Multi-criteria analysis of adoption paths for fertiliser resource optimisation technologies

Agriculture in the 21st century faces the challenge of finding the balance needed to mitigate the evolving constraints of climate change while continuing to perform its functions. In Senegal, agricultural sector policy has been adjusted to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers by 30%. This policy is in line with the path of agricultural intensification, through microdosing technology, recommended for farms with low financial capacity. However, beyond the control of fertilizing resources, microdosing technology incorporates costs such as extra workload, drudgery and know-how, which have a strong influence on the choice of adoption. Indeed, the acceptability of an innovation depends on two factors, namely perceived usefulness and ease of use. Before introducing a new technology, it is therefore necessary to study its suitability for users' adoption or rejection criteria. With this in mind, this study uses a multi-criteria evaluation approach to analyze the adoption pathways for fertilizer resource optimization technologies. The study was carried out on millet in the 2020 and 2021 rainy season, comparing microdosing with current farming practice and the practice popularized in the Senegal cotton basin. Analysis according to the criteria of usefulness (profitability and economic autonomy) and ease of use (arduousness and work time) revealed three major results. It showed that the common farming practice, although it has no constraints on use, is not profitable and does not enable producers to be self-sufficient. The analysis also showed that the extension practice is not arduous, does not consume much labour time, and is also profitable. However, in an environment without input subsidies (currently at 50% for fertilisers), this practice does not empower farmers. With this practice, the State will always be obliged to bear part of the cost of inputs to relieve producers who consume more resources than they produce. The practice of optimising resources, using only 40% of the recommended doses of manure and fertiliser through microdose technology, is profitable and enables producers to be self-sufficient even in an environment without subsidies. This technology therefore relieves the State of the cost of fertiliser subsidies over the long term, as it produces more than it consumes in inputs, with a moderately high cost in terms of labour time. This is the main constraint on the adoption of this high- performance fertiliser optimisation technology. Fertiliser optimisation technology could therefore be a lever to enable agriculture to find the balance needed to adapt to climate change while making a significant contribution to mitigating its effects. But first, it will be necessary to overcome the labour-intensive nature of manual microdosing technology, which will certainly need to be adapted for better use, after appropriate mechanisation.