Abstract
This study investigates the possibilities and limitations of integrated farming management practices, such as sustainable intensification, integrated soil fertility management, climate-smart agriculture (CSA), and conservation agriculture (CA) in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), based on a literature review. We first introduce the concept of these practices as a means to improve land productivity while maintaining agricultural sustainability. Subsequently, we show the adoption determinants and their effects based on recently published empirical studies in SSA. Finally, we conclude with the policy implications and research agenda to disseminate optimum integrated farming management practices and achieve a sustainable African Green Revolution in SSA.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) still suffers from poverty and food insecurity as 40% of its population live below the USD 1.90-a-day poverty line in 2018, and 24% were undernourished in 2020. This is the highest prevalence of poverty and hunger in the world (FAO et al. 2021; Schoch and Lakner 2020). Many poor and undernourished people live in rural areas and engage in small-scale agriculture (Sibhatu et al. 2015). The agriculture of most rural farm households in SSA depends on small-scale crop and livestock production systems (Haile et al. 2017). Common characteristics of their farming are low productivity, low adoption rates of improved technologies, and vulnerability to climate and price shocks (Otsuka and Muraoka 2017). Therefore, a sustainable African Green Revolution is necessary for rural small-scale farmers in the SSA to escape poverty and food insecurity.
The adoption of yield-enhancing technologies is necessary to improve land productivity. However, the global consensus is that just adopting modern technology, such as improved varieties and inorganic fertilizers, is not enough to improve the productivity and profitability of rural smallholder farming in SSA in the long-run (Peterson and Snapp 2015; Pingali 2012). One reason for this is soil degradation. Soil degradation is a great challenge, especially in SSA, because increasing population pressure on land leads to a reduction in fallows and more continuous farming, which, in turn, depletes soil nutrients (Drechsel et al. 2001; Tittonell and Giller 2013). Using data from western Kenya, Marenya and Barrett (2009) empirically demonstrate that maize yield response to nitrogen fertilizer application is low when soil organic matter (SOM) is low. The low response rate to nitrogen application results in low profitability from the use of inorganic fertilizer (Burke et al. 2019). Therefore, it is important to replenish soil nutrients and maintain soil fertility in smallholder farmlands to achieve a high yield response rate and profitability of inorganic fertilizer application.
Moreover, climate change is likely to harm productivity and exacerbate the volatility of smallholder farming in SSA, where cropping mostly depends on rainwater. It is estimated that temperature rise, variable rainfall, and frequent dry spells caused by climate change may result in a 10–20% decrease in crop yield by 2050 in most tropical and subtropical regions of SSA (Jones and Thornton 2009). Moreover, climate change may also bring new pests and crop diseases (IPCC 2014). Thus, adaptive strategies are necessary to minimize the damage caused by climate change.
Integrated farming management practices, composed of multiple agricultural technologies and management practices, have been gaining attention and are recommended by national and international organizations to address the abovementioned issues (FAO 2015; Takahashi et al. 2020). These technologies include modern yield-enhancing technologies, such as improved varieties and inorganic fertilizers, and natural resource-conserving technologies, such as organic fertilizers, legume intercropping or rotation, minimum tillage, permanent soil cover by crop residues, and soil and water management. These are expected to improve land productivity and farming sustainability while minimizing environmental damage. A growing body of literature focusing on the impacts and adoption determinants of integrated farming management practices has emerged in the last 5Â years. In this study, we first aim to elucidate how we could diffuse these technologies and practices in SSA by examining the adoption determinants found in the literature. Subsequently, we attempt to determine the effects of these factors on farm productivity, income, and food security by reviewing recent empirical studies. Thus, this study clarifies how we can promote optimum integrated farming management practices among rural small-scale farmers in SSA.
2 What Are Integrated Farming Management Practices?
Integrated farming management practices aim to improve land productivity and profitability in the long run without deteriorating the local environment. These types of integrated farming management practices, which are sustainable (agricultural) intensification (practices) (SI), integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), climate-smart agriculture (CSA), and conservation agriculture (CA).
SI could be defined as the process of raising land productivity without adverse environmental impacts (Pretty et al. 2011; The Montpellier Panel 2013). SI has five main domains: productivity, economic sustainability, human well-being, environmental sustainability, and social sustainability (Petersen and Snapp 2015; Smith et al. 2017). Although SI does not refer to a specific set of agricultural inputs or management practices (Kim et al. 2021), it usually consists of yield-enhancing technologies, such as improved seeds and inorganic fertilizers, and resource-conserving technologies, such as legume intercropping or rotation, use of organic fertilizers and crop residues, and minimum tillage (Manda et al. 2016; Pretty et al. 2011). The components of SI vary depending on local contexts and individual farmers’ preferences (Kassie et al. 2013).
Although ISFM is pretty similar to farm management practices with SI, it focuses more on soil management. ISFM utilizes inherent soil nutrient stocks, locally-available soil amendments, and modern technologies, such as chemical fertilizers and improved seeds, to enhance crop yield while maintaining soil fertility (Vanlauwe et al. 2015).
CSA is an approach similar to SI, but it is a more adaptive strategy against climate change. CSA generally has three goals: (1) enhancement of productivity, (2) adaptation and building resilience to climate change, and (3) reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (FAO 2017; Lipper et al. 2014). It also has components similar to SI, and the components change depending on the local context. Amadu et al. (2020) classified farm-level CSA practices into six categories, organized from least to most resource-intensive: (1) residue addition or application to soil, (2) non-woody plant cultivation, (3) assisted regeneration, (4) woody plant cultivation, (5) physical infrastructure, and (6) mixed measures.
CA is an approach similar to CSA. It achieves long-term productivity and environmental benefits by adopting three approaches: (1) minimum tillage, (2) permanent soil cover by crop residues, and (3) crop rotation (FAO 2022).
In the remainder of this section, common technologies and integrated farming management practices, such as SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA, are introduced.
2.1 Improved Seeds
The diffusion of improved varieties is considered the most important means of boosting crop yield and improving the well-being of farmers in developing countries (Evenson and Gollin 2003). Previous studies have found that the adoption of improved crop varieties increases yield, crop and household income, consumption, and child nutrition (Bezu et al. 2014; Zeng et al. 2015, 2017). Adopting improved varieties is an important component of SI (Wainaina et al. 2018), ISFM (Horner and Wollni 2021), and CSA (Teklewold et al. 2019).
2.2 Inorganic Fertilizer
Inorganic fertilizer application is another important yield-enhancing technology in integrated farming management practices such as SI, ISFM, and CSA. The combined use of improved seeds and inorganic fertilizers is widely recommended in SI (Wainaina et al. 2018), ISFM (Horner and Wollni 2021), and CSA (Teklewold et al. 2019) because the use of inorganic fertilizers is necessary to gain the full yield potential of improved varieties. The joint use of improved seeds and inorganic fertilizers is the core of the Asian Green Revolution (Johnston and Cownie 1969).
2.3 Organic Fertilizers
Organic fertilizers usually include animal manure and composted crop residues and do not include crop residues retained on farmland (Scognammillo and Sitko 2021). They are expected to provide the soil with carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous and enhance water retention under low precipitation (Ngwira et al. 2014). A typical method to implement SI, ISFM, and CSA involves the simultaneous application of inorganic and organic fertilizers. Kajisa and Palanichamy (2011) use household panel data in India and empirically demonstrate that applying organic fertilizers improves the marginal product of inorganic fertilizers, especially in soils with low fertility.
2.4 Intercropping/Rotation with Legumes
Another common practice is intercropping or rotation with legumes. Legumes fix nitrogen from the air and supply it to the soil (Mhango et al. 2013). They can also enhance crop yield sustainably by reducing plant diseases, weeds (e.g., Striga), and insects and increasing soil carbon content (Hutchinson et al. 2007; Manda et al. 2016). Additionally, crop diversification through intercropping or legume rotation can reduce production and market risks (Rusinamhodzi et al. 2012). Amare et al. (2012) empirically show that maize–pigeon pea adoption significantly increased income and consumption using household data from Tanzania.
2.5 Zero or Minimum Tillage
Zero or minimum tillage is one of the core components of CA because conventional tillage may lower SOM, the density of microorganisms and fauna in the soil, and its water-holding ability, and increase susceptibility to erosion and evaporation from the soil surface (Montt and Luu 2020).
2.6 Permanent Soil Cover by Crop Residues
Permanent soil cover by crop residues improves soil fertility and moisture retention and increases SOM (Manda et al. 2016). It is often combined with minimum tillage to enhance soil aeration and fertility, carbon sequestration, and water-holding capacity (Hobbs et al. 2008). Rusinamhodzi et al. (2012) found that minimum tillage can positively affect light-textured soil in low-rainfall environments when combined with retaining crop residues.
3 Adoption Determinants of Integrated Farming Management Practices
Although national and international organizations have attempted to diffuse integrated farm management practices, their adoption rates remain low in SSA (Arslan et al. 2015; Kassie et al. 2013; Teklewold et al. 2013a). Empirical studies using SSA data find that assets, nonfarm income, age, education, gender, labor availability, experience, social capital and networks, social safety nets, access to extension services, markets and credits, physical characteristics of plots, and soil characteristics affect the adoption of SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA (Arslan et al. 2014; Ehiakpor et al. 2021; Kassie et al. 2013, 2015a; Manda et al. 2016; Matoke et al. 2019; Mutenje et al. 2019; Teklewold et al. 2013a, b, 2019; Zeweld et al. 2020).
Several studies have revealed that weather variability, such as erratic rainfall or drought, accelerates the adoption of drought-tolerant maize, maize-legume intercropping, minimum tillage, use of crop residue as soil cover, and soil and water conservation technologies, such as stone bunds (Arslan et al. 2014; Asfaw et al. 2016; Issahaku and Abdulai 2020; Mutenje et al. 2019). This suggests that farmers use these technologies as adaptive strategies to mitigate climate change risk.
Tenure security is another key determinant in adopting SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA technologies. It takes time to receive the return on investment in several soil-conserving technologies, such as using organic fertilizers, minimum tillage, and permanent soil cover by crop residues. Thus, farmers do not have an incentive to invest in these technologies if they are unsure whether they can use the plots in the future. Using data from Kenya, Nkomoki et al. (2018) found that farmers with customary land tenure had 17.4, 17.2, and 9.1% lower probabilities of adopting legume intercropping and agroforestry and planting basins, respectively, than those with statutory tenure.Footnote 1 Other studies also found that tenure security enhances the adoption of SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA technologies (Ehiakpor et al. 2021; Kamau et al. 2014; Kassie et al. 2013; Teklewold et al. 2013b, 2019).
Different technology attributes and farmers’ resource endowments result in different SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA technology adoption patterns. Adopting these technologies requires substantial labor, and it takes several years to realize their benefits (Jayne et al. 2019). For example, Schmidt et al. (2017) showed that soil and water conservation must be maintained for at least 7 years to significantly increase the value of production. Therefore, resource-rich farmers are more willing to make such investments than resource-poor farmers, who prioritize their immediate daily life needs (Jayne et al. 2019). Asfaw et al. (2016) stated that adopting crop residues as soil cover and organic fertilizers is characterized by low capital investments and high labor inputs, and results take time. On the other hand, inorganic fertilizers and improved seeds require high capital investments and low labor inputs but provide quick results. Thus, the difference in resource endowments and the needs of farmers are likely to result in different patterns of technology adoption.
4 Effects of Integrated Farming Management Practices
The actual effects of adopting these farming management practices are revealed only by empirical impact assessments using real data obtained from farmers’ fields. This section aims to clarify the effects of adopting these measures by reviewing recent empirical studies using micro-level data (household or plot level) of SSA countries.
Empirical studies indicate that returns, (i.e., including crop yields, household income, and food security), are maximized when yield-enhancing modern technologies (e.g., improved seeds and inorganic fertilizers), and resource-conserving technologies (e.g., organic fertilizers, legume intercropping, minimum tillage, and soil and water conservation technologies), are adopted jointly (Kim et al. 2019; Khonje et al. 2018; Manda et al. 2016; Marenya et al. 2020; Mutenje et al. 2019; Teklewold et al. 2019; Wainaina et al. 2018). The solo adoption of resource-conserving technologies does not always bring positive returns. For example, a global meta-analysis conducted by Pittelkow et al. (2015) using 5,463 paired observations from 610 studies shows that zero tillage reduces yield compared to conventional tillage. However, they also show that if zero tillage is implemented with two other CA practices (crop residue retention and crop rotation), its adverse impacts are minimized. Furthermore, Vanlauwe et al. (2014) argued that in addition to three CA practices (minimum tillage, permanent soil cover by crop residues, and crop rotation), inorganic fertilizers could enhance organic residue availability and crop yield in SSA.
Studies revealed that resource-conserving technologies can reduce yield variability when farmers encounter weather shocks. Kassie et al. (2015b) elucidated that the joint adoption of crop diversification and minimum tillage reduced the downside risk in the maize yield in Malawi. Similarly, Zeweld et al. (2020) demonstrated that farmers facing unpredictable rainfall could significantly enhance agricultural production by adopting soil and water conservation and organic fertilizers in Ethiopia. Furthermore, Maggio et al. (2021) showed that adopting organic fertilizers and maize-legume intercropping would positively affect crop production, especially under extremely high-temperature deviations in Uganda. These evidences indicate that adopting resource-conserving technologies could be an adaptive strategy to mitigate the effect of climate change on smallholders in SSA. However, Arslan et al. (2015) found that the positive effects of inorganic fertilizers are lower under false rainfall onsets, and the positive effects of improved seeds vanish under very high growing season temperatures, which indicates that solo adoption of yield-enhancing technologies is insufficient to mitigate negative climate shocks.
5 Toward a Sustainable African Green Revolution
Given the population growth, limits of arable land expansion in SSA, and ongoing climate change, integrated farming management practices (i.e., SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA), which aim to improve land productivity while conserving natural resources, are being widely promoted by national and international organizations to improve smallholders’ welfare and food security in SSA. This chapter attempts to elucidate adoption constraints and understand the actual effects of their adoption on farmers’ farmlands by reviewing recent empirical studies.
Empirical studies based on smallholder data in SSA indicate that farmers could realize the maximum benefits of integrated farming management practices by adopting yield-enhancing and resource-conserving technologies in combination rather than in isolation. These studies also demonstrate that integrated farming management practices could mitigate climate shocks. Since these management practices are knowledge- and management-intensive, farmers’ education and training through extension services are necessary to widely diffuse these practices among rural smallholders.
Farmers often need to wait several years to recover the investment benefits of integrated farming management practices. Therefore, land tenure security is important in incentivizing smallholders to make such long-term investments. Resource-rich farmers are more likely to make such investments than resource-poor farmers, who need to maintain their subsistence. Thus, access to credit should be guaranteed to make the adoption of these farming practices affordable even for the poorest farmers (Asfaw et al. 2016). Access to input and output markets should be developed to enable smallholders to obtain necessary inputs, such as improved seeds and inorganic and organic fertilizers, and sell their outputs.
It is important to understand that integrated farming management practices, such as SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA, are location-specific technologies, given the heterogeneity in soil, agroecological, input and output prices, and market conditions in various places. Hence, optimum integrated farming management practices should be developed and adjusted according to local situations and resource endowments. We expect that the productivity and profitability of integrated farming management practices could be further enhanced by investing in research and development, which would lead to a sustainable African Green Revolution in SSA.
Finally, we would like to point out that the available evidence is generally limited to the impact of integrated farming management practices on yield and income (Takahashi et al. 2020). Very few studies have analyzed profitability. This is problematic because complex knowledge-intensive technologies, such as SI, ISFM, CSA, and CA, which require care and judgment, are mainly performed by family labor. Although it is challenging to estimate profit because of the difficulty in imputing family labor costs, more research is needed to assess the profitability of new technologies. This is essential to determine their viability and scalability.
Recollections of Professor Keijiro Otsuka
I first met Professor Kejiro Otsuka in 2015 in a microeconomics class at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS). He then guided my dissertation while doing my Ph.D. studies at Michigan State University and supervised me while I was a postdoc in GRIPS. He guided me on the possibility of the Green Revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa with various micro-empirical research. His diligence and enthusiasm in his research on development economics to make the world a better place have greatly impacted me. It showed me how an empirical economist should be. I am honored and delighted to be his student and be part of the Festschrift to celebrate his tremendous accomplishments.
Notes
- 1.
Customary land belongs to traditional rulers (chiefs) in the community and its use rights are provided to villagers (Nkomoki et al. 2018). Since it has not received formal consent, there is no land tenure security. On the other hand, statutory land tenure secures exclusive ownership and protects from eviction by land title deed documents that guarantee full property rights on the land (Nkomoki et al. 2018).
References
Amadu FO, McNamara PE, Miller DC (2020) Understanding the adoption of climate-smart agriculture: a farm-level typology with empirical evidence from southern Malawi. World Dev 126:104692
Amare M, Asfaw S, Shiferaw B (2012) Welfare impacts of maize-pigeonpea intensification in Tanzania. Agric Econ 43(1):27–43
Arslan A, McCarthy N, Lipper L, Asfaw S, Cattaneo A (2014) Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agric Ecosyst Environ 187:72–86
Arslan A, McCarthy N, Lipper L, Asfaw S, Cattaneo A, Kokwe M (2015) Climate smart agriculture? Assessing the adaptation implications in Zambia. J Agric Econ 66(3):753–780
Asfaw S, Di Battista F, Lipper L (2016) Agricultural technology adoption under climate change in the Sahel: micro-evidence from Niger. J Afr Econ 25(5):637–669
Bezu S, Kassie GT, Shiferaw B, Ricker-Gilbert J (2014) Impact of improved maize adoption on welfare of farm households in Malawi: a panel data analysis. World Dev 59:120–131
Burke WJ, Frossard E, Kabwe S, Jayne TS (2019) Understanding fertilizer adoption and effectiveness on maize in Zambia. Food Policy 86:101721
Drechsel P, Gyiele L, Kunze D, Cofie O (2001) Population density, soil nutrient depletion, and economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Ecol Econ 38(2):251–258
Ehiakpor DS, Danso-Abbeam G, Mubashiru Y (2021) Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices among smallholder farmers in Ghana. Land Use Policy 101:105142
Evenson RE, Gollin D (eds) (2003) Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity: the impact of international agricultural research. CABI, Wallingford
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2015) The state of food insecurity in the world 2015—meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. FAO, Rome
FAO (2017) Climate-smart agriculture sourcebook summary, 2nd edn. FAO, Rome
FAO (2022) Conservation agriculture. https://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture/en/
FAO, IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development), UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund), WFP (United Nations World Food Programme), WHO (World Health Organization) (2021) The state of food security and nutrition in the world 2021: transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all. FAO, Rome
Haile B, Azzarri C, Roberts C, Spielman DJ (2017) Targeting, bias, and expected impact of complex innovations on developing-country agriculture: evidence from Malawi. Agric Econ 48(3):317–326
Hobbs PR, Sayre K, Gupta R (2008) The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:543–555
Horner D, Wollni M (2021) Integrated soil fertility management and household welfare in Ethiopia. Food Policy 100:102022
Hutchinson JJ, Campbell CA, Desjardins RL (2007) Some perspectives on carbon sequestration in agriculture. Agric For Meteorol 142(2):288–302
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability—technical summary. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
Issahaku G, Abdulai A (2020) Can farm households improve food and nutrition security through adoption of climate-smart practices? Empirical evidence from Northern Ghana. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 42(3):559–579
Jayne TS, Snapp S, Place F, Sitko N (2019) Sustainable agricultural intensification in an era of rural transformation in Africa. Glob Food Sec 20:105–113
Johnston BF, Cownie J (1969) The seed-fertilizer revolution and labor force absorption. Am Econ Rev 59(4):569–582. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1813218
Jones PG, Thornton PK (2009) Croppers to livestock keepers: livelihood transitions to 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environ Sci Policy 12(4):427–437
Kajisa K, Palanichamy NV (2011) Potential and limitation of an organic fertilizer-based development strategy: evidence from Tamil Nadu, India, from 1993 to 2003. Agric Econ 42(6):715–725
Kamau M, Smale M, Mutua M (2014) Farmer demand for soil fertility management practices in Kenya’s grain basket. Food Sec 6(6):793–806
Kassie M, Jaleta M, Shiferaw B, Mmbando F, Mekuria M (2013) Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder systems: evidence from rural Tanzania. Technol Forecast Soc Change 80(3):525–540
Kassie M, Teklewold H, Jaleta M, Marenya P, Erenstein O (2015a) Understanding the adoption of a portfolio of sustainable intensification practices in eastern and southern Africa. Land Use Policy 42:400–411
Kassie M, Teklewold H, Marenya P, Jaleta M, Erenstein O (2015b) Production risks and food security under alternative technology choices in Malawi: application of a multinomial endogenous switching regression. J Agric Econ 66(3):640–659
Khonje MG, Manda J, Mkandawire P, Tufa AH, Alene AD (2018) Adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agricultural technologies: evidence from eastern Zambia. Agric Econ 49(5):599–609
Kim J, Mason NM, Snapp S, Wu F (2019) Does sustainable intensification of maize production enhance child nutrition? Evidence from Rural Tanzania. Agric Econ 50(6):723–734
Kim J, Mason NM, Mather D, Wu F (2021) The effects of the national agricultural input voucher scheme (NAIVS) on sustainable intensification of maize production in Tanzania. J Agric Econ 72(3):857–877
Lipper L, Thornton P, Campbell BM, Baedeker T, Braimoh A, Bwalya M, Caron P, Cattaneo A, Garrity D, Henry K, Hottle R, Jackson L, Jarvis A, Kossam F, Mann W, McCarthy N, Meybeck A, Neufeldt H, Remington T, Sen PT, Sessa R, Shula R, Tibu A, Torquebiau EF (2014) Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat Clim Chang 4(12):1068–1072
Maggio G, Mastrorillo M, Sitko NJ (2021) Adapting to high temperatures: effect of farm practices and their adoption duration on total value of crop production in Uganda. Am J Agric Econ 104(1):385–403
Makate C, Matoke M, mango N, Siziba S (2019) Increasing resilience of smallholder farmers to climate change through multiple adoption of proven climate-smart agriculture innovations. Lessons from Southern Africa. J Environ Manag 231:858–868
Manda J, Alene AD, Gardebroek C, Kassie M, Tembo G (2016) Adoption and impacts of sustainable agricultural practices on maize yields and incomes: evidence from rural Zambia. J Agric Econ 67(1):130–153
Marenya PP, Barrett CB (2009) State-conditional fertilizer yield response on Western Kenyan farms. Am J Agric Econ 91(4):991–1006
Marenya PP, Gebremariam G, Jaleta M, Rahut DB (2020) Sustainable intensification among smallholder maize farmers in Ethiopia: adoption and impacts under rainfall and unobserved heterogeneity. Food Policy 95:101941
Mhango WG, Snapp SS, Phiri GYK (2013) Opportunities and constraints to legume diversification for sustainable maize production on smallholder farms in Malawi. Renew Agric Food Syst 28(3):234–244
Montt G, Luu T (2020) Does conservation agriculture change labour requirements? Evidence of sustainable intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa. J Agric Econ 71(2):556–580
Mutenje MJ, Farnworth CR, Stirling C, Thierfelder C, Mupangwa W, Nyagumbo I (2019) A cost-benefit analysis of climate-smart agriculture options in Southern Africa: balancing gender and technology. Ecol Econ 163:126–137
Ngwira A, Johnsen FH, Aune JB, Mekuria M, Thierfelder C (2014) Adoption and extent of conservation agriculture practices among smallholder farmers in Malawi. J Soil Water Conserv 69(2):107–119
Nkomoki W, Bavorová M, Banout J (2018) Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and food security threats: effects of land tenure in Zambia. Land Use Policy 78:532–538
Otsuka K, Muraoka R (2017) A green revolution for Sub-Saharan Africa: past failures and future prospects. J Afr Econ 26(suppl_1):i73–i98
Petersen B, Snapp S (2015) What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts. Land Use Policy 46:1–10
Pingali PL (2012) Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(31):12302–12308
Pittelkow CM, Liang X, Linquist BA, van Groenigen KJ, Lee J, Lundy ME, van Gestel N, Six J, Venterea RT, van Kessel C (2015) Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517(7534):365–368
Pretty J, Toulmin C, Williams S (2011) Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int J Agric Sustain 9(1):5–24
Rusinamhodzi L, Corbeels M, Nyamangara J, Giller KE (2012) Maize–grain legume intercropping is an attractive option for ecological intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central Mozambique. Field Crops Res 136:12–22
Schmidt E, Chinowsky P, Robinson S, Strzepek K (2017) Determinants and impact of sustainable land management (SLM) investments: a systems evaluation in the Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Agric Econ 48(5):613–627
Schoch M, Lakner C (2020) The number of poor people continues to rise in Sub-Saharan Africa, despite a slow decline in the poverty rate. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/number-poor-people-continues-rise-sub-saharan-africa-despite-slow-decline-poverty-rate
Scognamillo A, Sitko NJ (2021) Leveraging social protection to advance climate-smart agriculture: an empirical analysis of the impacts of Malawi’s Social Action Fund (MASAF) on farmers’ adoption decisions and welfare outcomes. World Dev 146:105618
Sibhatu KT, Krishna VV, Qaim M (2015) Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallholder farm households. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(34):10657–10662
Smith A, Snapp S, Chikowo R, Thorne P, Bekunda M, Glover J (2017) Measuring sustainable intensification in smallholder agroecosystems: a review. Glob Food Secur 12:127–138
Takahashi K, Muraoka R, Otsuka K (2020) Technology adoption, impact, and extension in developing countries’ agriculture: a review of the recent literature. Agric Econ 51(1):31–45
Teklewold H, Kassie M, Shiferaw B (2013a) Adoption of multiple sustainable agricultural practices in rural Ethiopia. J Agric Econ 64(3):597–623
Teklewold H, Kassie M, Shiferaw B, Köhlin G (2013b) Cropping system diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed adoption in Ethiopia: impacts on household income, agrochemical use and demand for labor. Ecol Econ 93:85–93
Teklewold H, Gebrehiwot T, Bezabih M (2019) Climate smart agricultural practices and gender differentiated nutrition outcome: an empirical evidence from Ethiopia. World Dev 122:38–53
The Montpellier Panel (2013) Sustainable intensification: a new paradigm for African agriculture. The Montpellier Panel, London. https://ag4impact.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Montpellier-Panel-Report-2013-Sustainable-Intensification-A-New-Paradigm-for-African-Agriculture-1.pdf
Tittonell P, Giller KE (2013) When yield gaps are poverty traps: the paradigm of ecological intensification in African smallholder agriculture. Field Crops Res 143:76–90
Vanlauwe B, Wendt J, Giller KE, Corbeels M, Gerard B, Nolte C (2014) A fourth principle is required to define conservation agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa: the appropriate use of fertilizer to enhance crop productivity. Field Crops Res 155:10–13
Vanlauwe B, Descheemaeker K, Giller KE, Huising J, Merckx R, Nziguheba G, Wendt J, Zingore S (2015) Integrated soil fertility management in sub-Saharan Africa: unraveling local adaptation. Soil 1(1):491–508
Wainaina P, Tongruksawattana S, Qaim M (2018) Synergies between different types of agricultural technologies in the Kenyan small farm sector. J Dev Stud 54(11):1974–1990
Zeng D, Alwang J, Norton GW, Shiferaw B, Jaleta M, Yirga C (2015) Ex post impacts of improved maize varieties on poverty in rural Ethiopia. Agric Econ 46(4):515–526
Zeng D, Alwang J, Norton GW, Shiferaw B, Jaleta M, Yirga C (2017) Agricultural technology adoption and child nutrition enhancement: improved maize varieties in rural Ethiopia. Agric Econ 48(5):573–586
Zeweld W, Van Huylenbroeck G, Tesfay G, Azadi H, Speelman S (2020) Sustainable agricultural practices, environmental risk mitigation and livelihood improvements: empirical evidence from Northern Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 95:103799
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Muraoka, R. (2023). Integrated Farming Management Practices in Sub-Saharan Africa: Toward a Sustainable African Green Revolution. In: Estudillo, J.P., Kijima, Y., Sonobe, T. (eds) Agricultural Development in Asia and Africa. Emerging-Economy State and International Policy Studies. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5542-6_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5542-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-19-5541-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-19-5542-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)