1. Understanding adoption and
promotion of CA
Experiences in Laikipia County
Freddy van Hulst
Supervisors: H. Posthumus
J. Morton
Nairobi, June 2014

2. Contents
• Introduction
My background
CA and smallholder farming
• The adoption of CA
Reasoned action approach
• The promotion of CA
Some observations
• Discussion
CA in Kenya

3. My background
• Wageningen University (The Netherlands)
MSc: Land Degradation and Development
Modelling soil erosion under CA and conventional
MSc: Rural Development Sociology
Farmers’ dreams and objectives in rural development
• University of Greenwich (United Kingdom)
PhD: Combination of technical + social
perspectives in Conservation Agriculture

4. Conservation Agriculture
• Minimum soil disturbance
• Permanent soil cover
– Mulch
– Cover Crops
• Crop Rotations
• Agro-ecological principles
• Africa’s Green Revolution?

5. Small-scale farming
• 97% of all the farms in the world are family farms
(500 million households)
• 70% of the active farmers are women
• They produce about 50% of the food consumed
by humans, farming on 20% of the land
Cassidy et al., 2013 Ecological letters 8

6. Why CA for small-holders?
Advantages at field level
• Labour and cost reduction
• Erosion control
• Nutrient cycling
• Increasing soil biology activity
• Improving water balance
• C and N input in soils
• Forage production
• Pest and disease control
• Etc.
Global level agenda:
1. Crop production intensification
2. Sustainability of ecosystem services of
agriculture
ABACO:
“to combat soil degradation
and food insecurity”
CA4CC:
For Climate Change adaptation
and CC resilient agriculture
We can agree:
CA for improved, sustainable livelihoods

7. What are reasons
for farmers (not) to
choose CA?
The adoption process
Delivery
aspect
Adoption
process
Uptake aspect

8. Methodology
FFS members
Non-FFS members
Crops
Maize /beans
Potatoes
Sample
4 FFS
(n=32)
Non-FFS
(n=62)

9. Conventional approach:
determinants of behaviour
perception
decision
effort
cognitive
normative
conative
environmental
factors
economic
factors
institutional
factors
personal
factors
Innovation
diffusion
Economic
constraints
Adopter
perception

10. Methodology
Social psychology
ActionIntention
Attitude
towards action
Outcome
beliefs
Social normsSocial beliefs
Perceived
control
Control beliefs
Actual control
Willing
Stimulated
Capable
Reasoned Action Approach
•Ploughing
•Direct Planting
•Spraying Herbicides
•Shallow Weeding
•Mulching
•Etc.

11. Results and discussion
-2 -1 0 1 2
Intention
Attitude
Injunctive Norm
Descriptive Norm
Perceived Control
Direct Planting
FFS members
Non-FFS members
***
***
*
ns
***
*** = p<0.001, * = p<0.05; ns = not significant.

12. Results
Action: Attitude
towards
behaviour
Perceived
Behavioural
Control
Often heard remarks from
farmers
Direct planting: X X • How can it work? (A)
• Which tools to use? (PBC)
Ploughing X • We have always ploughed (A)
• Equipment is available (PBC)
Shallow weeding X • Traditional practice (A)
• Not effective (A)
Spraying herbicides X X • Which Herbicide? (PBC)
• When to apply? (PBC)
• Effects on soil? (A)
Mulching X • Competing uses (PBC)
• Increase in pests (A)
Cover Crop X X • Which variety to use? (PBC)
• Planting between maize? (A)
Crop Rotation X • My land is too small (PBC)
• It keeps the soil fertile (A)

14. Results
Action: Attitude Control Remarks
Direct planting: X X • How can it work?
• Which tools to use?
Ploughing X • We have always ploughed
• Equipment is available
Shallow weeding X • Traditional practice
• Not effective
Spraying herbicides X X • Which Herbicide?
• When to apply?
• Effects on soil?
Mulching X • Competing uses
• Increase in pests
Cover Crop X X • Which variety to use?
• Planting between maize?
Crop Rotation X • My land is too small
• Big potential!

16. How is CA
promoted?
The adoption process
Delivery
aspect
Adoption
process
Uptake aspect

17. Promotion of CA
Tittonel et al. 2012

18. Focus Groups: learning
• It saves time
• It saves money
• You can plant early
• Better yields
• Strong plants
• Less weeds
• Soft, fertile soils
• More moisture
• No equipment
• It costs money
• More weeds
• Hard, infertile soils
• Less moisture
 People hold different,
sometimes contradicting
beliefs about CA

19. Two examples of CA. Picture taken at the same day, in areas of
similar rainfall. Will both farmers have the same attitude towards CA
after this season? No. It is the perceived effects that inform beliefs.

20. Learning and CA
• “Blame the student”
– Farmers as ignorant, backward, lazy etc.
• “Blame the teacher”
– No extension, no inputs, project too short, no follow-
up of projects, etc.
• Rather: improve learning together
– From “Instrumental” to “communicative” rationale
(Habermas)

22. Focus Groups: challenges
• Farming challenges fit with CA solutions:
– Irregular rains
– Lack of credit
– Pests and diseases  potential for CA?
• Gender and CA
– Farm management decisions made by men
• Invite ♂ & ♀ to trainings
– Less costs (benefits ♂), Less labour (benefits ♀)
– Fertile soils, more production (♂ & ♀)

23. Conclusions
• Willingness, capability and social
acceptance explain intention to do CA
practices
• Training and learning is key
It influences both perceived control and attitudes.
• Respect farmers’ social independence
• Broad Innovation Systems perspective needed
• Move from Instrumental to communicative thinking
in connecting promotion and adoption

24. Understanding adoption and
promotion of CA
Experiences in Laikipia County
Freddy van Hulst
Thank you!

25. Discussion
• Is there a future for CA in Kenya?
• How to change attitudes?
– Experimenting, exposure to new ideas
• How to change ability?
– Knowledge is essential
– Include all actors (tools, marketing, etc.)
– Experimenting
• How to respect farmers’ social independence?
– Creating the Capabilities for change

26. FFS members
Non-FFS members
*** = p<0.001, ** = p<0.01, * = p<0.05; ns = not significant.

27. Methodology: questionnaire
(future) Intention
Very
unlikely
Possible
Very
likely
Attitude
Very
foolish
Neutral
Very
wise
Important others think
I should
not plough
They have
no opinion
I should
plough
Important others
plough
Very few Moderately
Very
many
Control: ploughing is
Very
difficult
Average
Very
easy
Example.
...ploughing on your land, in the long rain season 2014:

28. Literature
• Social Psychology, the Reasoned Action Approach
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 2010. Predicting and Changing Behavior;
the Reasoned Action Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
• Targeting technology, and innovation systems:
Tittonell, Pablo, E. Scopel, N. Andrieu, H. Posthumus, P. Mapfumo, M.
Corbeels, G.E. van Halsema, et al. 2012. “Agroecology-based Aggradation-
conservation Agriculture (ABACO): Targeting Innovations to Combat Soil
Degradation and Food Insecurity in Semi-arid Africa.” Field Crops Research
132 (June): 168–174. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2011.12.011.