming the constraints that are arising as a result of the impact of HIV/AIDS on the agricultural workforce. However, addressing the primary-tillage component alone will not bring substantial advantages in terms of household food security and other livelihood outcomes because of the limited benefits of partial mechanization noted above.
The historical review of developments in the use of farm power (Chapter 3), supported by detailed studies at the community level (Chapter 4, and case studies in Annex 2), highlights the principal sources of vulnerability of different farm-power systems as experienced in selected communities in sub-Saharan Africa.
The keys to spontaneous and sustainable farm-power mechanization are the returns to investment in agriculture and the condition of the wider economy. Farmers need to be able to recoup the costs of investing in new sources of farm power 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 the principal agricultural commodities are low, access to international markets for value-added products is restricted, the internal demand for staple foods is generally static, and market linkages are weak.
Although many countries have sizeable and growing urban populations, they lack the effective demand to provide a catalyst for agricultural development. A large percentage of these urban populations are also poor and they require low-cost staple foods. Nevertheless, in some countries, rising incomes are stimulating demand for higher-quality products (particularly animal products); this situation offers opportunities for diversification of agricultural production. Moreover, the domestic market for many staple products, such as maize, wheat and oilseeds, is disrupted by cheap (and sometimes subsidized) supplies from abroad.
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, they also have fewer opportunities to earn income through providing hire services to others. They often cross-subsidize activities, drawing on income earned from non-farm employment, pensions or remittances from children to invest and sustain their sources of farm power.
Governments traditionally played a pivotal role in introducing new sources of farm power to communities through providing information, developing the skills of operators, subsidizing inputs and credit, supporting veterinary services, and operating tractor-hire schemes. These activities were usually linked to the promotion of cash crops and much of this support was withdrawn during the process of structural adjustment. Recent support for farm power (particularly DAP) has been in parallel with initiatives to promote sustainable farming practices, such as reduced tillage and conservation agriculture.
While government has often acted as the catalyst, the ability of the private sector to follow through these initiatives is essential for their sustainable use. This is in terms of both private purchases of DAP and tractors by individuals and groups, and also the service sector. Without a skilled and well-equipped supporting infrastructure, existing DAP and tractor owners are extremely vulnerable to the withdrawal of government support, as was demonstrated in the final two decades of the twentieth century. Similarly, the absence of an enabling policy environment curtails initiatives by would-be adopters, particularly given the weak state of agricultural profitability.
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, drought and theft. In east Africa, the main losses have been due to cattle rustling (Uganda) and drought (Ethiopia). Recovery is hindered by low household income to purchase replacements, a lack of credit, the absence of a ready supply of replacement draught animals, and an incomplete infrastructure (for example veterinary services).
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. In particular, HIV/AIDS will continue to have a devastating impact on agriculture for the foreseeable future. All five study countries in eastern and southern Africa are expected to lose 10 - 20 percent of their agricultural workforce to HIV/AIDS by 2020.
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 caused by 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 or father can result in property grabbing by his relatives, including displacement from the family land and home as a consequence of 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. Ox trainers tend to be young men and they are among the most at risk from HIV/AIDS.
Although the migration of family members for employment reduces the labour available for farm work, it may generate remittances. These can be used to purchase farm power from alternative sources (such as hired labour or hired DAP). 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. However, in some instances, returnees (such as retired or retrenched professionals) offer a new stimulus to rural communities, 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 among the early innovators.
A distinction may be drawn between principal and secondary losers with regard to the loss of different sources of power. In terms of principal losers, the loss of family labour is likely to hit the poorest the hardest. The loss of draught animals is 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, because of the interrelationship 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 when they lose the opportunity to hire out their labour and rent 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.
Four recommendation domains have been identified for improving the contribution of farm power to smallholder livelihoods. They represent only one aspect of an integrated response that may be implemented over different time periods. In the immediate and short term, priority is placed on protecting livelihoods through reducing the vulnerability and ensuring the survival of households most at risk from losing their farm-power assets. In the medium to longer term, the profitability of agriculture is vital if farm-power mechanization is to contribute to enhancing livelihoods. The dynamism of the non-farm economy will influence the extent to which some subsistence farmers will diversify and even exit from agriculture. For many, the latter will be the longer-term livelihood strategy. However, a discussion of these sectoral and macroeconomic issues is beyond the scope of this paper (see FAO/World Bank, 2001).
Although the recommendations have been derived from livelihoods analysis conducted in 14 communities in seven countries, they are considered to have a wider resonance. The study sites covered six of the principal farming systems in the region, and the conditions encountered are typical of those facing many communities in sub-Saharan Africa today.
The first priority is to enable the most vulnerable households, such as those headed by widows and orphans, to survive in the short term by addressing their most pressing time and energy constraints with immediate solutions. For households experiencing extreme labour stress, the opportunity to release labour from time-consuming and repetitive household tasks (such as fetching water or fuelwood) may be vital not only for generating sufficient capacity to work on their own farms but also to enable some household members to work for cash or food elsewhere (a crucial coping strategy for livelihoods security).
Options include:
support labour brigades to maintain crop production in periods of severe sickness and following bereavement (this arrangement could be vital for the survival of households suffering from severe labour stress as a result of HIV/AIDS);
provide vouchers or grants to households to hire farm-power services;
provide vouchers or grants to households to buy technologies to ease their workloads (such as fuel-efficient stoves, roofwater harvesting for domestic use, and simple food-processing equipment).
Once the immediate needs of the most vulnerable households have been met, the next priority is to ensure that the existing farm-power asset base remains intact and is not depleted during times of crisis. These recommendations will be of most relevance to households that have already experienced a shock that places their asset base at risk, such as the death of key household members or an inability to repay a loan. They will also be relevant for households at risk from falling into this group.
Five themes cut across the activities to secure different livelihood assets (Table 15):
Helping to prolong the active and productive life of all household members: through good nutrition, hygiene and basic health care, and promoting access to anti-retroviral drug treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS.
Developing skills in livestock husbandry, veterinary care and use of draught animals: particular attention should be paid to replacing skills lost with the death of an adult family member. As a result of the traditional gender division of labour, women may not be fully aware about the management of healthy livestock; similarly, men and orphans may not know about family nutrition and health care.
Reducing the threat of further losses to the asset base: activities include: providing access to short-term credit for household needs to avoid distress sales; encouraging communities to examine norms and practices that place livelihoods in jeopardy (for example, a lack of awareness and weak enforcement of land and property rights; HIV/AIDS-risky environments; time spent observing funerals and other rituals; the cultural slaughter of productive animals); supporting paralegals; and encouraging succession planning.
Maintaining a functioning infrastructure in order to ensure tools and equipment are kept in working order: households may require access to financial services to purchase spare parts and replacement inputs. Credit provisions should be sensitive to the situation of vulnerable households with regard to collateral requirements and repayment conditions.
Strengthening local safety nets: enable households to overcome farm-power constraints through reciprocal arrangements, including mutual insurance schemes for oxen owners.
TABLE 15
Initiatives to maintain household asset base
intact
|
Livelihood asset base |
Objective |
Action required |
|
Human |
Reduce workdays lost through sickness and death |
· health awareness (including HIV/AIDS) and nutrition campaigns · improve access to health care, medication, water supplies and sanitation · promote use of home gardens |
|
Natural |
Maintain draught animal base intact |
· improve access to veterinary services to minimize losses to disease · improve farmers’ skills in animal husbandry and veterinary care (e.g. Simupande Cattle Club, Zambia; FARMESA, Uganda; Animal Traction Network, Mvomero, United Republic of Tanzania) · improve access to fodder through integration with on-farm conservation (e.g. planting napier grass on contour strips) or agroforestry with fodder species · reduce losses of draught animals through theft and rustling by improving security in the community · reduce asset stripping (including draught animals, tools and equipment) by relatives after death of husband · minimize distress sales of assets by household in order to raise cash |
|
Physical |
Maintain farm tools and implements intact |
· reduce asset stripping by relatives after death of husband · minimize distress sales by household · strengthen infrastructure for repairs and maintenance · ensure genuine spare parts available at affordable prices |
|
Financial |
Strengthen financial base for maintenance of farm-power base, including ability to pay full economic price for hire services (where relevant) |
· provide access to seasonal and medium-term credit to facilitate purchases of replacement farm-power inputs · ensure vulnerable households (e.g. those headed by females or orphans) can access credit |
|
Social |
Improve access to sources of farm power through formal and informal arrangements |
· extend activities of groups to include welfare assistance to members(in the form of farm power) at critical times in the farming calendar to ensure food crops are grown and harvested (e.g. groups in Gyanagyandze, Ghana and Mvomero, United Republic of Tanzania) · establish mutual insurance schemes for DAP owners to protect against livestock accidents or death (e.g. oxen owners associations, Habru Seftu, Ethiopia) |
Once the asset base is secure, the next step is to maximize the potential of existing power sources (Table 16). Within each power source, there are two principal routes:
Managing the power requirements of the farming system:
- spread the labour peaks by growing crops with different seasons (including the use of small-scale irrigation) or rearing livestock, or engaging in different livelihood activities;
- spread or reduce the demand for power inputs through adopting conservation agriculture (with reduced or minimum tillage, and the use of cover crops and other planting practices to suppress weeds);
- use other labour-saving inputs, such as herbicides, or grow low labour-input crops;
- maximize the value of labour input through the intensive cultivation of high-value crops on a small area of land.
Extending the range of uses of existing power sources:
- improve the quality, range and availability of hand tools;
- promote DAP using single animals and non-traditional animals for draught power;
- extend the use of conventional power sources to secondary operations (ridging, planting and weeding), post-harvest operations (processing), and transport;
- participate in reciprocal arrangements with others in the community (to pool labour or share DAP resources).
A longer-term activity is to support households and communities as they adopt new sources of farm power. This process may take place at two levels, which are complementary and independent of each other:
New sources of power for primary tillage: if the state of the economy and the profitability of farming are conducive, households may switch to new power sources for primary tillage, either hiring or owning draught animals or motorized power (cultivators and tractors where suitable). The mechanization of primary tillage may lead to mechanization of secondary operations at a later date.
Mechanization of other operations: this includes the use of mechanized equipment for small-scale irrigation (treadle and engine-driven pumps, and sprinkler and drip systems), crop harvesting, food processing and value-adding activities.
If farm power is to have a greater role in rural livelihoods, farmers will have to be informed, educated, skilled and financially empowered to purchase, repair and maintain farm-power resources. Various facets of their livelihood asset base need to be strengthened: human capital (skills, knowledge and information), natural assets (draught animals), physical assets (tools and equipment), financial assets, and social capital (groups and networking). The need to strengthen the asset base is an integral part of all four recommendation domains. It may be achieved by:
Farmer groups (such as farmer field schools): these provide a basis for gaining access to knowledge and developing skills for improved farm productivity, including mechanization, and entrepreneurship.
Farm-power groups: these may have various functions: pooling resources for individuals without a full complement of the mechanization package; facilitating group purchases of mechanization inputs through mutual savings and credit; developing a local stock of draught animals through a breeding programme; and providing mutual insurance for livestock owners.
Community livelihood schools: these could help to review cultural norms, property rights and their enforcement; establish demonstration sites (home gardens, conservation farming, tools and equipment); overcome taboos and traditions associated with livestock use and ownership; create a savings culture; and improve community security.
Support groups and safety nets for vulnerable households: these are useful for pooling resources (labour, draught animals and implements, or land for group tractor hire), developing skills to replace those lost through the death of adult members; introducing new skills suited to the depleted household resource base; developing life skills; confidence building and development of self-respect; group management and capacity building.
Networking between groups: this will improve their acquisition of information, knowledge, skills, and access to inputs and loans.
TABLE 16
Initiatives to maximize use of existing
farm-power base
|
Power source |
Strategy |
Objective |
Action required |
|
Human |
A. Manage farm-power input |
Minimize demand for labour inputs |
· adopt conservation farming practices (reduced tillage, cover crops to suppress weeds) · use benevolent herbicides · use conservation-tillage equipment (jab planter) · introduce low labour-input crops or livestock |
| |
|
Spread demand for labour inputs |
· introduce crops with different labour peaks to conventional crops · introduce different livelihood activities |
| |
|
Access additional labour on reciprocal basis |
· promote use of reciprocal labour groups (e.g. wonfel, jigi and debo, Ethiopia; kiwili, United Republic of Tanzania; kulimika, Malawi; labour groups in Nigeria and Zambia) |
| |
B. Extend range |
Well-designed, ergonomically efficient and durable hand tools suited to task |
· ensure quality hand tools representing value for money · promote diversity in the range of hand tools available · ensure national standards for hand tools and their enforcement · promote accountability and responsibility in the retail sector |
| |
|
Release labour from less productive activities and time-consuming tasks |
· use labour-saving technologies and practices for household activities (e.g. to minimize time spent on water and fuel collection, transport, and food processing) |
|
Draught animals |
A. Manage farm-power input |
Minimize demand for DAP inputs |
· adopt conservation farming practices (reduced tillage, cover crops to suppress weeds) · use benevolent herbicides · use conservation-tillage equipment (ripper, knife roller, and direct planter) |
| |
|
Access additional animals or implements on reciprocal basis |
· promote arrangements to help individuals who have limited animals or implements to work together (e.g. Mekenajo, Habru Seftu and wonfel, Ethiopia; Lodjwa, Malawi) |
| |
B. Extend range |
Promote use of intermediate DAP |
· use single animals rather than 1 or 2 pairs · extend range of draught animals to include cows (dual purpose), donkeys and camels |
| |
|
Extend DAP use |
· improve operator/draught-animal skills through training · make secondary-tillage implements (ridger, planter and weeder) available and affordable · improve transport |
|
Tractors |
A. Manage farm- power input |
Minimize demand for tractor inputs |
· promote hire services · adopt conservation farming practices (reduced tillage, cover crops to suppress weeds) · use benevolent herbicides · use conservation-tillage equipment (subsoiler, tine cultivator, and direct seeder) |
| |
B. Extend range |
Extend tractor use |
· improve operator skills through training · make secondary-tillage implements available and affordable (planters and harvesters) · promote use of power take-off for milling and other crop-processing equipment · improve transport · promote hire services |
During these activities, full attention should be given to ensuring that the needs of women, orphans and the poor are addressed and that they benefit from developments in the farm-power resource base at community level.
The process of mechanization places various requirements on the infrastructure. Retailers need to have access to a stock of a quality range of tools and implements, as well as improved seeds and other inputs, backed up by the ability to offer informed advice to farmers. There is a need for repair and maintenance services that are able to perform routine maintenance and undertake repairs in a timely manner, using genuine spare parts. Extension services and local NGOs need to be well informed and skilled in all aspects of the recommendation domains: nutrition and health care; low-cost labour-saving technologies and practices; conservation farming and tillage equipment; the role of intermediate DAP; secondary tillage; potential impacts of mechanization on the environment; and the mechanization of post-tillage activities. Moreover, they require skills in participatory extension methods and the ability to work with vulnerable groups as well as able farmers.
In addition, adequate veterinary services, and access to medication are required. Manufacturers and small-scale artisans need to be skilled in the manufacture of quality tools and equipment suited to local conditions. Rural technology centres can develop, test, demonstrate and disseminate suitable technologies. Strong market linkages are required to provide market information and all-weather access roads to markets.
Financial services should be sensitive to the needs of vulnerable households in particular and the farming community in general. These should be reflected in the size of loans, collateral required, interest rates and repayment terms. Encouragement should be given to mutual savings and credit groups. Credit should be available for the purchase of hand tools, draught animals and implements, and motorized equipment as well as other inputs associated with improved farming practices.
In order to underpin initiatives at the household level and to support the infrastructure, governments have to ensure that there is an enabling policy environment to achieve:
a vibrant economy with a well-developed private sector to deliver and sustain mechanization inputs;
a profitable agriculture sector with access to markets (domestic and international), effective demand for food products, opportunities for value-adding through processing, fair trade, and production of niche products;
a diverse economic base in rural areas to enable farming households to generate income off-farm to invest in agriculture;
affordable mechanization inputs conforming to national standards;
security of land tenure, enforcement of property rights and good governance.
Given the vital role of farm power in food production and food security, it is highly relevant for FAO (and AGST in particular) to revisit this topic early in the twenty-first century. There is a new sense of urgency to address the main farm-power constraints in order to strengthen the survivability of vulnerable households, particularly in the face of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Four follow-up activities for consideration include cross-cutting issues:
raising awareness among key stakeholders (at both national and international levels) about the vital contribution of farm power to food security and rural livelihoods, and the importance of a profitable agriculture sector for successful farm-power use;
conducting a detailed study of farm power and sustainable livelihoods in small-scale irrigation in sub-Saharan Africa;
identifying gender dynamics at the household level regarding decisions to access and use different sources of farm power for various operations;
creating and promoting technologies suitable for purchase and use by women and the young.
Follow-up activities linked to Domains 1 and 2 include identifying appropriate modus operandi for rural livelihood schools and support groups for households under labour stress in order to help them overcome their most pressing power shortages, including the use of voucher schemes to enable them to hire farm-power services.
Follow-up activities linked to Domains 3 and 4 include:
determining the economic viability of DAP and tractors for different operations in different farming systems, cropping patterns (food and cash crops) and ecological conditions;
undertaking adaptive research to determine the technical feasibility of utilizing two-wheeled tractors and cultivators as more affordable alternatives to four-wheeled tractors in different farming systems;
determining the economic viability and technical feasibility of different ownership arrangements of mechanized farm power, including group purchases, hire purchase and leasing;
determining the economic viability of DAP, tractor and combine harvester hire services by individuals, groups and institutions;
promoting the mechanization of secondary cultivation (in particular, weeding) and post-harvest operations;
identifying and promoting farming methods which have different farm-power requirements (in particular, conservation agriculture);
identifying how best to promote sustainable farm mechanization in settings where there is an absence of a profitable agriculture sector and a minimalist role for government (as occurs in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa).
