This case study reviews the livelihoods in four communities where draught animals are the predominant source of power for primary tillage. The DAP system has long characterized farming in many parts of eastern and southern Africa. An inventory of equipment per household by field site is presented in Annex 3, Table 1).

Source: Community estimates at field sites.

Overview of DAP-based communities

Three of the study sites are typical of the maize mixed farming system of eastern Africa, and the fourth represents the highland mixed system in Ethiopia (Table 11). These communities are generally drier than the hoe-cultivation communities described in Case Study A but they experience two rainy seasons each year. The asset-based wealth of DAP owners (15 - 17 points) is much stronger than that of DAP hirers (6 - 13.5 points) and hoe cultivators (5.5 - 7.75 points) (Table 12). However, tractor owners are significantly richer (18 - 22 points).

Within the DAP-based communities, there are two distinct subgroups: one group where at least 50 percent of the community own their own draught animals, and another where the majority of households hire DAP (Figure 4). In the former, DAP is an established feature of the farming system and is almost the sole source of power for land preparation. The most extreme example is Habru Seftu in the central highlands of Ethiopia where all the land is prepared by DAP with more than 90 percent of households owning draught animals. At the two field sites in Uganda (which are typical of farming systems in the north and east of the country), 70 - 80 percent of households use DAP for land preparation, the majority of whom own their animals. The DAP-hiring community (Msingisi, United Republic of Tanzania) has only recently switched to DAP following the collapse of tractor-hire services. The asset-based wealth of DAP-owning communities (13.4 - 15.4 points) is more robust than that of the DAP-hiring community (10.9 points) (Table 12).

Livelihoods analysis of DAP-owning communities

The following section reports in detail on the livelihoods in Kacaboi, a DAP-owning community in Uganda. Differences between Kacaboi and two other DAP-owning communities are highlighted in the subsequent section. Full details may be found in the relevant country reports: Ethiopia (Berhe et al., 2001), and Uganda (Odogola and Olaunah, 2002).

Livelihoods analysis of Kacaboi, Uganda

Context

Kacaboi in eastern Uganda is typical of the Teso farming system, which has long been characterized by the use of draught animals. The district, with its flat terrain and light soils, was the focal point for the initial introduction of work animals into Uganda in 1909. (For a historical review of developments in farm power see Table 6 in main text). Tractor hire was an important source of power from the 1960s to early 1980s but declined when hire services proved unsustainable. In the late 1980s, the community faced further setbacks with their traditional sources of power when cattle were rustled by the Karamojong, and the HIV/AIDS epidemic started to have an impact on labour availability and productivity. However, by the close of the century, the DAP position had fully recovered through restocking, initially through the Presidential Commission for Teso, and later through the efforts of individuals and many local NGOs working in the Teso area. The latter include the Bukeda Women’s Struggles Association, a large women farmers’ group that has purchased and trained more than 200 oxen.

TABLE 11
Summary of field site characteristics in DAP communities

TABLE 12
Livelihood asset base in DAP communities

The district is currently among the highest users of DAP in the country. Farmer groups, created through the Farm-level Applied Research Methods for Smallholders in East and Southern Africa (FARMESA), have tested improved DAP implements, promoted improved breeds for animal traction, and organized a microcredit scheme to enable farmers to acquire farm inputs including tools and implements. Spare parts for ox-drawn implements are readily available from local artisans, and veterinary services are reasonable. Some farmers have been trained in the proper use and maintenance of work animals and equipment. Draught animals are viewed as a more sustainable and affordable alternative to tractors, particularly as many households are not able to afford tractor-hire charges.

Despite the significance of DAP, the use of draught animals has yet to go beyond opening up land. Secondary-tillage practices are minimal even though many crops are planted in rows. Work animals are occasionally used for transport, using sledges because most farmers cannot afford ox carts.

Livelihood assets, strategies and outcomes

DAP-owning households have a reasonably strong asset base (Figure 5 and Table 12). Many household heads have completed primary education, have access to extension services, and act as opinion leaders within the community. They cultivate up to 4 ha, renting extra land if needed, and they hire labour for weeding. They own cows, goats, and chickens, and are generally food secure growing millet, sorghum, sweet potatoes, groundnuts and cassava as food crops.

The asset base of those that can afford to hire or own tractors is markedly stronger than other groups. 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. They cultivate more than 4 ha (tractor hirers) and up to 8 ha (tractor owners), and are usually food secure. Consequently, they have many dependants. They are among the most affluent and literate in the community, and are active leaders of civic, political and community development groups. Often, they do not depend on agriculture for their livelihood, either engaging in business ventures (trading in cattle or second-hand clothes, making bricks, shop keeping and operating grinding mills) or receiving remittances from children living in town or pensions as retired civil servants.

Notes:

Asset scores: each group of assets scored out of a maximum of 5 points.
Total asset scores: hand power = 7.75; hired DAP = 13.5; own DAP = 17; hired tractors = 20; own tractors = 22.
Further details in Table 12.

At the other extreme, households relying on family labour struggle to survive. Many of these households have only one adult present (usually widows) and few household members because they are unable to support dependants outside the core family. They are often overwhelmed with farm tasks during peak periods and have to dig both mornings and evenings in order to complete their work. In many cases, their children are recruited into the family labour force and their attendance at school becomes irregular, countering government initiatives to combat illiteracy through universal primary education. Some belong to reciprocal labour groups. Many hire labour for weeding, repaying them later in the season with local brew or other arrangements. They undertake various activities to earn cash, such as selling water and fuelwood, and labouring; they also make ropes, charcoal and local brew. Their financial asset base is negligible (Figure 5). They have few hand tools and their strategy of borrowing tools from others is not feasible at the busiest times of the year.

Movement between farm-power groups

Households without draught animals strive to acquire oxen, initially one ox to team up with a neighbour in similar circumstances, but eventually to own at least a pair of oxen. This may be achieved through selling crops or gradually moving from smaller livestock to acquiring draught animals. However, the reality is that hoe cultivators are generally food insecure and find it difficult to meet the expenses associated with educating their children, let alone save money to buy oxen. They may be able to strengthen their farm-power base through windfall gains, such as receiving many head of cattle (including oxen) when a daughter marries, or receiving money from a working relative.

DAP-owning households are relatively stable. Rather than attempting to move from owning DAP to owning tractors, DAP owners tend to diversify their investments into off-farm businesses (shops and grinding mills). Downward movement from DAP ownership is rare and usually occurs due to misfortune (for example, the death or theft of animals). In contrast, there is some movement by tractor owners into the DAP-owning group. This is in response to the high operating and maintenance costs of tractors, the limited demand for tractor-hire services, and, in some instances, concerns that tractors degrade the soils.

Livelihood experiences in other DAP-owning communities

The experiences of DAP-owning communities vary between the two Ugandan sites and Habru Seftu in Ethiopia. Although Kapchesombe has a shorter history of working with DAP (since the 1950s), the livelihood outcomes are broadly similar to those found in Kacaboi. Farm-power experiences in Habru Seftu are completely different: ownership of oxen is the major determinant of livelihood activities and outcomes, and all households till their cropland using DAP.

Kapchesombe Parish, Kapchorwa, Uganda

This area, lying on the slopes of Mount Elgon, is characterized by acute population pressure, poor infrastructure, weak market linkages, and significant problems of erosion and flooding. Draught animals were introduced in the 1950s, with DAP planters, weeders and ox carts arriving in the following decade. In the same era, tractors and combine harvesters were introduced, initially through private initiatives but later by the Government, along with improved seed, fertilizer and other inputs, and farmer training. This was part of the drive to increase the production of wheat, maize, Irish potatoes and coffee. With the closure of the combine harvester-hire services in the late 1980s, farmers reverted to harvesting wheat using sickles. In the early 1980s, the district lost most of its cattle population through rustling by the Karamojong, a longstanding practice in the area. Despite recruiting vigilantes to provide security, restocking has not been sustainable because the units are often too small and inadequately armed to combat rustling effectively. Donkeys are important pack animals, reducing the burden of Kapchorwan women and children who are usually responsible for transporting various items over rugged and hilly terrain.

Reflecting the pressure on land, all farm-power groups cultivate small areas (ranging from 0.2 ha for hoe cultivators, to 1.2 ha for DAP owners, and up to 8 ha for tractor owners; Table 13), and little land is left fallow. Tractor owners and hirers also own oxen and donkeys, and use hired labour extensively. In contrast, family labour plays a vital role in DAP-based households. Some families who could afford to own donkeys and oxen prefer to hire DAP services rather than keep animals themselves because of their small land area.

Tractor owners and hirers have the highest educational levels in the community (some have attended university), have experience of formal employment, are well informed, and own medium- to large-scale businesses, such as grinding mills, shops, and cattle trading (Table 12). Tractor owners used to grow large areas of wheat when the government-managed combine harvesters were available. However, since their demise, the production of wheat has declined drastically. Oxen owners usually have some secondary education, interact with the extension services, and operate small businesses. These farm-power groups are food secure, grow a range of food crops and cash crops (Table 13), educate their children, and live in permanent homes. Owners of donkeys cultivate smaller areas than oxen owners but generate a significant daily income by hiring out their donkeys as pack animals.

Hand-hoe farmers cultivate small pockets of land, mostly located on the steep slopes where work animals cannot be used easily. The area prepared is compromised by the small size of their families (typically between two and four members) and the absence of reciprocal labour groups in the community. Their existence is hard, relying on the sale of their labour, eggs, bamboo shoots, and poles to earn a living. They do not participate in community meetings and their children rarely attend school. However, they are very knowledgeable about cultural issues and are often nominated as coordinators for circumcision ceremonies held in the area.

Habru Seftu, Ethiopia

This community, located in the central highlands, grows predominantly wheat, using improved varieties and purchased fertilizer. Cultivation is entirely dependent on draught animals. The community has no experience of tractors and there is no tradition of hoe cultivation on croplands. Oxen ownership is a sign of wealth and a major determinant of livelihoods. Distinction between farm-power groups is based on the number of oxen owned (Table 14). All households, even those not owning oxen, own donkeys for transporting water and grain (tasks that are not performed by oxen). Land is cultivated very intensively with little or no grazing land, and livestock suffer from food shortages throughout the year. In the wet season, weeds are left in the fields until they can be harvested and fed to livestock. Farmers also purchase hay or straw from nearby woredas (districts).

There is no tradition of DAP hire in this community. Households with no oxen (7 percent of total households) usually sharecrop, sharing half of what they produce from their small plot with the oxen owner. They mainly depend on non-farm activities for their livelihoods, with the men working as labourers on other farms or in the nearby towns, and the women involved in local-brew production and sales (working in local bars is a sign of poverty). The productivity of sharecropped land tends to be lower than other plots because the management of the crop is entirely the responsibility of the sharecroppers who place priority on their own plots (particularly in terms of timely planting and threshing). An alternative to sharecropping is to borrow oxen from neighbours or relatives and, in return, plough for the oxen owner. This results in a better harvest but the workload is heavy. A woman (whether young, widowed or divorced) without oxen is very likely to improve her livelihood if she is able to find a man to help her in farm operations without claiming a share of the produce, and if he considers her to be his second wife.

TABLE 13
Area cultivated and cropping patterns by source of farm power, Kapchesombe, Uganda

Source: Odogola and Olaunah (2002).

Farmers with one ox are in a much stronger position than those with no oxen (see Table 12). Local arrangements for sharing oxen and labour (mekenajo) with other farmers on an individual basis enable these farmers to avoid sharecropping. Although this produces a larger harvest, this arrangement is time consuming because of the need to reciprocate. It also means there are few opportunities for off-farm employment.

Farmers with two oxen are independent of others, cultivate up to 6 ha, and may produce enough grain to sell to meet their immediate needs. They spread their risk by diversifying the range of crops grown and their planting dates. They are socially respected and, as a result of their wealth, tend to have an additional wife. Other indications of the wealth of these households are follower herds (which can be sold in times of need) and woodlots of eucalyptus trees. Owners of more than two oxen (representing more than half of the households in the community) are the wealthiest group, deriving their livelihood mainly from crop and livestock production. The oxen owners' association provides members with insurance against the death of their work oxen (further details in Case Study D, Box 9).

Livelihoods analysis of DAP-hiring communities

Prior to the 1980s, farmers in Msingisi, United Republic of Tanzania, prepared their land by tractor or by hand. Tractors were introduced in the late 1960s through private initiatives, and were popular throughout the 1970s, cultivating up to 60 percent of the area in the community. Their use declined from the early 1980s, partly because of an increase in hire charges and concerns that yields diminish when tractors plough thin layers of topsoil without the use of supplementary fertilizers and soil and water conservation practices. Draught animals were introduced in 1988, promoted by awareness campaigns and training courses organized by government institutions and NGOs. The response has been encouraging. Today, 12 percent of the households own DAP and more than half of the community hire DAP. There is also a group based in the community that makes ox carts (further details in Box 8 in main text).

DAP hire (at TSh17 500/ha; US$19) is financially more attractive than tractor hire (TSh25 000 - 30 000/ha; US$27 - 33) and few households continue to hire tractor services. The main motivation to use DAP is to reduce the drudgery in land preparation. It only results in a significant increase in the area cultivated for households that can mobilize labour for subsequent operations, in particular weeding. This may be achieved by having large families, hiring labour, or belonging to reciprocal labour groups. Hired labour is readily available in the community at TSh7 500 - 10 000/ha (US$8 - 11) for weeding and harvesting.

In this semi-arid area, temporary food shortages are common, particularly among resource-poor hoe cultivators (Table 12) and hirers of farm power. This often results in distress sales of property including livestock and other farm assets in order to purchase food. Hoe cultivators depend on farming for their livelihoods and survive by hiring out their labour and their land (TSh12 500/ha; US$14). They overcome their own labour constraints by practising no-till seeding (kuberega), and planting directly into the trash from the previous season without turning the soil.

TABLE 14
Livelihoods analysis for Habru Seftu, Ethiopia (DAP-owning community)

Asset scores: each asset scored out of a maximum of 5 points (numbers in bold). Total asset scores: no oxen = 6; own 1 ox = 9.5; own 2 oxen = 15; own more than 2 oxen = 16.

Source: Berhe et al. (2001).

Source: Farmers’ observations during fieldwork.

Further details about this site are available in the country report on the United Republic of Tanzania (Lyimo and Semgalawe, 2002).

Outlook for DAP-based communities

Households derive significant benefits from using DAP for primary tillage (Box 4). They generally cultivate larger areas than hoe cultivators, realize greater yields, improve household food security, and produce a marketable surplus. However, the ability to realize the full benefits of using DAP for cultivating a larger area than is possible by family labour is only feasible where there is an abundance of labour within the community, especially for weeding.

DAP is increasingly being perceived and promoted by governments and donors as a more sustainable farm-power option than tractor-based systems. Draught animals enable households to reap some of the benefits of improved land preparation without the need to accrue a substantial amount of capital to purchase a tractor or to be dependent on tractor-hire services. However, draught-animal owners require specialist skills and a supporting infrastructure (Box 5) - albeit at a more modest level than that required by tractor ownership. Moreover, DAP is not a panacea. Its application is curtailed by: tsetse fly; poor soils and steep slopes where deeper tillage may contribute to soil erosion; small plots; and partially cleared fields. DAP households are very vulnerable to the effects of personal misfortune and natural calamities. As described in Case Study A, it is all too easy for DAP communities to revert to hoe cultivation because of livestock disease, cattle theft, and the loss of assets principally caused by poverty, illness and death of key household members. Their ability to recover is frustrated by a shortage of healthy animals, a lack of credit, and the poor profitability of agriculture.