The Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Agriculture in Africa

369 Pages·2015·10.12 MB·English

by  Shira Efron

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
of the RAND Corporation.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND
TRANSPORTATION
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
LAW AND BUSINESS Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
Support RAND
PUBLIC SAFETY
Browse Reports & Bookstore
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Make a charitable contribution
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore the Pardee RAND Graduate School
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing
later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-
commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is
prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from
RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For
information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS) dissertation series.
PRGS dissertations are produced by graduate fellows of the Pardee RAND Graduate
School, the world’s leading producer of Ph.D.’s in policy analysis. The dissertation has
been supervised, reviewed, and approved by the graduate fellow’s faculty committee.
Dissertation
The Use of Unmanned
Aerial Systems for
Agriculture in Africa
Can It Fly?
Shira Efron
CORPORATION
Dissertation
The Use of Unmanned
Aerial Systems for
Agriculture in Africa
Can It Fly?
Shira Efron
This document was submitted as a dissertation in August 2015 in
partial fulfillment of the requirements of the doctoral degree in public
policy analysis at the Pardee RAND Graduate School. The faculty
committee that supervised and approved the dissertation consisted of
Jeanne Ringel (Chair), Dave Baiocchi, and Brien Alkire.
PARDEE RAND GRADUATE SCHOOL
The Pardee RAND Graduate School dissertation series reproduces dissertations that
have been approved by the student’s dissertation committee.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and
decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
R
® is a registered trademark.
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered
and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized
posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are
protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please
visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/permissions.html).
Published 2015 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: [phone];
Fax: [phone]; Email: [email protected]
Executive Summary
I. Research Objectives
Food insecurity in Africa is an imminent threat. Currently, 240 million people in Sub‐Saharan Africa—one 
person in every four—lack adequate food.i Higher temperatures and lower rainfall in parts of Africa, 
combined with a doubling of the population, are projected to increase food insecurity in the continent 
by 43 percent by 2030.ii Despite accelerated globalization, local agricultural production in Africa remains 
critical to both food security and economic development among the rural poor, and increasing 
agricultural productivity remains an enormous challenge. Research suggests that at least a doubling of 
agricultural yields is required over the coming decades in economies where, as is the case in Sub‐
Saharan Africa, a majority of the population depends on smallholder farming. Moreover, the agricultural 
expansion required to feed a growing population is expected to have detrimental environmental 
impacts.iii Already, farming input use and irresponsible agricultural practices are harmful, and trade off 
short‐term agricultural gains against reduced potential for food production. As a result, food security is 
threatened, over the longer term. 
Policymakers are looking for new technologies to boost agricultural yields in Africa in more efficient and 
environmentally sustainable ways. Unmanned aerial systems (UAS), commonly known for their military 
uses, offer promise. In this interdisciplinary study, I investigate if and how UAS technology might 
improve agricultural output in Africa. Further, I identify drivers and barriers to agricultural UAS adoption, 
assess which countries in Africa are most and least likely to adopt the technology, and suggest steps that 
policy‐makers can take to overcome barriers and promote UAS agricultural use. 
II. Research Questions and Approach
The study addressed three broad research questions. 
1. Can UASs add value to agriculture in Africa? 
2. What non‐technical factors are likely to influence UAS adoption in African agriculture? 
3. Which countries in Africa are most likely to successfully adopt agricultural UAS technology? 
I used a mixed‐method approach to answer these research questions, following a five‐phase research 
plan (Figure ES.1). 
  iii
Figure ES.1. Research Plan
UAS Technology
Agricultural UAS
Applications 
Matching and Adoption Feasibility Policy
Assessment  Analysis  Recommendations
Agricultural
Challenges in Africa 
Growing Food
Insecurity

In order to meet the research objectives, I first conducted comprehensive literature reviews and 
consulted subject matter experts (SMEs) with the aim of mapping out the agricultural UAS landscape 
and identifying agricultural challenges in Africa. My findings in this initial step guided the selection of 
two prominent agricultural insect/pest problems that could potentially be mitigated through the use of 
UAS technology: the Tsetse Fly and the Red‐Billed Quelea. Both of these pests are endemic to Africa and 
are associated with tremendous agricultural and economic losses in the continent. After assessing the 
technical feasibility of using UAS to mitigate pest damage (e.g.), I conducted a field study in Kenya, in 
order to add context to the theoretical analysis and gain the perspectives of stakeholders in Africa who 
are likely to be involved in agricultural UAS adoption, should such take place. 
Subsequently, I turned toward a more strategic view, seeking to assess the overall feasibility of 
agricultural UAS adoption across Africa. I developed a framework that considers all important aspects of 
this issue: national wealth, innovation capacity, technical literacy of the workforce, governance and 
institutions, and public acceptance. I then used this framework to detect variation among 36 countries 
in Africa in the likelihood that they successfully adopt agricultural UAS technology in the near future. 
III. Findings
3 4 5
UAS Meet the Requirements for Managing One of Africa’s Most Harmful Agricultural
Pests—the Tsetse Fly
Tsetse flies are vectors for the parasite Glossina palpalis gambiensis, which causes African animal 
trypanosomosis (AAT), one of the most devastating livestock diseases in sub‐Saharan Africa. Tsetse flies 
are estimated to transmit the often‐lethal parasite to some three million animalsiv in 37 countries across 
  iv
the continent each year. Costs associated with the Tsetse fly in terms of farmers’ livelihoods and 
increased food insecurity total more than $4.5 billion per annum.v 
One of the most effective and environmentally sustainable methods for eradicating Tsetse fly 
populations is the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT), in which masses of sterilized male flies are 
systematically released into infested areas, where they mate with wild females that then do not produce 
offspring, leading to the eventual elimination of Tsetse populations.vi 
Using a systems engineering and vignette analysis approach, I found that UAS offer clear advantages 
over the manned aircraft currently used in SIT programs, including lower fixed and operational costs, 
reduced environmental burden, and enhanced safety. Considering the payload weight requirement of 
the sterilized fly release machine and the flies (140 lb.) and line of sight (LOS) communications range 
limitations, the UAS classes found most compatible for this mission are either vertical take‐off and 
landing (VTOL) or medium altitude, long endurance (MALE). 
UAS May Also Be Effective in Managing the Red-Billed Quelea Bird
The Quelea is the most abundant wild bird species in the world,vii with an adult breeding population 
estimated at 1.5–5 billion pairs,viii and a native range that extends over some six million square miles in 
Africa. The birds are a significant menace to subsistence farmers, causing over $80 million per annumix in 
economic losses and directly exacerbating food insecurityx, and certainly a hazard to commercial 
farmers. Traditionally, two strategies are used in Quelea‐control: (1) scaring them away using projectiles 
or noises and (2) lethal methods like dynamite or pesticides. 
My analysis found that UAS can potentially support both strategies. Interviews with SMEs in the areas of 
Quelea‐control and UAS indicated that this technology can supplant manned aircraft in chemical 
spraying of flocks, or help survey roosts and breeding colonies in preparation for lethal control methods. 
In addition, a UAS airframe designed to look like a Quelea predator and emitting both predator and 
Quelea‐specific distress sounds can potentially replace human labor to deter birds from farmland. 
Looking beyond these two specific examples, my research identified several non‐technical factors that 
policy‐makers should consider when evaluating initiatives to adopt UAS technology (Table ES.1). 
These findings are based on the field study that I conducted in Kenya that surveyed and interviewed 
multiple stakeholders (159 smallholder farmers, 14 NGO staff members and five Government officials.) 
Stakeholders helped identify potential drivers and barriers of using UAS to improve agricultural 
outcomes in Africa. 
  v
Table ES.1. Drivers and Barriers That Are Likely to Affect Adoption of Agricultural UAS across
Africa
Drivers Barriers
Severity of the problem Imperfect mission fit
Lack of effective, acceptable solutions Cost
Interest in innovative, mechanized methods Technical feasibility (undeveloped infrastructure,
technical illiteracy)
Multipurpose nature of solution (UAS for pest management Security issues
and remote sensing)
Support from strong stakeholders Privacy concerns
Ability of UAS to draw youth into agriculture Legal restrictions (and politics)

Recognizing that these drivers and barriers exist, I created a framework that decisionmakers can use to 
assess the feasibility of adopting agricultural UAS across Africa. The framework assesses likelihood 
along five separate dimensions: innovative capacity, technical literacy, affordability, institutional 
capacity, and cultural acceptance). 
The framework offers a useful lens through which policy‐makers can examine the feasibility of 
implementing UAS‐based agricultural programs throughout the continent. Its benefits in particular 
include: 
 It is comprehensive and modular. The comprehensiveness of the framework, combined with its 
modularity and versatility, allows for different levels of analyses, from assessment along a single 
dimension; a partial analysis, integrating only a few of the four dimensions; or a holistic one, 
incorporating all dimensions. The decision about which dimensions should be used to assess the 
likelihood of adoption is context‐dependent, and depends on the objectives of the framework’s 
users. 
 It is a useful tool for policymakers. Policymakers interested in examining the feasibility of 
adopting UAS for agriculture in Africa can use this tool for a ‘quick and dirty’ analysis on which 
country in Africa is currently most ripe for the technology. Alternatively, this tool can be used for 
examining how a specific country is influenced by multiple dimensions. The latter type of 
analysis can help identify the presence and scale of barriers, and accordingly prioritize the areas 
in which they should focus efforts to improve the likelihood of successful UAS adoption. For 
example, Burundi is ranked low along two dimensions—35th in affordability and 33rd in 
institutional feasibility. It is ranked around the middle in technical feasibility (19th), and in the 
top third of cultural feasibility (12th). Thus, policymakers interested in promoting the technology 
in Burundi should focus efforts on the dimensions that may hinder adoption, and not devote 
valuable resources to campaigns on dimensions where adoption seems more likely—for 
example, in the case of Burundi, on cultural acceptance. 
 It is quantitative, simple, and promotes transparency. To ensure the transparency and 
simplicity of the framework, I assigned quantitative metrics to each dimension that allowed for 
ranking of the 36 countries, from the country most likely to successfully adopt the technology to 
the least likely to do so (Table ES.2). These metrics include commonly‐used indicators (e.g., GDP 
  vi
per capita, tertiary education) and innovative ones (modified Global Innovation Index, Ibrahim 
Index of African Governance, Hofstede’s Dimensions of National Culture). 
 It is agile and can be used for examining other technologies. Different from existing technology 
adoption frameworks, this tool also considers the cultural acceptance dimension, which is 
particularly relevant for controversial technologies such as UAS. Inclusion of cultural acceptance 
makes this framework useful for analyzing the feasibility of adopting other stigmatized 
technologies, either in agriculture, e.g., genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or other dual‐
use technologies, e.g., nuclear energy. 
Based on this framework, I identified the top countries that are most ripe to successfully adopt 
agricultural UAS: South Africa, Mauritius, Seychelles, Botswana, Namibia and Cabo Verde. The six 
countries least likely to be able to do so are: Togo, Guinea, Niger, Mozambique, Mali and Malawi. Using 
stoplight chart colors, I designed maps in ArcGIS that offer a visual representation and a first order 
assessment of this inter‐country variation, along both individual dimensions and combined (Figure ES.2). 

  vii