This case study reviews livelihoods in three communities where tractors are a significant source of power (used by at least 35 percent of the households). Tractors are also used at four other sites but on a modest scale, by 10 percent of the households or less. Some communities used tractors in the past but the services proved unsustainable and they have switched to hoe cultivation and DAP; the livelihood dynamics of these communities are reported in Case Studies A and B. None of the sites in Ethiopia and Malawi has used tractors although hire services are available elsewhere in these countries. An inventory of tractor-based equipment per household by field site is presented in Annex 3, Table 2.

Livelihoods analysis of mixed hand-power - tractor communities

The three sites are diverse, covering the cereal - root crop mixed system of west Africa and the maize mixed system of east Africa (Table 15). One community has a relatively high proportion of tractor owners (Sanchitagi in Middle Belt, Nigeria). In the other two communities, many prepare their land by hiring tractors (Babatokuma in Ghana, and Mvomero in the east of the United Republic of Tanzania) (Figure 6). A significant proportion of households in these communities relies on hoe cultivation, more so than in communities where DAP is the dominant power source. Draught animals were introduced in the late 1980s - early 1990s at Babatokuma and Mvomero when tractor hire services were beginning to be unsustainable but the uptake of DAP has not been as significant as at Msingisi (reported on in Case Study B).

Source: Community estimates at field sites.

Source: Farmers’ observations during fieldwork.

The strength of the asset base of the tractor owners is evident (16 - 23 points) (Table 16). Even hoe cultivators have a stronger asset base (8 - 11 points) than similar households in other farm-power systems (described in Case Studies A and B; 5.5 - 8.5 points). However, the dominance of non-tractor- owning households in these communities outweighs the wealth of the tractor owners and the aggregate asset-based wealth is on a par with the DAP communities (11.5 - 14.2 points).

The following section reports on the livelihoods in Sanchitagi, Nigeria. Livelihoods in the other two communities are highlighted in the subsequent section. Full details may be found in the relevant country reports: Ghana (Twum and Drafor, 2002); Nigeria (Ajibola and Sinkaiye, 2002); and United Republic of Tanzania (Lyimo and Semgalawe, 2002).

Livelihoods analysis of Sanchitagi, Nigeria

Context

Sanchitagi, situated in the Middle Belt of moist savannah, is a community with high growth potential. With a low population density (48 inhabitants per km²), there is a large area of uncultivated land and soils are fertile. The Bodzo River and streams support fadama/irrigated farming and fishing. Commercial activities are constrained by poor market linkages and a lack of good storage and processing facilities. The community has had access to tractors for more than 15 years, initially through government services and subsequently by group purchases of tractors through farmer cooperatives and most recently through individual acquisitions. At present, there are ten tractors in an operational state in the community: three cooperative groups own five tractors; and two individuals own five tractors. The latter purchased their tractors with income generated from increasing the area they cultivated by using the group tractors. However, there are concerns about the long-term sustainability of tractor ownership owing to the dramatic increase in prices of new tractors and spare parts in the last decade. For a review of the historical developments in farm power at Sanchitagi, see Table 7 in main text.

TABLE 15
Summary of field site characteristics mixed hand-power - tractor communities

Livelihood assets, strategies and outcomes

Tractor owners in Sanchitagi are the richest farm-power group encountered in the whole study (Tables 16 and 17). The households are typically headed by educated middle-aged men, living with their nuclear family of 15 - 20 members and at least four wives (the number of wives is a sign of wealth and affluence in this society). None of these households is headed by a woman. Tractor owners cultivate 80 - 100 ha of rainfed land, producing cash crops of melons, groundnuts, beans and yams, and also growing maize and yams (a source of status) on the fadama. They use chemical fertilizers, improved seeds and, occasionally, herbicides. Tractor use is confined to land preparation and hired labour is used extensively for all other operations. Some households also hire labour to assist women with processing the increased volume of produce.

Non-farm activities tend to be capital intensive, such as operating transport and haulage services, storing and trading in produce, and selling spare parts for bicycles and motorcycles. In addition to owning tractors and implements, these households own improved manually operated or motorized post-harvest equipment. They also have a strong financial asset base, accessing credit through associations and moneylenders, receiving remittances from family members working in the cities in waged employment, and making savings from sales of farm produce. They are leaders within the community, belonging to and leading various associations and participating in the farmers' field school. Several groups specifically serve the interests of tractor owners (see Case Study D, Box 10). They enjoy a standard of living that provides them with food security and home comforts. They can afford to use modern medical facilities and to send their children for tertiary education or vocational training. However, the migration of children in pursuit of education reduces the labour available for farm work.

Households hiring tractors cultivate 20 - 40 ha, use purchased inputs and achieve many of the same livelihood outcomes as tractor owners. Their activities are disrupted if there are insufficient tractors available in the community, which results in late planting, cultivating smaller areas, and realizing lower yields. To overcome power shortages, some tractor hirers mobilize alternative sources of power by belonging to reciprocal labour groups, and some parents accept the labour of the groom as the bride price for their daughter. Tractor-hiring households usually only pay for a single ploughing, so they reap fewer benefits in terms of weed control than tractor owners who double plough their own land.

Despite the wealth of the tractor owners and, to a lesser extent, households hiring tractors, households relying on hoe cultivation in Sanchitagi are still relatively poor. The heads of male-headed households tend to be elderly, living with one or two wives, and an extended family with up to 40 members. Their social and financial assets are particularly weak (Table 17). The position of female-headed households (who are usually widows) is more extreme. They have no access to credit; they generally do not belong to groups (lacking both the money to pay association dues and the time to attend meetings); and they have a smaller pool of family labour to draw upon. The hoe cultivators farm 1 - 3 ha, placing priority on growing grains for food security and fewer yams. On the fadama, they grow lowland rice and vegetables. Some of these households own more land and rent it out or leave it fallow to recover fertility, or they are unable to cultivate it owing to a lack of financial resources to hire labour or tractors. Unlike other households in the community, small livestock are an important source of cash income for this group. The livelihood outcomes are typical of many poor households encountered in other communities in the study, characterized by heavy workloads, low incomes, food insecurity in the hungry months, reliance on local herbs for health care, and an inability to pay for their children to pursue tertiary education. Nevertheless, in contrast with other field sites, most households in Sanchitagi, regardless of farm-power group, perceive their livelihoods to be improving.

Livelihood experiences in other tractor-based communities

The communities in Babatokuma (Ghana) and Mvomero (United Republic of Tanzania) shifted from hand power to hiring tractors in the early 1970s. Following the effects of structural adjustment and the lack of profitability in agriculture, the use of tractors has declined in both communities in the last decade. A small proportion of households has switched to DAP as a more sustainable alternative to tractor usage.

TABLE 16
Livelihood asset base in mixed hand power-tractor communities

Notes:

Asset scores: each group of assets scored out of a maximum of 5 points; further details in Table 16.
Total assets score: hand power = 11; hired DAP/tractor = 15.5; own DAP = 16; own tractor = 20.5.
Further details in Table 16.

Babatokuma, Ghana

Tractors are now hired by about 60 percent of households for ploughing, ridging and transporting. Tractor usage has resulted in increasing the area cultivated (from 5 ha to 14 ha), increasing the use of fertilizers, facilitating the timely removal of crops from fields, and increasing marketing activities due to ease of transportation. Tractors are also used for operating maize shellers. Four individuals own tractors; one also owns a rice combine harvester and another a power tiller. The strength of this small group of tractor owners is derived from their skills base (human capital), ownership of a wide range of equipment (physical assets) and, to a lesser extent, their financial resources (Figure 7).

There is little difference between the assets of households owning draught animals and those hiring either DAP or tractors (Table 16). Draught animals were first introduced to the community in 1992 under an IFAD-supported project. Selected farmers were trained and each given a pair of bullocks, two ploughs, a ridger and an ox cart on credit. This group has acted as a nucleus for promoting DAP use and 10 percent of the households now use draught animals for ploughing, ridging and initial weeding in maize, covering broadcast rice during planting, and transportation. DAP farmers have been drawn from the new generation entering agriculture and consequently they tend to cultivate smaller areas (3 ha) than the traditional hoe cultivators who have ready access to family land (cultivating up to 5 ha, some of which is under tree crops).

TABLE 17
Livelihoods analysis for Sanchitagi, Nigeria (mixed hand power-tractor community)

Asset scores: each asset scored out of a maximum of 5 points (numbers in bold). Total asset scores: hand power group = 9.5; labour/tractor hire group = 17.5; and tractor owners = 23.

Source: Ajibola and Sinkaiye (2002).

Each farm-power group has its own strengths with regard to social assets. Some groups in the community are open to all, such as the Yam Sellers' Association. Others are power-group specific: the hand-power and labour-hiring households belong to reciprocal labour groups; the Draught Animal Users' Association is open to DAP owners and users; while the Tractor Owners' Association is highly influential and membership is limited to tractor owners (further details in Case Study D, Boxes 8 - 10).

DAP is perceived to be more sustainable and the ownership requirements less demanding than tractors within the existing national economic environment. Tractor owners are finding it increasingly difficult to accumulate capital in order to replace old machines and the cost of borrowing money is prohibitive (the annual interest rate was 35 percent in 2001). One owner noted that it is not possible to charge the full economic cost of hiring out tractors because farmers are not able to afford it. It was estimated that tractor-hire charges cover only 63 percent of the full economic cost for ploughing, representing an implicit subsidy from tractor owners to hirers of 37 percent. Moreover, repairs and maintenance services are not readily accessible and farmers have to travel up to 400 km to Accra in order to purchase tractors, implements and spares. In contrast, draught animals and implements can be sourced from within 100 km and basic implements are available from local blacksmiths (see Figure 8 in main text).

Source: Lyimo and Semgalawe (2002).

Mvomero, United Republic of Tanzania

At the peak of tractor usage in the late 1980s, 80 percent of households in Mvomero were hiring tractors and many tractors travelled in from other districts to satisfy demand. Cotton production was profitable and labour was readily available and cheap. Following increases in hire charges (to cover the increased costs of operation) and an absence of markets for cash crops (such as cotton, simsim and sunflower), the shift away from tractor hire has been marked. Today, only 32 percent of the households in Mvomero hire tractors while more than half rely on hoe cultivation and 10 percent use DAP (Figure 6).

Tractor owners cultivate significantly larger areas (up to 20 ha), produce cash crops (maize and rice), follow more diverse livelihood strategies, and enjoy more secure livelihood outcomes than the other households in the community. They can afford to hire labour, sometimes from neighbouring communities, and rarely participate in reciprocal labour groups. The use of tractors and hired labour releases family labour from farming to undertake other activities (Box 6).

Hire services are an important livelihood strategy for tractor owners. The area ploughed through hiring accounts for 70 - 85 percent of the total area prepared by one tractor per year while more than half of the farm produce transported belongs to others (Table 18).

Households hiring DAP or tractors cultivate up to 4 ha and draw on a much stronger asset base than hoe cultivators (Table 16). Their strongest asset is their social capital. They participate in labour groups and reciprocal arrangements, and act as leaders in the community. There is little difference in the assets base between hirers of farm power and households owning DAP. The latter were encouraged to adopt DAP (oxen and donkeys) by the district extension services and other initiatives such as the Uluguru Mountains Agriculture Development Project (supervised by the Animal Science Department of Sokoine University of Agriculture) and FAO’s Special Programme for Food Security. They belong to oxen groups in the community, which in turn belong to the Animal Traction Network for Mvomero Division (further details in Chapter 5 and Figure 7, in the main text). They have received support in the form of implements, training and credit. They have the additional livelihood strategy of hiring out their animals to others at competitive rates in comparison with tractors - TSh25 000 - 30 000/ha (US$27 - 33) compared with TSh30 000 - 40 000/ha (US$33 - 44).

TABLE 18
Annual tractor use for own and hire services, Mvomero, United Republic of Tanzania

Note: Each farmer owns two tractors; Farmer 1 also owns a planter.
Bag = 100 kg (maize) or 80 kg (paddy rice).
Source: Lyimo and Semgalawe (2002).

Hand-power households cultivate 0.8 - 1.6 ha. They rent out additional land at TSh12 500/ ha (US$14) that they are unable to cultivate because they lack the capacity to hire tractors for ploughing and labour for weeding, coupled with poor markets for their crops. They survive by hiring out their labour for weeding, engaging in petty businesses, and a few receive remittances. They generally perceive their livelihoods to be deteriorating, especially if they are caring for sick family members. Many barely produce enough for their family’s requirements for food and cash. They have to sell part of their produce in order to meet cash requirements for health, education and social obligations in the community.

Outlook for communities with tractors as a significant power source

The impact of using tractors for primary tillage is broadly similar to that reaped when using DAP (in terms of the area cultivated, timely and thorough land preparation, and weed control); although the scale of operation is increased significantly. Similarly, the benefits are dependent on the availability of labour for subsequent operations and the availability of land for increasing the area under cultivation. To date, neither appears to have acted as a constraint on production. Indeed, the opportunity to earn cash or food through hiring out their labour and land is an essential survival strategy for many hoe cultivators. However, the fieldwork suggests that labour in many communities is becoming scarce as a result of education, migration, ill health and death, and labour shortages may constrain production in the future.

Tractor owners represent the commercial face of farming, using their strong asset-based wealth (which is often derived from off-farm activities) to purchase inputs such as improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides. They pay more attention to cash-crop production either in addition to or as a substitute for food crops. Their wealth and role as employers enable them to provide a social net for others in the community in a less secure position.

However, the viability of tractor power is dependent on the profitability of agriculture and the supporting infrastructure (Box 7). Under conditions of low profitability, the outlook for widespread tractor use must be marginal. Owners find it difficult to maintain tractors in an operational state because of weak repair and maintenance services, and the expense. Demand for hire services is falling as many farmers are unable to afford the full economic cost of ploughing or transporting. Indeed, some communities no longer use tractors as owners fail to replace them (Ojo, Nigeria, and Nteme, Zambia), or they sell them in preference for draught animals (both sites in Uganda). In Babatokuma and Sanchitagi, tractor use is threatened by the dwindling stock of private tractors coupled with the high price of new tractors and a lack of capital. There are also environmental concerns about the impact of tractor ploughing on soil fertility and yields (as noted by farmers in Msingisi, United Republic of Tanzania, and Gyangyanadze, Ghana).

Source: Farmers’ observations during fieldwork.

Case study D - social assets: arrangements for accessing farm power

This case study draws together examples of methods used by households to strengthen their social assets. Boxes 8 - 10 group these methods by the source of farm power mobilized.