evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Likoti Pit-Planting Conservation Agriculture — Growing Nations, Lesotho

Lesotho · Qacha's Nek · See the Lesotho profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 76% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Introduced in 2002 by the NGO Growing Nations, Lesotho's likoti no-till pit-planting method reversed decades of maize yield decline; a 229-farmer survey found adopters profitable in areas where conventional ploughers lost money.

229 farmers
Farmers in monitored likoti-vs-conventional comparison
1,400 kg/ha
Maize yield, mid-1970s (mid-1970s)
450-500 kg/ha
Maize yield, 2010s (2010s)
~2x
Butha-Buthe likoti-adopter profit vs draught-animal ploughing
~4x
Butha-Buthe likoti-adopter profit vs tractor ploughing
Likoti Pit-Planting Conservation Agriculture — Growing Nations, Lesotho

Details

Maturity
Scaling
Promoter
Growing Nations, with FAO, German Red Cross and WFP support
Period
2002-present
Keywords
agriculture, soil erosion control, smallholder farming, food security

Context

Lesotho's mountainous terrain and decades of ox-drawn ploughing drove severe soil erosion and a steep decline in maize productivity, from roughly 1,400 kg/ha in the mid-1970s to about 450-500 kg/ha by the 2010s.

Objectives

In 2002 the NGO Growing Nations introduced likoti, a conservation-agriculture pit-planting technique, to reverse this decline without relying on full-field tillage.

Activities

Farmers dig planting pits roughly 15x30 cm in a 75x75 cm grid, add fertiliser and seed, and retain crop residues as mulch, combining the method with crop rotation or intercropping.

Results

A monitored FAO-reported comparison of 229 farmers (117 practising likoti, 112 farming conventionally) found likoti adopters in Qacha's Nek profitable in a season when conventional ploughers made a loss, and in Butha-Buthe likoti adopters' average profit was roughly double that of draught-animal ploughing farmers and nearly four times that of tractor-ploughing farmers.

Conclusions

Uptake has since extended with support from the German Red Cross, FAO and the World Food Programme, but adoption remains at the scale of thousands of farmers rather than a majority of Lesotho's smallholders, and academic surveys find uneven uptake gradients around Maseru.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Growing Nations (NGO) field extension staff, smallholder farmer adopters, German Red Cross, FAO and World Food Programme extension partners

Conditions for success

  • continued extension support to spread uptake beyond early-adopting communities
  • combining pit-planting with crop rotation/intercropping and mulching rather than tillage alone

Common failure modes

  • adoption remains uneven between the wetter lowlands and harsher highlands
  • uptake stays at the scale of thousands of farmers rather than a majority of Lesotho's smallholders without ongoing extension

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful