Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Malawi

(A Case Study of Salima District)

James Lewanika Mlamba (BSc., University of Malawi)

The thesis submitted to University College Dublin in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Agr) in Environmental

Resource Management

School of Agriculture, Food Science & Veterinary Medicine

Supervisor: Dr. John Fry

MSc. (Agr) Env. Res. Mgmt. November 2010

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. John Fry whose

advice and support during the course and to all the members of staff for their

instruction and guidance throughout the whole period of study.

I would also like to thank the Director of Land Resources Conservation

Department for nominating and having trust in me to pursue this course. To Dr.

E.P. Ching’amba of Lilongwe Agricultural Development Division in Malawi for the

provision of transport during data collection and Mr Mkuntha of Salima District

Agricultural Office for giving me a helping hand when the farmer interviews were

being conducted.

I am also grateful to my mum, brothers, and sisters for their love, encouragement

and the endurance for the entire period of my study. To all my friends for always

being there when I need them most and the good times we shared throughout the

year. Thanks

iii

Dedication

I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wonderful and loving wife, Setrida. In

pursuing of this course I had to leave the responsibility of taking care of our

daughter on her own and without her emotional support, encouragement, and

understanding I would not have possible to complete this study.

iv

Declaration

I declare that this is entirely my own work and has not been previously submitted

for any other qualification. Where material from other sources has been used it

has been referenced in full in the text, and all quotations from other work are

presented as such.

Signed: ____________________ Date: ____________________

v

Abstract

The agriculture sector in Malawi is facing a number of environmental challenges,

which include soil erosion, low soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient deficiency and

water shortage caused by drought (Munthali et al 2008). To counteract these

problems different technologies are being promoted among which is

Conservation Agriculture (CA). Despite the efforts being employed and benefits

that CA has over conventional land management practices the adoption still

remains. This study therefore was carried out to determine factors

affecting/restricting adoption of conservation agriculture and also to identify

challenges farmers are facing in the application of conservation agriculture and

draw recommendations that may help in the upscaling of the technology.

The study was carried out in Salima District in Malawi and it was chosen because

it is one of the areas where the CA technology is being promoted owing to its low

rainfall and high temperature conditions. Primary data were collected from a

sample of selected farmers through administration of a semi-structured

questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised closed- and open-ended questions.

An open-ended questionnaire was also used to support interviews with as many

of the Agricultural Extension Development Officers working in the selected EPAs

as was possible. Secondary data were obtained from published and unpublished

documents

Gender of the household head, membership to a farmer group and farmer

trainings were found to have significant impact on adoption and continued use of

CA technology. Level of income and first CA inputs acquisition method were

found to have significant impact on the retention the CA practice as those who

had higher income and made personal investment in the initial inputs were more

likely to continue with the CA technology than their counterparts who solely

depended on grants. Weed management, access to farm inputs and crop residue

management were the main challenges farmers were facing in the

implementation of CA.

vi

Based on these results it is therefore recommended that farmers should be

encouraged to make personal contributions to acquisition of initial CA inputs. This

can achieved through encouraging farmers to make group savings for the

purchase of inputs or giving them inputs on loan as opposed to grants. Farmers

should be encouraged to belong to farmer groups as this makes it possible to

reach them with agriculture extension messages and it acts as a platform for

farmers to exchange ideas and experiences. Farmer trainings should also be

emphasized.

The current study mainly focused on Individual and household factors, but there

is an obvious need for further research to be done to determine other biophysical,

policy and institutional factors that might be affecting the adoption of CA. It may

also be of paramount importance to carry out research on soil physical and

chemical properties dynamics under CA systems as the current information

available for Malawi is not adequate.

vii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................... ii

Dedication ...................................................................................................... iii

Declaration ..................................................................................................... iv

Abstract .......................................................................................................... v

Table of Contents .......................................................................................... vii

List of Tables .................................................................................................. x

List of Figures ................................................................................................. xi

Abbreviations ................................................................................................. xii

Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................... 1

1.1 Rationale of the Study .............................................................................. 3

1.2 Background to Malawi .............................................................................. 4

1.2.1 Malawi Soils .......................................................................................... 6

1.2.2 Malawi Population ................................................................................. 8

1.2.3 Distribution of land holding sizes ........................................................... 8

1.2.4 Soil erosion ............................................................................................ 9

1.2.5 Significance of Agriculture Sector to Malawi ........................................ 10

1.3 Objectives of the study ........................................................................... 11

Chapter Two: Literature Review ................................................................ 12

2.1. History of tillage and soil conservation in Malawi .................................. 12

2.1.1 Conventional Tillage in Malawi ............................................................ 14

2.2 Conservation Agriculture ........................................................................ 17

2.2.1 Principle of minimum soil disturbance ................................................. 18

viii

2.2.2 Principle of continuous soil cover ........................................................ 19

2.2.3 Principle of crop rotation ...................................................................... 21

Chapter Three: Research Site and Methodology ..................................... 22

3.1. Study area ............................................................................................. 22

3.2. Climate .................................................................................................. 23

3.3. Soil ........................................................................................................ 23

3.4. Data collection ....................................................................................... 24

3.5. Sampling Procedure for Survey ............................................................. 24

3.6. Data analysis and presentation ............................................................. 24

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion .................................................... 26

4.1. Demographic and Socio Economic Data ............................................... 26

4.1.1. Sex of the household head ................................................................. 26

4.1.2 Age ...................................................................................................... 27

4.1.3. Size of the Households....................................................................... 27

4.1.4 Education ............................................................................................ 28

4.1.5. Land Ownership and Size of the Gardens .......................................... 29

4.1.6. Level of Income .................................................................................. 30

4.2. Crops and Animal Production ................................................................ 32

4.2.1. Crops grown ....................................................................................... 32

4.2.2. Livestock ............................................................................................ 33

4.3. CA Message Dissemination .................................................................. 33

4.3.1. Farmer Groups ................................................................................... 33

4.3.2. Farmer contact with Extension Workers ............................................. 36

ix

4.3.3. Conservation Agriculture Awareness.................................................. 36

4.3.4. Farmer Training .................................................................................. 37

4.4. Input Acquisition Method ....................................................................... 39

4.5. Reasons for practicing CA ..................................................................... 40

4.7. Reasons for stopping practicing CA ...................................................... 42

4.8. Reasons for never adopting CA ............................................................ 43

4.9. Challenges being faced in implementation of CA .................................. 44

4.10. Reasons why CA is more rewarding ................................................... 46

4.11. CA promotion strategies ...................................................................... 47

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations .................................. 50

5.1 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 50

5.2 Recommendations ................................................................................. 52

References ................................................................................................... 55

Appendices................................................................................................... 63

x

List of Tables

Table 1: Distribution of suitable land by type of land-use by ADD and region ..... 10

Table 2: x2 analysis of sex of the household head and level of CA adoption ...... 27

Table 3: Age categories of the household head .................................................. 27

Table 4: Household size ..................................................................................... 28

Table 5: Level of education ................................................................................. 28

Table 6: Size of the Garden ................................................................................ 30

Table 7: Estimated level of Income of respondent farmers ................................. 31

Table 8: Crops grown by respondents in Salima District ..................................... 32

Table 9: Livestock Kept by Respondents ............................................................ 33

Table 10: Farmer Group Membership among Respondents ............................... 34

Table 11: X2 analysis of Farmer Group membership versus level of CA adoption

............................................................................................................................ 34

Table 12: Farmer Group Membership by Type ................................................... 35

Table 13: Reasons for not belonging to any Farmer Group ................................ 35

Table 14: Frequency of Extension Worker visits ................................................. 36

Table 15: Sources of awareness about CA ......................................................... 37

Table 16: Level of Farmer Training in CA ........................................................... 37

Table 17: Training topics in CA received ............................................................ 39

Table 18: Financial inputs for first inputs acquisition method (NB: number add up

to more than 100%) ............................................................................................ 40

Table 19: Reasons given for practicing CA ......................................................... 42

Table 20: Reasons given for stopping practicing CA .......................................... 43

Table 21: Reasons given for not adopting CA .................................................... 44

Table 22: Challenges being faced when implementing CA ................................. 45

Table 23: Reasons given as to why CA is more rewarding ................................. 47

Table 24: CA promotion strategies ...................................................................... 48

xi

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of Malawi Showing District and International boundaries ............... 5

Figure 2: Physiographic regions Map of Malawi.................................................... 6

Figure 3: Soil Unit Map of Malawi ......................................................................... 7

Figure 4: Young Conservation Agriculture maize crop plot mulched with crop

residues .............................................................................................................. 20

Figure 5: Map of Salima ADD showing Extension Planning Areas ..................... 22

Figure 6: Farmers engaged in CA crop residue management ............................ 38

xii

Abbreviations

ADD Agriculture Development Division (of the Ministry of Agriculture and

Food Security in Malawi) CA Conservation Agriculture CO2 Carbon dioxide CTIC US Conservation Technology Information Center EPA Extension Planning Area (of Ministry of Agriculture and Food

Security in Malawi) FAO Food and Agricultural Organization (of the United Nations) GDP Gross Domestic Product GoM Government of Malawi IMF International Monetary Fund MK Malawi Kwacha (currency) MoA Ministry of Agriculture (Malawi) MoAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (Malawi) NSO National Statistical Office (Malawi) SOM Soil Organic Matter SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists TLC Total LandCare (Malawi NGO) UN-REDD United Nations Collaborative Initiative on Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation WFP World Food Programme (of the UN)

1

Chapter One: Introduction

Agriculture is the single most important sector of Malawi’s economy as it employs

about 80% of the workforce, and contributes over 80% of foreign exchange

earnings. Most of all, it also contributes significantly to national and household

food security. However, agriculture in Malawi is characterised by low and

stagnant yields (IMF, 2007) and production of crops relies heavily on rainfall.

Crop production in Malawi is mainly dominated by maize and that is estimated to

cover 70% of the arable land. Maize is the main food crop, contributing to about

90% of the total area put to cereals (Sauer and Tchale 2006). Apart from maize,

Malawi also grows food crops such cassava, rice, millet, and sorghum, but on a

small scale. The country also grows some cash crops such as tobacco, tea,

coffee and sugarcane.

The agriculture sector in Malawi is facing some environmental challenges, which

include soil erosion, low soil organic matter (SOM), nutrient deficiency and water

shortage caused by drought (Munthali et al 2008). These challenges are

compounded by Malawi’s standard way of growing crops, which is associated

with making fresh ridges every season where the crops are planted. The

government has been advising farmers to make fresh ridges for a long time;

ridging is the method of land preparation whereby topsoil is scraped and

concentrated in a defined region to deliberately raise the seedbed above the

natural terrain. The process creates a loose and friable seedbed, and helps to

conserve soil and water (Materechera and Mloza-Banda 1997). Soil and water

conservation is achieved in two ways. Firstly the ridges act as barriers to surface

water movement and as such water is encouraged to accumulate along the

furrows thereby promoting infiltration. Secondly, loosening of the soil creates

more pore spaces that make it easy for water to move freely within the soil.

Despite having the mentioned advantages this method of land preparation has its

own challenges. The implement which is widely used in the construction of the

ridges is a hand hoe. With this implement land preparation can hardly go beyond

30 cm depth and, because the ridge making process is repeated each and every

2

season, a hard pan is created which impedes infiltration. Due to this, erosion is

encouraged as more water accumulates on the surface than the furrows can

contain. The other angle to the problem of erosion comes in because water

infiltration is high in the initial moments of precipitation, but with time the loosened

soil particles block the pore spaces, making it difficult for water to penetrate with

the result that surface runoff is encouraged. As runoff is moving it also carries

with it nutrients and this may result in reduced yields. The water that accumulates

in the furrows drains off nutrients from the ridges and as this water infiltrates the;

nutrients go down as well.

Continuous cultivation with little or no organic matter amendment is another

practice common in Malawi and other Sub-Saharan African countries. This

causes a reduction of organic matter in the soil and that is further compounded

by burning of biomass and crop residues (Makumba et al 2006). That has two

direct impacts on the soil. There is a loss of the organic matter which helps in the

formation of soil aggregates, improves soil structure and improves soil water

holding capacity. Secondly, the nutrients that were used in the production of the

biomass and crop residues are lost as well. The burning of crop residues is quite

surprising as most farmers in Malawi identify soil fertility constraints as their

primary challenge, because animal manure use is also limited as few farmers

own livestock (Snapp et al 2002). The long-term effect of reduced organic carbon

is on the cation exchange capacity of the soil and its ability to retain nutrients and

remain fertile (Makumba et al 2006).

It is against this background that alternative methods of crop production are being

promoted which enhance productivity while conserving soil and water. One such

technology is conservation agriculture (CA). CA which is defined as a system of

crop production based on the three principles of minimum soil disturbance,

continuous soil cover and crop rotation. The objectives of conservation farming

are to increase crop production, while at the same time protecting and enhancing

land resources on which production depends. It integrates ecological principles

with modern agricultural technologies (FAO, 2008).

3

Conservation agriculture also has economic benefits. Not incorporating the crop

residues and not tilling the soil for several years considerably increases the

organic matter content on the top layer. This provides a much greater

mobilisation of nutrients, permitting a significant reduction in fertilizer doses over

medium/ long term. It should be noted that fertilisation is one of the most

important crop inputs/expenses in the production situations and agrarian

systems. Studies have shown that more energy, time and money are saved in

conservation agriculture in comparison to the conventional techniques due to the

absence of tillage (García-Torres et al, 2002; Fowler and Rockstrom, 2001).

Despite having both economic and environmental benefits and the efforts being

put forward to promote it, adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi still

remains low. This makes it imperative to investigate factors that are affecting

adoption of the technology.

1.1 Rationale of the Study

Malawi regularly experiences great difficulties feeding its population (Williams,

2008). The problem is compounded by high population growth rate which stands

at 2.8% per annum (NSO, 2008). That means more land is being put to

agriculture to feed the growing population with the result that cultivated land are

exceeds that of land suitable for rain-fed agriculture at traditional level of

management (GoM, 1996).

Malawi also faces a number of environmental challenges, among which soil

erosion ranks number one. It has been estimated that the rate of erosion exceeds

20t/ha/year (Bishop, 1992). Despite the benefits that are associated with CA

there is still a level of low adoption of the technology hence this study was

intended to find out the underlying reasons for this low adoption. This study

therefore looks determine the major factors influencing farmers’ adoption of

conservation agriculture. It also identifies challenges being faced in the

application of the technology, in order to put forward a set of recommendations

that would enhance adoption.

4

1.2 Background to Malawi

Malawi is a small landlocked country located in southeast Africa. It is bordered by

Zambia to the northwest, Tanzania to the northeast and Mozambique on the east,

south and west. It is separated from Tanzania and Mozambique by Lake Malawi

(Figure 1). It has a total area of 118, 000km2, of which 20% is water. It lies

between 090 25’ and 170 08’ latitudes south of the Equator and 330 40’ and 350

55’ longitude East (Chilimba, 2001). The climate is semi-arid in the Shire valley

and some parts of the lakeshore plain, semi-arid to sub-humid on the medium

altitude plateau, and humid on the plateau itself.

Malawi has four main physiographic regions: the Highlands, Plateaux, the Rift

Valley Escarpment, and the Rift Valley Plain (figure 2). Highlands consist of

isolated mountains between 1,600-3,000 meters above sea level (masl); the

Plateaux lie at 1000 to 1600 masl with extensive gently undulating tracts in the

northern and central regions of the country; the Rift Valley Escarpment at 600-

1000 masl is a highly dissected zone with precipitous slopes; and the Rift Valley

Plain at 33 to 600 masl formed in large part by the deposition of material and

characterized by subdued relief and gentle slopes (Mloza-Banda and

Nanthambwe, 2010)

5

Figure 1: Map of Malawi Showing District and International boundaries (Source: Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008.)

6

Figure 2: Physiographic regions Map of Malawi (Source: Mloza-Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010)

1.2.1 Malawi Soils

In general, Malawi’s soils are predominated by three major soil types: the eutric

leptisols, the chromic levisols and the haplic lixisols of variable morphology with

localised areas of acrisols, cambisols, gleysols, phaezems, planosols and

vertisols. The eutric leptisols (Lpe) are commonly referred to as lithosols. They

are the most widespread of the lithosol group, and are the shallow stony soils

associated with steep slopes. These occur in all areas of broken relief covering

an estimated area of 2,243,390 ha. The chromic luvisols (LVx) are referred to as

latosols. They are red-yellow soils that include the ferruginous soils of Lilongwe

plain and some parts of the southern region, and are among the best agricultural

soils in the country. These soils are generally of good structure and are normally

deep and well drained, but they also include the weathered ferrallitic (plateau or

sandveld) soils (some with a high lateritic content), which are of low natural

fertility and easily exhausted. These cover large parts of the plains with a total

area of 2,233,153 ha. The ferralic cambisols have similar characteristics to some

7

chromic luvisols, but they mostly occur on the western border of the country. The

haplic lixisols (LXh) include the alluvial soils of the lacustrine and river-line plains;

the vertisols of the Lower Shire Valley and the Phalombe Plain, and the

mopanosols in the Liwonde and Balaka areas. They cover a total area of

1,671,495 ha (GoM, 2002b).

Figure 3: Soil Unit Map of Malawi (Source: MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992)

8

1.2.2 Malawi Population

Malawi’s current population and population growth rate are estimated to be 13,06

million and 2.8% respectively, based on the 2008 census. It is the most densely

populated country in Sub-Saharan Africa with a density of 139 people per square

kilometre (NSO, 2008). Over 86% of the population live in rural areas and rely

predominantly on rain-fed agriculture, and about 10% of the population are

deemed at risk of food insecurity annually (WFP, 2008). The high and ever

increasing population density exerts enormous pressure on the land based

resources in meeting the demands for the ever increasing population for food,

fibre, income and other livelihood activities. Unfortunately these pressures have

actually reduced the ability of the land to produce or provide goods and services

(Mloza-Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010)

1.2.3 Distribution of land holding sizes

Malawi has three main categories of land tenure namely customary, public and

private land. Customary land forms the bulk of Malawi’s land and is estimated to

occupy 66% of the total area. Customary land law is quite variable in the country

with the most important difference being expressed between matrilineal and

patrilineal systems of inheritance. This land is subject to control by village chiefs

and family heads. The village head grants cultivation right to the family head,

rather than ownership right. However, land which is in use can be held

indefinitely, the right being granted to a woman in the matrilineal system while the

opposite is true for the patrilineal system. Public land (which is occupied or

acquired by government) is land that is not customary or held under freehold or

leasehold title. Public land consists mainly of forest and wildlife reserves, and

other public places. Private land is all land that is exclusively owned, held or

occupied under freehold tenure, allocated exclusively to a clearly defined

community, corporation, institution, clan, family or individual (GOM, 2002a).

There has been a continual decline in mean land holding size over the years

because of the ever-increasing population, since the land size is static. The

9

national mean land holding size decreased from 1.53 ha in 1968/69 to 0.8 ha in

2000. Corresponding to this decrease, there was an increase in smallholder

households from 885,000 to 2,090,690 during the same period. With this

decrease in land holding size, it is no longer possible for the majority of farmers

to practice some form of rotation or fallow. There has also been an increase in

land fragmentation from generation to generation; as such it is no longer unusual

for a smallholder farmer to cultivate three or more plots in different locations. The

overall effect of reducing smallholding sizes is that land is cultivated continuously

with a single crop and this has contributed to falling soil fertility levels (GOM,

2002b).

1.2.4 Soil erosion

Soil erosion is ranked as the most serious environmental problem in Malawi

(GoM, 1996); it poses the biggest threat to sustainable agricultural production

and also leads to contamination of water resources. Bishop (1992) estimated the

erosion levels for the country to be 20 tonnes/ha/year on average and this is

higher than the rate of soil formation that is 12tonnes/ha/year. Soil erosion has

on-site and off-site costs. The first include declining soil fertility and loss in crop

yield; the second refers to sedimentation and siltation of rivers and reservoirs.

Fertile low-lying areas may become unproductive due to the deposition of infertile

sand (GOM, 1996)

The high population growth rate is leading to increased demands for land. While

land available for agricultural production for rain-fed cultivation at traditional

management levels is limited to only 32% of the land area, as much as 48% was

found to be under cultivation by 1989/90. This means that 16% of cultivation was

taking place in marginal and unsuitable areas without appropriate conservation

measures (GOM, 2002b). Ajayi et al (2007) also noted that as land with high

potential for agriculture becomes less available and the rural human population

increases, farming is extending into more fragile lands, undermining the natural

resource capital base as well as undermining the Southern African region's

continued ability to produce food for its people. Table 1 shows the distribution of

10

suitable land by type of land-use by administrative Region and Agricultural

Development Division (ADD) in Malawi.

Table 1: Distribution of suitable land by type of land-use by ADD and region (Source: GOM, 2002b)

Region/ ADD

% suitable

% unsuitable

% cultivated

% suitable and

cultivated

% suitable but uncultivated

% unsuitable

but cultivated

% unsuitable and

uncultivated

Northern Region

50.1 49.9 16.3 26.1 73.9 6.5 67.0

Karonga 47.9 52.1 17.7 28.9 71.1 7.4 67.2

Mzuzu 51.1 48.9 15.7 25.0 75.0 6.1 67.0

Centre Region

61.2 38.8 38.0 52.8 47.2 14.6 36.0

Kasungu 66.2 33.8 31.9 42.6 57.4 11.0 50.3

Salima 50.1 49.9 37.0 53.2 46.8 20.8 32.9

Lilongwe 61.8 38.2 45.5 65.0 35.0 13.8 20.1

Southern Region

56.3 43.7 39.6 58.5 41.5 15.2 27.2

Machinga 58.0 42.0 50.0 66.9 33.1 26.6 15.4

Blantyre 58.0 42.0 50.0 66.9 33.1 26.6 15.4

Shire Valley

51.0 49.0 36.8 58.9 41.1 13.9 27.6

Malawi 56.5 43.5 32.5 48.1 51.9 12.2 40.8

1.2.5 Significance of Agriculture Sector to Malawi

The significance of agriculture in Malawi needs no emphasis; it is the backbone

of the economy; it employs about 80% of the workforce, accounts 80% of foreign

exchange, 40% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and contributes significantly to

the national and household food sovereignty and security (GOM, 2006).

Agriculture in Malawi is made up of two sub-sectors, namely the smallholder

farmers sector which contributes almost 70% to agricultural GDP, and the estate

sector, which contributes the remaining 30%. The smallholder farmers are mainly

involved in the cultivation of food crops such as maize, rice, cassava, and sweet

11

potato for subsistence food requirements. The estate sub-sector on the other

hand focuses on high value cash crops such as tobacco, tea, sugar and coffee

for export (Banda and Nanthambwe, 2010).

Maize is a major food and cash crop for smallholder farmers in Malawi and is

grown on about 85% of the cropped area every year. The Government

recommends planting maize on ridges, which are laid out across the slope on a

contour and spaced at 0.75 or 0.91m (Materechera and Mloza-Banda, 1997). The

high dependence on maize makes Malawi vulnerable, as any decrease in maize

production is synonymous with food insecurity (Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008).

1.3 Objectives of the study

The study had the following objectives

1. To determine factors affecting/restricting adoption of conservation

agriculture

2. To investigate challenges farmers were facing in the application of

conservation agriculture and draw recommendations that may hep in the

implementation of the technology in the future.

12

Chapter Two: Literature Review

2.1. History of tillage and soil conservation in Malawi

The history of tillage dates back many millennia when humans changed from

hunting and gathering to more sedentary and settled agriculture. Tillage was

used to soften the soil and prepare a seedbed that allowed seed to be placed

easily at a suitable depth into soil moisture using seed drills or manual

equipment. This resulted in good, uniform seed germination. Wherever crops

grow, weeds also grow and compete for light, water and nutrients. By tilling their

fields farmers were able to shift the advantage from the weed to the crop and

allow the crop to grow with minimal competition early in its growth cycle. Tillage

also helped release soil nutrients needed for crop growth through mineralisation

and oxidation after exposure of soil organic matter to air (Hobbs et al, 2007).

Tillage practices designed with soil conservation in mind can be traced back in

Malawi to the colonial period (Williams, 2008). Before colonialism, slash-and-burn

shifting cultivation was the commonest system of agriculture (Chilimba, 2001). In

this system an area would be cleared of vegetation and the cleared organic

material burned. Following this, a crop would be planted and no fertiliser was

applied. When the cleared area started showing signs of fertility exhaustion

another area would be cleared leaving the previous one to regenerate (UN-

REDD, 2010). This system is still practiced in some districts of the Northern

Region of Malawi, mainly for production of millet on a small scale. Several other

traditional methods of seedbed preparation do exist, including flat cultivation,

mounds, and other forms of raised beds.

Tillage in the form of annual construction of contour planting ridges has evolved

as an integral part of subsistence farming and is a most dominant feature of

Malawi’s agriculture (Mloza-Banda and Nanthamwe, 2010). When the English

arrived in Malawi (which was then referred to Nyasaland) they brought the plough

and introduced ridging with the purpose of soil and water conservation (Williams,

2008). The ridge along a contour has long been used as a first line of defence

13

against soil erosion. If properly designed, contour ridging reduces runoff by

temporarily storing excess rainfall behind ridges and thus reducing soil erosion

and increasing moisture storage (Mloza-Banda and Nanthamwe, 2010).

However, the arrival of the Europeans may not be the sole reason that curtailed

slash-and-burn practice. Chilimba (2001) and FAO (2001) explain that high

population pressure already meant less land being available, fallow periods

becoming shorter and the cleared plots being cultivated for more years than

before.

In the early 18th century, English landlords amassed large pieces of land and

required those living within to pay rent with three months of labour. Cotton was

the crop the colonials had turned to for economic rents when no mineral deposits

of worth were found in Malawi. These landlords confidently used the trusted

European ridging method when planting the cotton crop (Williams, 2008).

Although concern for soil erosion in the country started as early as the 1890s, it

was not until the 1930s and 1940s that the colonial government started to enforce

soil and water conservation structures on private fields (Nanthambwe, S.J. and

N.J. Mulenga,. 1999). During this period government officials publicly declared

that soil erosion had become a serious problem and required urgent attention

(FAO, 2001). Previously the colonial government had attempted to control

agricultural practices by influencing the chiefs and village headmen. However,

officials then gave up on this and resorted to direct coercion of farmers, with the

result that any who did not follow the new ridging method of cultivation would get

heavy punishment in the form of fines and imprisonment.

Although labour intensive, ridging became so widespread that it is acknowledged

as 'conventional practice' and most often synonymous with land preparation for

crop production. It was rooted enough that, when Malawi received its

independence, the new government continued to enforce these agricultural

requirements and a number of programmes and campaigns have been launched

to promote its adoption. The laws were subsequently repealed, but Malawians

have been hesitant to change because it is the only technology that they know

and some do not even know that ridging is no longer compulsory. Ridging using a

14

plough requires the availability of a tractor or animal power, which cannot be

readily accessed by the majority of the smallholder farmers, most of whom rely

on a hand hoe (Williams, 2007).

2.1.1 Conventional Tillage in Malawi

Conventional' crop production in Malawi is therefore characterised contour

ridging. This is the method of land preparation whereby topsoil is scraped and

concentrated in a defined region to deliberately raise the seedbed above the

natural terrain - making fresh ridges every season where the crops are planted.

The process creates a loose and friable seedbed and, if carried out correctly,

helps to conserve soil and water (Materechera and Mloza-Banda, 1997.)

Ridging is a tedious assignment and smallholders who practice conventional

tillage often plant late because land preparation takes considerable length of

time. This has a direct impact on yield as it is estimated that farmers lose 1.3% of

their yield for each day of delay in planting after the first planting rains, and

farmers who plant their crops 18 days late, for example, lose 25% of their

production. This means that no matter how good the farmer is in the subsequent

husbandry practices, the loss cannot be compensated (Siacinji-Musiwa, 1999).

Lack of resources of cash, chemical inputs, farm power and motorised

equipment, and dependence on the hand hoe and family labour aggravate this

problem.

Ridging on steep slopes leads to excessive soil loss and it is estimated that up to

50 tonnes of topsoil can be lost from each hectare annually. On conventionally

tilled and exposed land, up to 50% of applied fertilisers are lost in storm flow. This

is the case because the surface layers of soils exposed to the energy of rain

drops are pulverised and soon become crusted and sealed. This affects crop

germination and further accelerates runoff and erosion. Hoeing and ridging every

year results in hard pans, which limit crop root volume and make plants more

susceptible to dry periods (Siacinji-Musiwa, 1999). Wiyo et al (2000) also noted

15

surface runoff loss and increased drainage loss out of the root zone under

conventional ridging as opposed to tied ridging.1

However, as previously noted, there are other cultivation techniques being used

in the country. Continuous cultivation with little no organic matter amendment is

another practice common in Malawi and other Sub-Saharan African countries

(Makumba et al 2006). Although this may bring short-term yield increases,

continuous cultivation results in increased mineralisation of soil organic matter

and soil life and soil structure are damaged in the long term. Deep tillage, which

is employed with crops such as tobacco, is detrimental to earthworms and other

soil life as it may destroy them outright, disrupt their burrows, reduce moisture

and affect the availability of their food (FAO, 2001).

Reduction of organic matter in the soil is further compounded by burning of

biomass and crop residues (Makumba et al 2006). Just like most of the tropical

regions, burning of most residual matter is widespread in Malawi as it is believed

to be a good way of killing weed seeds and keeping the fields clean. Burning of

biomass and crop residues has two direct negative impacts on the soil. The

organic matter, which helps in the formation of soil aggregates improves soil

structure and improves soil water holding capacity, is lost. Nutrients that were

used in the production of the biomass and crop residues are lost as well. Manure

use is also limited as few farmers own livestock (Snapp et al 2002). The long-

term effect of reduced organic carbon is on the cation exchange capacity of the

soil and its ability to retain nutrients and remain fertile (Makumba et al 2006).

Burning of residues also exposes the soil, and this can lead to surface sealing

because the soil is no longer protected from the direct impact of raindrops which

break up soil aggregates and redistribute them according to physical, chemical

and suction forces. This is the case because water infiltration is high in the initial

moments of precipitation, but with time the loosened soil particles block the pore

spaces making it difficult for water to penetrate and surface runoff is encouraged

1 In tied-ridging, ridge furrows are blocked with earth ties spaced a fixed distance apart to form a

series of micro-catchment basins in the field

16

as a result. The size and intensity of the raindrops have a significant effect on the

degree and rate of sealing that takes place.

Formation of a structural crust is another way the soil structure itself can limit

crop production. This is caused by physical compression of the soil - usually from

livestock, machinery or people putting weight on the soil. In the case of

conventional (ridged) tillage, a hardpan is often formed as a result of repetitious

hand tilling to the same soil depth every year, leading to an increase in soil bulk

density due to compaction. The formation of such a crust may hurt a plant in the

sense that it has to exert more energy for the roots to penetrate, and failure to do

this may force the plant to become stunted (Williams, 2008).

The majority of the smallholder farmers in Malawi lack of alternative livelihoods

and this, combined with the small size of plots, compels farmers to cultivate

maize on the same land year after year (Chinsinga and O’Brien, 2008). It is not

surprising therefore that mono-cropping is also dominant cropping system, with

maize being the most dominant crop (Snapp et al 2002). In case of drastic

changes in weather pattern, monocropping can lead to total crop failure and this

will have negative effects on food security at household and national level. A

continuous monocropping system of farming will be less resilient to pest and

disease attack, unlike a diversified and rotational system where some crops may

be unaffected or may host natural enemies of certain pests. Monocropping may

also lead to a decrease in the crop productivity over time because the crop takes

nutrients from the same soil depth, and it may also encourage the development

of resistance to pesticides and herbicides as compounds with the same chemistry

are relied upon year after year. This is not the case with a crop rotation system as

different crops are attacked by different pests and weeds, with the result that a

range of different chemicals are required in their management.

Due to the challenges and limitations associated with conventional tillage other

technologies that can reduce such impacts are being promoted and one of such

technologies is conservation agriculture.

17

2.2 Conservation Agriculture

Worldwide there are rising concerns about loss of soil productivity and the

broader environmental implications of conventional agricultural practices. The

concerns are coming mainly because of the aftermath of repeatedly tilling the

soil, either by the use of plough, disc harrow or hoe. This has impelled some

governments and farmers to search for alternative production methods that can

maintain soil structure and productivity. Conservation Agriculture (CA) is

becoming one of the obvious and increasingly popular alternatives due to the

principles that is based upon (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007).

Conservation Agriculture is a system of crop production based on three

principles, namely minimum soil disturbance, continuous soil cover and crop

rotation. The objectives of conservation farming are to increase crop production

while at the same time protecting and enhancing the water and soil land

resources on which production depends. It is also referred to as conservation

tillage, minimum tillage, reduced tillage and zero tillage among other names in

different locations of the world. It is a resource-saving farming system that strives

to achieve acceptable profits together with high and sustained production levels,

while conserving the environment based on an integrated management of soil,

water and biological resources combined with external inputs (FAO, 2008). CTIC

(1999) defined conservation tillage as any tillage or planting system that covers at

least 30% of the surface with crop residues. The 30% threshold was based on

research which showed 80% reduction in soil erosion when the surface was

covered that much.

CA is achieved through direct seeding and this involves growing crops without

mechanical seedbed preparation and with minimal soil disturbance after the

harvest of the previous crop. CA land preparation for seeding or planting involves

slashing or rolling the weeds, previous crop residues or cover crops; or spraying

herbicides for weed control, and seeding directly through the mulch (FAO, 2008)

18

2.2.1 Principle of minimum soil disturbance

Agriculture impacts on the condition of the environment in many ways, including

impacts on global warming through the production of ‘greenhouse gases’ such as

CO2. In the USA it was estimated that agriculture contributed approximately 8%

of the US greenhouse gas emissions (Paustian et al, 2006). However, agriculture

also has a potential of acting as a CO2 sink by sequestering it from the

atmosphere in the form of soil carbon if proper practices are employed in

production. A study conducted in the USA conclude that intensive tillage using a

mouldboard plough results in major carbon loses immediately after tillage, and

also found that the rate of carbon oxidation was reduced when the extent,

frequency and magnitude of mechanical disturbance of the soil caused by tillage

was minimised (Baker et al, 2007).

Minimum soil disturbance also reduces soil erosion, since the soil is not loosened

as is the case with conventional tillage. The reduction in erosion has benefits to

the growing crop as well as the environment. In conventional tillage the soil is

continuously disturbed, making it easy to be carried by runoff. As the soil is being

eroded it also carries with it soil nutrients which are essential for crop growth. The

removal of nutrients impacts negatively on the crop as its growth is retarded and

a crop that is weak is more susceptible to pests and diseases. The combination

of pests, diseases and soil loss due to erosion leads to food insecurity as a result

of reduced yields. The reduced erosion brought by CA also benefits the

environment in the sense that it enhances water quality. A number of

experiments in semi-arid and dry sub-humid locations in East and Southern

Africa have demonstrated that minimum soil disturbance/minimum tillage

practices reduce the risk of crop failure as they increase water productivity and

crop yields. These positive results are attributed to the water harvesting effects of

minimum tillage practices (Hobbs et al 2007).

Increased infiltration means that streams are fed more by subsurface flow than by

surface runoff. This entails having cleaner water, which more closely resembles

groundwater in areas where CA is dominant than in areas where intensive tillage

19

and accompanying erosion and runoff predominate. Greater infiltration also has

an advantage of reducing flooding, by enhancing more soil water storage and

slow release to streams. It also recharges groundwater, thus increasing well

supplies and revitalising dried-up springs (FAO, 2008)

Tillage takes valuable time that could be used for other useful farming activities or

employment. Conservation agriculture reduces time for establishing a crop as

intensive tillage is eliminated. The time spent in tilling the land can also delay

timely planting of crops, and this can result in reductions in yield potential. By

reducing turnaround time to a minimum, zero-tillage can get crops planted on

time, and thus increase yields without greater input (Hobbs et al, 2007)

2.2.2 Principle of continuous soil cover

Surface soil cover intercepts raindrop energy and protects the surface soil from

soil aggregate destruction; it promotes infiltration of water, and reduces the loss

of soil by erosion. The surface crop residues shield the loose soil particles from

water and wind erosion. It minimises soil water losses by evaporation and also

helps moderate soil temperature. This enhances soil biological activity and

promotes nitrogen mineralisation. This is an important factor, especially in areas

where water is limited as most of it will be used by the growing crop (Hobbs et al,

2007). It also helps to suppress weed infestation as weed seeds are shielded

from sunlight, which is frequently required for germination and necessary for

subsequent growth. The soil cover improves soil fertility after decay and this

reduces the requirement for inorganic fertilisers in the future. The decayed soil

cover improves availability of soil organic matter (SOM) in the soil. SOM has a

characteristic of improving soil water holding capacity and this water is used by

the growing crops (Giller et al, 2009)

The soil organisms crush the mulch covering the surface, and incorporate and

mix it with the soil. When the mulch becomes humus after decomposition it

contributes to the physical stabilisation of the soil structure. Furthermore, the soil

organic matter provides a buffer function for water and nutrients (FAO, 2008).

20

Larger soil organisms, such as earthworms ingest soil and also digest dead plant

material, and their nutrient-rich wastes are deposited on the surface (as casts) or

within the soil profile. This process helps to improve the soil structure, as their

wastes are better soil aggregates. The improved soil structure is beneficial to

plants as it also means improved water-holding capacity. As earthworms are

moving within the soil they also form an intricate and extensive network of

burrows, which function as biopores and increase aeration and drainage and

these elements are also necessary for plant growth. Of all the soil micro-fauna,

earthworms are probably the most important group for improving soil quality, as

they ingest nearly ten times their own weight each day while burrowing through

the soil. Their burrows are mainly in the region where plant roots frequently

occur, and this helps to facilitate the exchange of nutrients (Dubbin, 2001).

Figure 4: Young Conservation Agriculture maize crop plot mulched with crop residues

(Source: TLC 2010)

Since many of the benefits of CA are directly related to mulching, limited

availability of crop residues is in many cases a constraint to their adoption. This

demand for crop residues as mulch greatly changes the flow of resources at the

farm level, especially where the residues have more than one use. Farmers face

21

the dilemma of whether to use residues as mulch or fodder, in which case

precedence is mostly given to livestock considering its cultural and economic

value. The challenge to retain crop residues as mulch is not only limited to those

areas with more livestock. In regions where farmers own few livestock, but rely

on hand hoe for tillage, crop residues are traditionally burned as a fast way to

clear agricultural fields in order to facilitate further land preparation and planting

(Giller et al, 2009), and this tradition will have to change if the full benefits of the

mulch are to be realised.

2.2.3 Principle of crop rotation

Crop rotation provides an opportunity for nutrient cycling as roots at different

depths are able to get nutrients from different soil layers. Nutrients that have

been lost from the upper layers through leaching and are no longer available to

short-rooted crops, can be brought back to the surface by using deep-rooted

ones in rotation. The diversity of crops in rotation enhances a diverse flora and

fauna such as fungi and bacteria, which are also necessary for transformation of

organic materials into available nutrients during decomposition. Other means of

improving soil fertility and nutrient cycling are being encouraged. Intercropping

cereals with legumes is encouraged because the legumes fix nitrogen (one of the

macro-nutrients) from the atmosphere to further improve soil fertility. Two legume

species often intercropped with maize in Malawi are pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan)

and Tephrosia vogelli (TLC, 2007).2 Crop rotation also plays a phytosanitary role

as it prevents the carryover of crop specific pests and diseases from one season

to another through residues. The diversity of crops achieved through crop rotation

is also important as a climate change adaptation strategy because it reduces the

susceptibility to unforeseen climatic events such as drought, floods and other

biophysical occurrences such as pest outbreaks that might lead to crop failure

(FAO, 2008). However, given their economic pressures, in the face of rapid

population increase and continued decrease in land holding sizes it is not always

possible to practice crop rotation. Malawian farmers cannot afford to include a

fallow phase as incorporated in older European crop rotation systems.

2 Also known as fish bean, the crushed leaves of T. vogelli are added to water to poison fish.

22

Chapter Three: Research Site and Methodology

3.1. Study area

The study was carried out in Salima District within the Salima ADD (Figure 4).

Administratively the district is located in Central Region of Malawi and it lies along

the lakeshore plain 100km to the east of Lilongwe City.

Figure 5: Map of Salima ADD showing Extension Planning Areas (Prepared for the current study by J K Chirwa, Salima ADD)

Study Area

23

This district covers a total area of 2196 km2 and is located in the Rift Valley Plain

physiographic region. It lies on latitude 13°45' north and longitude 34°35' east. It

is situated within the altitude range 33-600 metres above sea level. The land is

flat to gently undulating, with deep calcimorphic soils in the hollows formed in

large part by the deposition of material and is characterised by subdued relief and

gentle slopes. The district was chosen because it is one of the areas where

conservation agriculture is being intensified owing to its semi-arid conditions and

accessibility. For agriculture purposes the district is divided into 7 Extension

Planning Areas (EPAs) namely Chipoka, Katerera, Makande, Tembwe,

Chinguluwe, Matenje and Chiluwa. The study was conducted in Katerera,

Makande and Chinguluwe EPAs.

3.2. Climate

Salima district experiences a warm tropical climate characterised by unimodal

rainfall lasting approximately five months from the end of November to the end of

April, and dry weather during the remainder of the year. Annual rainfall varies

from around 800mm to about 1200mm, however most areas receive less than

1000 mm of rain. Despite receiving this amount of rainfall the area experiences

frequent dry spells which impact negatively on crop production within the crop

growing period. The mean temperature range along the lakeshore plain is 18-28°

Celsius, with mean maximum temperatures of 32-34° Celsius in October to

December.

3.3. Soil

Salima district soils are grouped into two main soil units namely Eutric gleysols,

and Ferric fluvisols (MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992). Gleysols are soils showing

hydromorphic properties within 50 cm of the surface; having no diagnostic

horizons (unless buried by 50 cm or more new material) other than an A horizon,

an H horizon, a cambic B horizon, and a calcic or a gypsic horizon. Fluvisols on

the other hand refers to soils developed from recent alluvial deposits, having no

diagnostic horizons (unless buried by 50 cm or more new material) other than an

24

ochric or an umbric A horizon, an H horizon, or a sulphuric horizon (FAO, 1975).

Eutric gleysols and Ferric fluvisols cover a total 599.8 and 94253.2 (km2) in

Malawi, respectively (Chilimba, 2001).

3.4. Data collection

Primary data were collected from a sample of selected farmers through

administration of a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire (Appendix

1) comprised closed- and open-ended questions. An open-ended questionnaire

(Appendix 2) was also used to support interviews with as many of the Agricultural

Extension Development Officers working in the selected EPAs as was possible.

Secondary data were obtained from published and unpublished documents.

3.5. Sampling Procedure for Survey

The study involved total of 60 farmers and involved comparisons between three

equal-sized sub-groups based on differences in their practices. The first group

comprised farmers who had been practicing conservation agriculture for a

minimum of three years, the second involved farmers who once practiced the

technology but were no longer doing it, while the last one comprised farmers who

had never tried the technology. The respondents were selected from three

randomly selected EPAs within Salima District, and the study villages were also

randomly selected within each EPA. After this farmers were selected from each

village on a semi-random basis, using lists supplied by the local Agricultural

Extension Development Officers. The lists indicated farmers who were

practicing, once practiced but stopped, and those who never practiced the

technology. The final selection of the farmers from each of these lists was also

random.

3.6. Data analysis and presentation

The data were coded and fed into the Statistical Package for Social Scientists

(SPSS) for statistical analysis and presentation. Descriptive statistics in the form

of frequencies and percentages were used when analysing, presenting and

25

interpreting the data because the data collected was mainly qualitative. In some

instances Chi-square was used to determine the significance of some variables

on CA adoption.

26

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion

Introduction

This chapter covers the results of the study carried out in Salima District. It looks

at factors affecting/restricting adoption of CA and the challenges the farmers are

facing in the implementation of the technology in Malawi. To do this demographic,

social and economic data were collected and analysed. CA message

dissemination mechanisms, farmer technology awareness, first input acquisition

method reasons for adopting, stopping practicing and never adopting the

technology information was also analysed.

4.1. Demographic and Socio Economic Data

4.1.1. Sex of the household head

The study involved a total of 60 households divided into 3 categories of 20

households each. The first group was composed of farmers who had been

practicing conservation agriculture for a minimum of three years, the second

group comprised farmers who once practiced CA but had stopped, and the last

category consisted of farmers who have never practiced CA. Seventy per cent of

the households interviewed were male headed while the remaining 30% were

women headed.

Table 2 provides Chi-square (x2)3 analysis of sex of the household head and

adoption of CA. The results support the idea that male-headed households were

more likely to adopt CA than those headed by females at 95% confidence interval

and 2 degrees of freedom (df). Mazvimavi and Twomlow (2009) found similar

results in a study carried out in Zimabmbwe.

3 3 Where O is observed frequency and E is expected frequency.

27

Table 2: x2 analysis of sex of the household head and level of CA adoption

Sex of the household head

Level of adoption

Total

df

Calculated

X2

Tabulated

X2

Practicing CA

Stopped practicing CA

Never Practiced CA

Male 18 10 14 42 2 7.619 3.84

Female 2 10 6 18

Total 20 20 20 60

4.1.2 Age

Thirty five per cent of the farmers who are practicing CAS and those who were no

longer doing it were in the age category of 26-35, as compared to 30% of those

who had never practiced CA (Table 3). No relationship was found between age of

the respondents and adoption of CA. Studies in the literature has come up with

conflicting results. Knowler and Bradshaw (2007) also found it difficult to link

adoption of CA and age of a farmer in their review and analysis of recent

research on farmer’s adoption of conservation agriculture. However, Mazvimavi

and Twomlow (2009) found positive correlation.

Table 3: Age categories of the household head

Age Category

Practicing CA

No longer Practicing CA

Never Practiced CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

18-25 2 10.0 0 0 3 15.0

26-35 7 35.0 7 35.0 6 30.0

36-45 4 20.0 4 20.0 4 20.0

46-55 3 15.0 3 15.0 2 10.0

>56 4 20.0 6 30.0 5 25.0

4.1.3. Size of the Households

More than 65% of the respondents involved had households of greater than 4.4,

which is the national average (Table 4). No statistical correlation was found

28

between household size and CA adoption, but those who had never practiced

CA, or had given it up were more likely to have larger families than those who did

practice it.

Table 4: Household size

Household Size

Practicing CA

No longer Practicing CA

Never Practiced CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

1-2 2 10.0 2 10.0 1 5.0

3-4 5 25.0 3 15.0 5 25.0

5-6 6 30.0 7 35.0 2 10.0

>6 7 35.0 8 40.0 12 60.0

Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

4.1.4 Education

It is assumed that the ability of the household head to understand technical

aspects of conservation agriculture would be dependent on their educational

level. A positive relationship was expected between educational level and

adoption as farmers with higher education are expected to have more access to

information on the dangers of not following recommended soil and water

conservation technologies. In the event, no overall correlation was found between

the adoption of CA and the household head's level of education - probably

because less than 20% of all respondents had actually attended school to

secondary level (Table 5).

Table 5: Level of education

Level of education

Practicing CA

No longer practicing

CA

Never Practiced CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

No formal education 3 15.0 4 20.0 2 10.0

Std 1 - Std 5 9 45.0 5 25.0 5 25.0

Std 6 - Std 8 4 20.0 8 40.0 11 55.0

Secondary education 4 20.0 3 15.0 2 10.0

Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

29

However, those who had attained that level were more likely to have tried CA

than those who had not (7/2).

4.1.5. Land Ownership and Size of the Gardens

Land is one of the important factors of production. It assists the farmer in

budgeting what and how much to produce. It also helps the farmer in deciding

the production system to follow. In this study it was assumed that farmers with

larger gardens would be able to adopt CA more easily because they can follow

all the principles of CA, including crop rotation.

All the households who participated in the study owned a piece of land ('garden'),

save for one respondent who was renting. Overall, 71.7% of the farmers were

farming on customary land while the remaining 28.3% were cultivating on public

land. All the farmers who were using customary land had obtained it through

inheritance, while those under public land obtained it from government under

settlement scheme programme. The settlement scheme programme was set up

with four main aims namely, reclamation and utilisation of underused land;

settlement of underemployed rural people to provide them with a decent income

and livelihood; promotion of cash-crop production for export purposes; and

settlement of Malawi Young Pioneers to provide opportunities for their gainful

employment (Nothale, 1982). The minimum land holding size in the study area

was 0.4 ha, while the maximum was 4.4 ha, and 35%, 30% and 20% of the

farmers who were practicing CA, who once practiced CA and those who had

never practiced CA, respectively, had pieces of land of greater than three

hectares. All the farmers from Chinguluwe Extension Planning Area had gardens

of greater than three hectares owing to the land settlement programme as each

settler was allocated eleven acres4. The study found no statistical correlation

between farm size and adoption of CA, but most who did not practice CA (60%)

owned less than 2ha, while most who did practice it (65%) owned more than 2 ha

(Table 6).

4 1 acre = 0.404686 ha

30

Table 6: Size of the Garden

Size of the Garden (Ha)

Practicing CA

No longer Practicing CA

Never Practiced CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

0.1-0.5 0 0 2 10 1 5.0

06-1.0 1 5.0 4 20.0 6 30.0

1.1-2.0 6 30.0 5 25.0 5 25.0

2.1-3.0 6 30.0 3 15 4 20

>3.0 7 35.0 6 30.0 4 20.0

Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0

4.1.6. Level of Income

Household income is the aggregation of income both in cash and/or kind that

accrues from economic activities performed by household members on a regular

basis (NSO, 2005). The assumption in this study was that higher income would

have a positive influence on adoption of CA because the higher the level of

income the higher the chances that the farmer can invest in conservation

technologies. Data for income distribution among the three categories of farmers

(Table 7) indicate that the majority of respondents were poor. Going by the 2004-

2005 Malawi Integrated Household Survey (which puts MK16,165.005 per person

per year as a poverty line6 and 4.4 persons per household as national average) it

means that more than 70% of households in the study area live below the poverty

line. The results are not far from the NSO (2005) findings, which put 69.1% of

people in Salima District as living below the poverty line.

Additional information recovered during the survey revealed crop production

contributing over 80% of the total income from agriculture while the remainder

came from livestock.

5 $1=MK150

6 The poverty line is a subsistence minimum expressed in Malawi currency based on the cost-of-basic-needs

methodology. It is comprised of two parts: minimum food expenditure based on the food requirements of individual and critical non-food consumption

31

A further 20% of the respondents pointed to piecework contributing 21-40% per

cent of their total income. Piecework (locally known in Malawi as ganyu) is a term

that describes a variety of temporary rural relations. It corresponds to any off-

own-farm work done by rural people on casual basis, with remuneration being

made in cash or in kind (Le Danvic, 2009).

Table 7: Estimated level of Income of respondent farmers

Level of income (MK)

Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA

Never Practiced CA

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

0-10,000 0 0 1 5.0 1 5.0

11,000-25,000 3 15.0 8 40.0 5 25.0

26,000-40,000 4 20.0 7 35.0 7 35.0

41,000-60,000 2 10.0 3 15.0 1 5.0

61,000 and above

11 55.0 1 5.0 6 30.0

Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

Comparing income levels among the three categories of farmers it was found that

55% of those practicing CA, 5% of those no longer practicing CA and 30% of

those who had never practiced CA were earning greater than 61,000 Malawi

Kwacha (MK7) per annum (Table 7). No significant difference in levels of income

was found between farmers practicing the technology and those who had never

practiced it. Nevertheless, a significant difference was observed between

farmers still practicing CA and those who had stopped. The calculated X2

(12.624) was larger than the tabulated one (9.49) at 95% confidence interval. The

results support the hypothesis that farmers with higher income are likely to

continue with CA than the low income ones.

7 Malawian Currency

32

4.2. Crops and Animal Production

4.2.1. Crops grown

The main crops grown in the study area are maize, ground nuts, cotton and

tobacco (Table 8). All the households involved indicated that they had grown

maize in the previous season - this is not surprising since it is the main food crop

in Malawi and is grown on over 70% of the cultivated are every year. Groundnuts

are the other popular food crop in the area, and 95% of both those practicing and

those no longer practicing CA, and 85% of the farmers who had never practiced

CA indicated to have grown it in the 2009/2010 season. Cassava, soya, millet,

cowpeas and sweet potato are also grown as food crops.

Table 8: Crops grown by respondents in Salima District

Crops grown Practicing CA No longer practicing

CA Never Practiced CA

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Maize 20 100 20 100 20 100

Groundnuts 19 95 19 95 17 85

Cowpeas 6 30 2 10 2 10

Sweet potato 0 0 0 0 2 10

Tobacco 2 10 4 20 2 15

Millet 0 0 0 0 1 5

Soya 0 0 1 5 0 0

Cassava 3 15 0 0 0 0

Cotton 14 70 12 60 9 45

Groundnuts are also grown for cash, but cotton is the main cash crop in the study

area with 70%, 60% and 45% of those practicing, stopped practicing and having

never practiced CA, respectively, mentioning that they had grown cotton in

2009/2010. Furthermore, 15% of the farmers also indicated that they had grown

tobacco for cash. Clearly, the method of cultivation had no significant impact

upon the choice of the major cop species. The fact that cassava was only grown

by those who practiced CA does not seem to relate directly to this practice, since

that crop is not known to benefit particularly from CA and the technique would not

have been applied to all parts of the CA respondents' gardens,

33

4.2.2. Livestock

The majority (>70%) of the farmers in the area own chickens and goat rearing is

also dominant in the area, with farmers who are no longer practicing CA reporting

the highest percentage (Table 9). These results agree with the findings of 2004-

2005 Integrated Household Survey report, which also showed chicken and goats

as dominant livestock in Malawi (NSO, 2005). There was a moderate level of pig

ownership in all three groups and some farmers also indicated to have been

keeping ducks and guinea fowl on a small scale. Only one respondent owned

cattle and only one owned donkeys, both being indications of a higher income,

but this did not correlate with practising CA. About 8% of the respondents

indicated not to have any type of livestock.

Table 9: Livestock Kept by Respondents

Livestock kept Practicing CA No longer Practicing

CA Never Practiced CA

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Cattle 0 0 0 0 1 5.0

Goats 10 50.0 14 70.0 10 50.0

Donkeys 1 5.0 0 0 0 0

Chickens 15 75.0 16 80.0 14 70.0

Guinea fowl 1 5.0 0 0 0 0

None 2 10.0 0 0 3 15.0

Pigs 3 15.0 3 15.0 4 20.0

Ducks 1 5.0 2 10.0 1 5.0

None 2 10 0 0 3 15.0

4.3. CA Message Dissemination

4.3.1. Farmer Groups

Farmer Groups are encouraged because they enable Agricultural Extension

Development Officers to reach more farmers with agricultural messages with

ease, and also give a chance to farmers to learn from one another. It is assumed,

therefore, that farmers belonging to groups have higher chances of adopting a

new technology.

34

Table 10: Farmer Group Membership among Respondents

Response Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Yes 17 85.0 6 30.0 6 30.0

No 3 15.0 14 70.0 14 70.0

Total 20 100.0 20 100.0 20 100.0

Just under half the sample of farmers were members of a Farmer Group (Table

10). However, the greater majority (85%) of respondent farmers practicing CA

belonged to a Farmer Group, as opposed to 30% of those who either stopped

practicing or never participated in CA. There was strong correlation between CA

adoption and farmer membership to a group as calculated: X2 (16.15) was larger

than the tabulated one (5.99) at 95% confidence interval (Table 11). Farmers

belonging to a Farmer Group were indeed seen to be more likely to be practicing

CA than those not belonging to any group.

Table 11: X

2 analysis of Farmer Group membership versus level of CA adoption

Response Level of adoption of CA Total df Calculated

X2

Tabulated X

2 Practicing

CA Stopped

practicing Never

Practiced

Yes 17 6 6 29 2

16.151

3.84 No 3 14 14 31

Total 20 20 20 60

Most of the farmers practicing CA (85%) were in the soil and water conservation

(SWC) Farmer Group, as opposed to 5% and 10% for those no longer practicing

and never practiced, respectively. Some farmers were found to belong to multiple

groups covering irrigation, livestock, agroforestry, bee-keeping, grain and

legumes, credit and cotton (Table 12).

35

Table 12: Farmer Group Membership by Type

Type of Farmer Group

Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA Never Practiced CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Irrigation 4 20.0 1 5.0 2 10.0

Soil & Water Conservation

17 85.0 1 5.0 2 10.0

Livestock 2 10.0 0 0 0 0

Agroforestry 0 0 0 0 1 5.0

Bee-keeping 0 0 4 20.0 0 0

Grain & legumes association

0 0 0 0 1 5.0

Credit group 0 0 0 0 1 5.0

Cotton association

0 0 0 0 1 5.0

The remaining farmers (mainly those who had never practiced CA or had

stopped) were asked why they did not belong to a Farmer Group. Overall, 41.9%

of them indicated that they were not interested, while 35.5% gave lack of farmer

groups in their villages as the reason. However, the remaining 22.6% had once

been, but were no longer members - either due to disbandment of the group or

due to lost interest (Table 13).

Table 13: Reasons for not belonging to any Farmer Group

Reason Frequency Percentage

Not interested 13 41.9

There is no farmer group

11

35.5

The group disbanded

7

22.6

The main cause of lost interest seems to have resulted from unfair distribution of

free farm inputs on those occasions when the groups received inputs from

government and agriculture development stakeholders and others. Allegations

were also made against agricultural extension workers as not being transparent

in the distribution of such inputs, or in the identification of farmers to host

36

demonstration plots - with favour being shown to farmers with the more

accessible gardens along the road.

4.3.2. Farmer contact with Extension Workers

All the respondents indicated that an agricultural extension worker was available

in the area, and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (MoAFS) was

the main institution offering extension services in conservation agriculture. Asked

as to how often the extension worker visits per month, 95% of those practicing

CA responded that they were visited more than two times per month and all

received at least one per month. This is an encouraging result considering that

extension workers are advised to make a minimum of two visits to a farmer

group. The first visit is for training while the second one is for follow up. In

contrast, twice-monthly contacts with those no longer practicing or those who had

never practiced CA were only 55%, and 65%, respectively. No statistical

correlation was found within the sample between CA adoption and farmer

extension worker contacts, but a significant minority of those not involved in CA

had either never been visited or received only one visit a month.

Table 14: Frequency of Extension Worker visits

No of visits

Practicing CA

No longer practicing

Never practiced CA

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Doesn't visit 0 0 6 30.0 3 15.0

Once a month 0 0 3 15.0 2 10.0

Twice a month 1 5.0 0 0 2 10.0

> Twice a month 19 95.0 11 55.0 13 65.0

Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

4.3.3. Conservation Agriculture Awareness

All the respondents save one said that they had heard of CA, and 100%, of those

practicing, 95% of those no longer practicing, and 75% of those who had never

practiced CA gave the extension workers from MoAFS as the source of that

awareness. The other sources of CA information mentioned by the interviewees

37

were fellow farmers, Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), the local

extension worker, radio and a private cotton company (Table 15).

Table 15: Sources of awareness about CA

Source Practicing CA No longer

practicing Never practiced CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Fellow farmer 0 0 0 0 3 15.0

MoAFS extension worker

20 100.0 19 95.0 15 75.0

NGO extension worker

1 5.0 0 0 0 0

Radio 1 5.0 7 35.0

Private company 0 0 1 5.0 0 0

4.3.4. Farmer Training

All the farmers practicing CA, 85% of those no longer practicing and 40% of

those who had never practiced indicated to have been trained in CA (Table 16).

Table 16: Level of Farmer Training in CA

Response Practicing CA No longer practicing Never practiced CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Attended CA training 20 100 17 85 8 40

Never Attended CA training 0 0 3 15 12 60

Total 20 100 20 100 20 100

A comparison was made between respondents practicing CA and those who had

never practiced CA using chi-square (X2) to test whether farmer trainings had any

bearing on CA adoption. The results showed significant different between the two

categories of respondents as the calculated X2 (20.80) was larger than the

tabulated one (3.84) at 95% confidence interval. No significant difference was

observed when X2 was used to test if training had any bearing on retention, when

farmers who were practicing CA and those who stopped were compared. This

suggests that, though farmer training is crucial in adoption of CA, other factors

38

come into play when a farmer is deciding whether to continue with the technology

in the subsequent years.

The training conducted mainly covered three areas, namely crop residue

management, weed management and nutrient management. In crop residue

management farmers were trained on how to lay the crop residues (Figure 6), the

benefits of retaining them in the field and the dangers of burning or removing crop

residues from the agricultural field. Weed management involved how light

weeding can be done so as to avoid excessive soil disturbance and it also

included weed control by using herbicides. Nutrient management encompassed

fertilizer application, organic manure making and application and planting of

nitrogen fixing agroforestry trees.

Figure 6: Farmers engaged in CA crop residue management

Ninety five percent of farmers practicing, and 75% and 35%, respectively, of

those no longer practicing and never practiced CA, mentioned that they had

received training in crop residue management. However, 55% of those practicing,

65% of those no longer practicing, and 15% of farmers who had never practiced

CA said they had been trained in weed management. The unexpectedly low

response from CA farmers may be due to the fact that they had to volunteer the

39

form of training rather than tick boxes. Nutrient management as a training topic in

CA was mentioned by 30% of the farmers practicing CA, while only 5% of no

longer practicing and never practicing CA mentioned it (Table 17). Only one

respondent indicated to have been trained in soil and water conservation, and

this involved the relatively new technique of digging trenches on contours

(commonly known as swales) for rainwater harvesting.

Table 17: Training topics in CA received

Topic Practicing CA No longer Practiced Never Practiced

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Crop residue management

19 95.0 15 75.0 7 35.0

Weed management 11 55.0 13 65.0 3 15.0

Soil and water conservation

0 0 0 0 1 5.0

Nutrient management 6 30.0 1 5.0 1 5.0

4.4. Input Acquisition Method

Introducing a new technology in an area can sometimes be a challenging task as

it involves a change of mindset in the sense that farmers are encouraged to

abandon old ways of conducting their business. It also involves risk-taking

because farmers are asked to venture into an area they have no experience of.

Due the risks involved in switching from the old technology to a new one,

sometimes introduction of agriculture technologies comes with incentives in the

form of loans or grants. It was found out during the study that 50% of the

respondents in the category participating in CA got a grant, but among them were

those who managed to buy additional inputs out of their pockets, so that 75% of

respondents could claim to have acquired CA inputs using their own cash;. In

addition, 40% and 60% of those no longer practicing CA got their inputs through

their own cash and grants, respectively.

40

Table 18: Financial inputs for first inputs acquisition method (NB: number add up to more than 100%)

Method Practicing CA No longer Practicing CA

Frequency % Frequency %

I bought with my own cash 15 75.0 8 40.0

Loan 1 5.0 0 0

Grant 10 50.0 12 60.0

To test whether there was any relation between method of input acquisition and

the farmer’s likelihood to retain CA practices or not X2 was used. The results

showed strong correlation, since calculated X2 (10.41) was greater than the

tabulated one (3.84) at 95% confidence interval. This supports the suggestion

that farmers who buy their own inputs when starting a new technology are likely

to continue than those who solely depend on grants. The reason for this could be

that farmers with the greatest investment put more effort into the management of

the crop and reap more benefits knowing that any reduction in yield would mean

personal loss.

4.5. Reasons for practicing CA

The reasons why farmers continued with CA were investigated, with respondents

giving more than one answer (Table 19). Overall, 45% indicating that their

continued involvement in this technology was because it helped in the

conservation of soil and water. The mulch that is spread on the soil surface helps

to reduce rainfall impact, thereby minimising splash erosion. It also enhances

infiltration and reduces runoff. Water conservation is also achieved through

reduced surface water evaporation as the mulch acts as a shield to sunlight. The

water conservation is very crucial to agriculture as Salima district is one of the

areas that receive low rainfall and experience high temperatures. Similarly, 60%

of the farmers gave soil fertility improvement as a reason for practicing CA. The

farmers explained that the crop residues that are left on the surface in the field

turn into manure after decomposition, and the inclusion of nitrogen-fixing

agroforestry species as intercrops also helps to improve soil fertility. The

41

commonest agroforestry shrub species were pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan) and

the fish(-poison) bean (Tephrosia vogelli - Figure 7).

Figure 7: Harvested CA plot with Tephrosia vogelli intercrop (Source: TLC, 2010)

Forty five percent of the farmers also explained that they were involved in the CA

technology because it was resulting in higher yields if compared to the

conventional methods. Low labour demand was another reason that 75% of the

respondents gave for their involvement. This is because tilling is minimised

during land preparation and the reduced labour helps farmers save time and to

carry out other farm operations, such as planting on time.

CA’s ability in reducing labour demands has been debated in some quarters.

Giller et al (2009) argue that the reduced work load can only be achieved in

cases where herbicides are used. The basis for this thinking is that not tilling the

soil and planting directly into the mulch may indeed reduce labour requirement for

land preparation, but increases weed pressure if herbicides are not used. Thus

the increased amount of labour required for weeding with CA may outweigh the

labour gained by not ploughing. Based on this thinking it may therefore be said

that the reduced labour demand observed by the respondents may not necessary

be attributed to CA alone, but to the use of herbicides as well.

42

Table 19: Reasons given for practicing CA

Reason

Frequency

%

soil and water conservation 9 45.0

Soil fertility improvement 12 60.0

Low cost 1 5.0

Low labour demanding 15 75.0

High yielding 9 45.0

4.7. Reasons for stopping practicing CA

It was important to try and identify the reasons why farmers had stopped CA

practices (Table 20). In contrast to those still practicing CA, 10% considered it to

be more labour demanding, as crop residues necessary for mulching the surface

had to be fetched from outside their farms, because their own surface mulching

material is often destroyed by fire or livestock. However, the majority (65%) of

those who had stopped practicing CA did so because they found it to be

expensive. When asked to identify the most expensive component of CA, all the

farmers in this category singled out inputs (especially herbicides) as the main

limiting factor. The same was also identified by 65% of respondents who were

still practicing CA. It is true that some people equate CA to use of herbicides,

because almost all the partners (NGOs, private sector and government) involved

in the promotion of CA include herbicides as part of CA package. However, it

remains to be proven whether these herbicide inputs are strictly necessary.

However, the financial aspect is important as 35% mentioned the stoppage of

grants a reason for no longer participating in CA. Some proponents of CA

(MoAFS inclusive) regard grants as an incentive for farmers' participation -

especially in the first year, and it is assumed that the farmers will be able to

continue on their own having seen its benefits. This is not always the case, as

some farmers are only interested in the free inputs rather than the technology,

and others took the grants as a prerequisite for their participation in CA. Farmers

dropping out of soil and water conservation programmes is not a new

phenomenon in most of the countries in the southern African region. A closer look

at success stories in adoption of some conservation technologies shows a strong

43

relationship between success and donor-funded projects. The supposed adopters

of such technologies often get inputs for free or on loan, and when external

support stops farmers quickly revert to their former crop management practice

(Giller et al, 2009).

Table 20: Reasons given for stopping practicing CA

Reason

Frequency

Percent

Expensive 13 65

High labour demanding 2 10

Grants stopped 7 35

Input scarcity 1 5

4.8. Reasons for never adopting CA

Similarly, it was necessary to identify the reasons for not having adopted CA

(Table 21), and 30% of respondents who had never participated in CA indicated

the reason was that they had not been selected by the extension worker. Some

respondents recounted that farmers whose gardens were along the main roads

were favoured by the extension workers and that whenever an opportunity for

grants arose it was these farmers who were given priority. There were incidences

when inputs were given to farmers who had no interest in CA simply because

their gardens were along the roads. The arguments being put forward by the

extension workers from MOAFS was that such criteria were meant to promote

adoption, as it is easy for other farmers to see what is happening on a

demonstration plot when it is along a main road. However, they did admit that

poor selection of farmers hosting demonstration plots has at times had a negative

effect on adoption.

44

Table 21: Reasons given for not adopting CA

Reason

Frequency

%

I was not selected 6 30.0

Expensive 6 30.0

Not interested 3 15.0

I have not been trained 4 20.0

Never heard of it 1 5.0

I have just heard of it last cropping season 1 5.0

Another 30% of respondents indicated that they did not venture into CA because

they considered it to be expensive. This group again singled out herbicides as the

most expensive input. Lack of interest and lack of awareness were also given as

reasons for non participation in the technology, and 20% mentioned lack of

knowledge in CA as they had not been trained. Similar reasons were also found

by Williams (2008) in a study conducted in Nkhotakota district on adoption of CA.

4.9. Challenges being faced in implementation of CA

Over one third of farmers practicing and 50% of those no longer practicing CA

considered scarcity of inputs (especially herbicides and fertilizer) as one of the

factors impeding adoption of CA. Coupled with the scarcity of inputs is their

expensiveness, and this was mentioned by 40% and 20% of farmers practicing

and no longer practicing CA respectively (Table 22). Realising the challenges that

smallholder farmers are facing, since 2005 the Government of Malawi (GoM) has

been implementing an input subsidy programme in order to improve farmers’

access to inputs, but the programme does not cover everybody as it targets the

poorest of the poor.

45

Table 22: Challenges being faced when implementing CA

Challenge

Practicing CA

No longer Practicing CA

Frequency

%

Frequency

%

Input scarcity 7 35.0 10 50.0

Inputs are expensive 8 40.0 4 20.0

Crop residue management 7 35.0 8 40.0

Being laughed at 2 10.0 1 5.0

Equipment not available 3 15.0 3 15.0

Transportation of manure 1 5.0 0 0.0

Weed management 2 10.0 3 15.0

Planting 3 15.0 2 10.0

Fertilizer application 1 5.0 1 5.0

Weed management, fertilizer application and planting were also mentioned as

activities that demanded more labour. However, Williams (2008) argues that if

one considers the amount of work that goes into traditional agriculture methods

and also walks through a field of CA a month after harvest, it becomes clear that

less work is done under CA as the weeds in CA plots are significantly reduced in

comparison with conventional agriculture. He also quantified the time a farmer

spent on farm operations in maize production if CA is used and this was

compared to conventional maize production method. It was found that the

conservation agriculture respondents on average spent 30 hours per acre in their

fields while their counterparts practicing traditional methods spent 47 hours per

acre in their field, and those who had been practicing CA for more than a year

spent even slightly less days.

Management of crop residues was singled out by 35% of farmers practicing and

40% of those no longer practicing CA as the most labour demanding activity as

the residues require to be evenly spread. The farmers also explained that they

are times when the crop residues have to be transported from outside the field

because the residues retained from the previous crop are deemed inadequate.

Burning of crop residues by mice hunters, removal of the residues by tobacco

46

farmers for nursery seed bed preparation,8 destruction of the residues by termites

and by livestock were mentioned as factors affecting crop residue management

Other challenges that CA if facing in the study area were mentioned, including

being laughed at by fellow farmers as the CA field does not look appealing to the

eye and also due to the general belief that the only way to prepare for planting is

to till the land. Expensiveness and absence of equipment such as sprayers for

application of herbicides and jab planters, and difficulties in transporting manure

to the field were also mentioned. High labour demand during weeding in the

event of farmer’s failure to access herbicides was also seen as an obstacle to

successful implementation of CA as the majority of the smallholder farmers in

Africa rely on hand weeding and that is estimated to consume 50-70% of the total

labour time (Gianessi, 2009).

4.10. Reasons why CA is more rewarding

Farmers are likely to embrace a new technology when they perceive it to be in

their best interest to do so. In most cases the decision to change is influenced by

economic reasons and it is not unusual for farmers to opt for a production system

which is both more efficient and less expensive9 (Nwankwo et al, 2009 and

Marsh, 2010). Over 90% of the respondents considered CA to be more rewarding

than conventional farming. A majority of each group of respondents gave low

labour demand as a reason why CA was superior to conventional method. 85%

of respondents practicing, 65% of those who stopped and 55% of the

respondents not practicing considered it to be high yielding (Table 23). The

results are line with the findings of Valencia and Nyirenda (2003) which found

maize grain yields for the conservation agriculture technologies to be two to three

fold over the traditional way of farming. In the same study it was also noted that

net income from CA plots was higher than from conventional system. The higher

net income from the conservation agriculture technology is a result of savings

8 It is a common practice in Malawi for tobacco farmers burn maize crop residues on a tobacco

seedbed before sowing in order to kill pests. 9 A system is less expensive if it requires less labour, fuel and equipment. It is more efficient if it

results in increased quantity or quality of output in relation to inputs.

47

accrued from labour for ridging and weeding. However, farmers can experience a

reduction in yields in the initial years of practicing the technology (Giller, 2009).

Table 23: Reasons given as to why CA is more rewarding

Reason Practicing CA No longer

Practicing CA Never Practiced

CA

Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %

Low labour demanding 20 100 15 75 11 55

High yielding 17 85 13 65 11 55

Soil and water conservation 2 10 2 10 1 5

Low production cost 1 5 0 0 1 5

Soil fertility improvement 13 65 11 55 12 60

Termite attack to crops is reduced

0 0 1 5 0 0

About 60% of the respondents in each of the three categories considered CA to

be better in terms of soil fertility improvement. Soil and water conservation, low

production cost and reduction in crop attack by termites were the other reasons

that the respondents gave in supporting CA over conventional method. Giller et al

(2009) write that, despite the general belief that reduced tillage leads to increased

SOM and soil fertility, the addition of organic matter through mulching in CA plays

a significant role in soil and water conservation and soil fertility improvement

rather than reduced tillage itself.

4.11. CA promotion strategies

Farmers' opinions were also sought on various CA promotion strategies, with

63.3 of respondents saying that making inputs particularly inorganic fertilizer and

herbicides available would help in the promotion of CA (Table 25). Provision of

inputs on loans, and deliberate efforts that would bring down the current price of

inputs were suggested as further ways that would boost CA adoption. Provision

of loans for CA inputs is not a new phenomenon, as the approach was used by

Sasakawa Grobal 2000 in a project which was designed to improve maize

productivity per unit area (Mloza-Banda and Nanthabwe, 2010). It is still being

used by Total Landcare (TLC), an NGO whose main mission is to improve the

48

livelihoods of smallholder farmers with a focus on 'community-based approaches

to increase agricultural production, food security and incomes within a context

that ensures sound management of their natural resources' (TLC, 2007).

Table 24: CA promotion strategies

Strategy Frequency %

Provide Loans 38 63.3

Train more farmers 36 60.0

Mount more on-farm demonstrations 7 11.7

Conduct more farmer exchange visits 4 6,7

Establish CA groups 19 31.7

Make CA inputs available 28 46.7

Hold more field days 5 8.3

Training more farmers in CA technology was mentioned by 60% of the

respondents, and this is further supported by the study results since all the

farmers practicing CA had been trained in CA, compared to 40% of respondents

who had never practiced received CA. Lewa et al (2010) note that farmer training

is crucial, as it increases the frequency of farmer contact with extension staff and

other farmers. Training may also enhance farmer-to-farmer information

exchange and encouragement through peer pressure.

The establishment of CA groups was positively cited by 31.7% of respondents.

Farmer Groups are the usual entry points of most agricultural programs by

government and NGOs in Malawi. The approach is promoted because the ratio

of agricultural extension workers to farmers is big and dissemination of

agricultural messages through groups makes it possible for a larger number of

farmers to be reached within a short period. Through the groups, the farming

community can also be empowered with the knowledge and skills to identify its

needs and problems, harness its resources to deal with this problem, and take

action collectively (Paras and Amongo, 2005)

49

Mounting of on-farm demonstrations was also brought up by 11.7% of the

respondents; these are crucial in technology transfer as they provide

opportunities for farmers to have hard evidence on the advantages and

disadvantages of the technology in question. They also give researchers a

chance to properly evaluate the technology being developed under the real

condition of the smallholder farmer for whom it is being developed, and this

provides an opportunity to understand the conditions under which the farmer is

operating

50

Chapter Five: Conclusion and Recommendations

This chapter gives a summary of factors and challenges affecting/restricting

adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi and it proposes measures to be

undertaken in order to enhance the adoption of the technology.

5.1 Conclusion

This study found out that the greater majority of the respondents were aware of

conservation agriculture and its associated benefits. However, awareness in CA

alone was found not to be enough to enhance the adoption and continued use of

CA. Somewhat unexpectedly, age of the respondent, household size, level of

education, level of land control, and size of the garden were found not to show

significant relationships with the adoption of CA.

Judging from a review of relevant literature, positive correlations might have been

expected with level of education (Weir and Night, 2000), land ownership

(McCulloch, et al, 1998; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2009), and size of the garden

(Onyenweaku et al, 2007), while negative correlations could have been expected

with age (Thangataa and Alavalapati, 2003; Uematsu and Mishra, 2010), and

household size (Adeoti, 2009). However, the data do provide suggestions of

non-significant relationships: between current CA practice and smaller families

(Section 4.1.3), between secondary education and having tried CA (Section

4.1.4), and between current CA and larger gardens (Section 4.1.5).

A male household head, membership of a Farmer Group, and having attended

farmer trainings were all found to have significant positive impacts on adoption

and continued use of CA technology. This is not strange as these results are in

line with the findings other researchers (Thangataa and Alavalapati, 2003;

Masuki et al, 2007; Adeoti, 2009; Mazvimavi and Twomlow, 2009).

51

The sample of female-headed households was too small to make really

meaningful interpretations, but the benefits to CA of a male head of household

could be explained by a cultural reluctance of women to be seen to be taking

radical decisions, or by the heavy existing workload of women who would then be

taking on additional 'male' roles. Respondents indicated that all those who had

got involved in CA did it as a result of some sort of practical example. Therefore,

membership of a Farmer Group and participation in training probably initiated

decisions to adopt CA, rather than the other way round.

As previously indicated, it was expected that land control/ownership might have

been a significant factor in getting involved CA, since land tenure has been an

established as a major factor in encouraging the investments needed for land

improvements (McCulloch, et al, 1998; Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2009). The

interpretation for this previous finding is that people are more inclined to put long-

term investment into enterprises that are secure. In the current study, it is likely

that the sample of respondents was too homogeneous to detect any influence of

land tenure. Furthermore, although no respondent had clear title to the land they

cultivated, all of them operated in a fairly secure situation that included de-facto

rights of inheritance.

Similarly, it might have been expected that level of income would positively

correlate with the uptake of CA since better-off farmers would be those most able

to get involved without assistance once they thought CA was a good idea. In the

event, there was no significant difference in income levels between farmers

practicing the technology and those who had never practiced it. However, the

study did reveal a positive correlation between income and long-term

commitment to CA, with those who abandoned the technology after taking it up

being less well off. Furthermore, there was a positive correlation between

maintaining CA and having made a personal financial outlay to acquire the initial

inputs.

There are two, probably inter-linked, explanations for these observations. First,

adoption of CA has associated costs that will be both better appreciated and

52

better absorbed by those making personal investments than by those who are

kick-started by grant-aided inputs. The second explanation parallels the

psychological explanation of the link between land tenure and willingness to

invest, in that those who have invested their own money have more incentive to

put in the additional effort necessary for a successful outcome.

5.2 Recommendations

Input acquisition is a challenge to smallholder farmers as the desired inputs are

sometimes not available or most farmers cannot afford to buy them at the current

market price. This is particular true of herbicides. The lack of purchasing power

can be attributed to the fact that the majority of farmers live below the poverty

line, and deliberate action therefore needs to be taken to enhance farmers’

access to inputs. This has previously been done by supplying materials as

grants, but this has encouraged farmers to apply who are only interested in the

inputs rather the CA technology being promoted. Such practices create a

dependency syndrome, which is counter-productive to the goal of building self-

sufficiency. Grants also bring discontent among the farming community as not

everybody is covered, and the criteria used in selection of beneficiaries are often

questionable. In some cases farmers who are left out of grants programmes shun

away from participating in other agriculture programmes. It also creates an

impression that any new technology cannot be implemented without external

assistance.

An alternative, practiced by the NGO TLC, is the provision of loans on a cost-

recovery (i.e. no-interest) basis to smallholder farmers who show interest in CA.

Previously the Malawian government issued agriculture inputs as loans

accessible through Farmer Groups, but with individual recipient farmers repaying

to the government through the Agricultural Extension Workers. This is no longer

the case, but government grants can still be given to a Farmer Group to set up a

revolving fund with repayment to the Group. Farmers who show interest in CA

should be asked to pay a deposit to the Farmer Group account as proof of their

commitment, and this would put off farmers who were only interested in the grant

rather than the technology. TLC (2007) recommends that loans to farmers and

53

small-scale enterprises must first involve a thorough assessment of capabilities to

undertake the intended practice, along with ability to repay the loan. To reduce

the risk of defaults, and to ensure that beneficiaries are committed to the

endeavour, a minimum down-payment should be demanded.

Mobilising farmers to find their own start-up inputs would enhance adoption, as

farmers who made personal investments were found to be more likely to retain

the CA practice. This can be achieved through encouraging Farmer Groups to set

up a savings fund from subscriptions and demonstration plot income etc.

Coming up with a deliberate policy that would result in reduction of the current

market price of herbicides may also increase CA adoption, and this can be

achieved through reducing the domestic tax on herbicides, which is currently at

21% (Tchale and Keyser, 2010). However, not all farmers could afford herbicides

even with the provision of loans or a reduction in price. Therefore, it is imperative

that it is demonstrated to farmers that CA is not synonymous with herbicide

application. This assumption had been established by the fact that almost none of

the proponents of CA in Malawi have done it without herbicides. However, there

is literature support for the idea that CA can be done without herbicides as long

as adequate soil cover is provided to suppress weeds (FAO, 2008). Doing this

would be more labour-intensive, but would enable farmers to fight the weed

problem more cheaply.

Farmer trainings in CA need to be given more emphasis since, as the study has

shown, farmers who have been trained stand a better chance of adopting a

technology. It is through training that a farmer can understand the dangers of the

current agricultural practices and realise that adopting a different approach might

be of great importance. This also gives an opportunity for an extension worker to

have more contacts with the farmer and have an understanding of the conditions

under which the farmer is operating. This may not happen overnight as it a

journey that both every farmer needs to go through for a sound decision to be

made. Trainings therefore need to be packaged in a way that gives farmers

hands-on experience in the implementation of the technology. This could be

54

achieved through mounting of on-farm demonstrations and encouraging farmer-

to-farmer exchange visits. However, as the study has shown, care needs to be

taken when selecting sites and individuals to host the demonstrations. In the area

of study almost all the demonstration plots were along the main roads, and in

most cases farmers whose gardens were away from those sites did not

participate. Site selection should be done in a participatory manner and should

take into consideration the views of the farmers as well as practical

considerations such as ease of access. Failure to do this may lead to continued

low participation, and this will result in low adoption of CA and other valuable

techniques.

Formation of Farmer Groups needs to be given more emphasis, as they were

found to be effective when conducting trainings and passing on other extension

messages. Farmer Groups also act as platforms for farmers to share experiences

and encourage each other. In addition, participating farmers have better access

to extension services and other services. Farmers who do not belong to any

group may be enticed to join if they become aware of the benefits and support

they can have which may bring positive contribution to their production.. There is

also a need to promote farmer-to-farmer extension in the dissemination of CA

messages so that farmers who have not tried the technology are encouraged.

The current study mainly focused on Individual and household factors, but there

is an obvious need for further research to be done to determine other biophysical,

policy and institutional factors that might be affecting the adoption of CA. It may

also be of paramount importance to carry out research on soil physical and

chemical properties dynamics under CA systems as the current information

available for Malawi is not adequate.

55

References

Adeoti, A.I.; 2009. Factors influencing irrigation technology adoption and its

impact on household poverty in Ghana. Journal of Agriculture and Rural

Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 109, No. 1, 51–63

Ajayi, O.C.; F.K. Akinnifesi; G. Sileshi and S. Chakeredza, 2007. Adoption of

renewable soil fertility replenishment technologies in the southern African region:

Lessons learnt and way forward. Natural Resources Forum, 31, 306-317.

Baker, C.J.; K.E. Saxton,; W.R. Ritchie; W.C.T. Chamen; D. C. Reicosky; F.

Ribeiro; S.E. Justice and P. R. Hobbs, 2007. No-tillage seeding in conservation

agriculture. CABI Publishing: Oxon, UK.

Bishop, J., 1992. The cost of soil erosion in Malawi. Report prepared for the

World Bank Economics Mission on Environmental Policy, Malawi, July-Aug 1990.

World Bank: Washington, DC.

Chilimba, A.D.C., 2001. Vertisols management in Malawi. In: Syers, K.J.; W.T.

Frits; P. De Vries and P. Nyamudeza (eds.), The sustainable management of

vertisols. CAB International: Oxon, UK.

Chinsinga, B. and A. O’Brien, 2008. Planting ideas: How agricultural subsidies

are working in Malawi. Africa Research Institute: London.

CTIC, 1999. Conservation tillage. US Conservation Technology Information

Center: West Lafayette, USA. Available at:

http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/contillage.shtml.

Dubbin, W., 2001. Soils. Natural History Museum: London.

56

FAO, 1975. Natural resources and environment: Les unités pédologiques de la

FAO. Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN: Rome. Available at:

http://www.fao.org/nr/land/sols/les-unites-pedologiques-de-la-fao-1975/fr/

FAO, 2001. Conservation agriculture: Case studies in Latin America and Africa.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN: Rome. Available at:

(http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/Y1730E/y1730e00.)

FAO, 2008. Conservation agriculture. Food and Agricultural Organization of the

UN: Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/8.html

Fowler, R. and J. Rockstrom, 2001. Conservation tillage for sustainable

agriculture: An agrarian revolution gathers momentum in Africa. Soil and Tillage

Research, 61, 93-107

García-Torres, L.; A. Martínez-Vilela; A. Holgado-Cabrera and Emilio

Gónzalez-Sánchez, 2002. Conservation agriculture, Environmental and

Economic benefits. Summary of the Workshop on Soil Protection and

Sustainable Agriculture, Soria, Spain, 15-17 May 2002. Available at:

http://www.unapcaem.org/publication/ConservationAgri/CA1.pdf

Gianessi, L.; 2009. Solving Africa’s weed problem: Increasing crop production

and improving the lives of women. CropLife Foundation, Washington DC.

Available

at:http://www.whybiotech.com/resources/tps/Solving_Africas_Weed_Problem_Re

port.pdf

Giller, K.E.; E. Witter; M. Corbeels and P. Tittonell, 2009. Conservation

Agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field Crops

Research, 114, 23-34.

GoM, 1996. The national environmental action plan. Government of Malawi,

Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment: Lilongwe, Malawi.

57

GoM, 2002a. Malawi national land policy. Government of Malawi, Ministry of

Lands, Physical Planning and Surveys: Lilongwe, Malawi.

GoM, 2002b. State of the environment report for 2002. Government of Malawi,

Ministry of Mines, Natural Resources and Environment: Lilongwe, Malawi.

Hobbs, P.R., K. Sayre and R. Gupta, 2007. The role of conservation agriculture

in sustainable agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society, 363, 543-

555.

IMF, 2007. Malawi: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper - Growth and Development

Strategy. International Monetary Fund: Washington DC.

Knowler, D. and B. Bradshaw, 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation

agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy, 32, 25-48.

Lastarria-Cornhiel, S.; 2009. Women’s role in agriculture and in rural welfare:

Access to land and resources. United Nations, New York. Available at:

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw

Le Danvic, A.S.; 2009. Analysis diagnosis of an agricultural region of Southern

Malawi. Unpublished, Inter-AIDE: Lilongwe, Malawi.

Lewa, K.K.; R.W. Muinga and D.M. Mwamachi, 2010. Enhancing technology

adoption through competitive learning Grants: Experiences of the Atiri in Coastal

Kenya, Mtwapa, Kenya. Available at:

http://www.kari.org/fileadmin/publications/10thproceedings/Poster/Ehancing_Tec

hAdopn_Comptv.pdf

Makumba, W.; F.K. Akinnifesi; B. Janssen and O. Oenema, 2006. Long-term

impact of gliricidia-maize interplanting system on carbon sequestration in

southern Malawi. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 118, 237-243.

58

Marsh, S.; 2010. Adopting innovations in agricultural industries. University of

Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia. Available at:

http://www.abare.gov.au/outlook/_download/pro_marsh.pdf

Masuki, K F G.; K D Mutabazi; S D Tumbo; F B Rwehumbiza and A Z Mattee,

2007., Determinants of farm-level adoption of water systems innovations in

dryland areas: The case of Makanya Watershed in Pangani River Basin,

Tanzania. Available at:

Materechera, S.A and H.R. Mloza-Banda, 1997. Soil penetration resistance,

root growth and yield of maize as influenced by tillage system on ridges in

Malawi. Soil Tillage Research 41, 13-24.

Mazvimavi, K. And S. Twomlow, 2009. Socioeconomic and institutional factors

influencing adoption of conservation farming by vulnerable households in

Zimbabwe. Agricultural Systems, 101, 20-29.

McCulloch, A.N.; R. Meinzen-Dick and P. Hazell, 1998. Property rights,

collective action and technologies for natural resource management: A

conceptual framework. SP-PRCA Working Paper No. 1. International Food Policy

Research Institute, Washington DC.

Mloza-Banda, H.R. and S.J. Nanthambwe, 2010. Conservation agriculture

projects in Malawi: Impacts and lessons. Unpublished, Land Resources

Conservation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security: Lilongwe,

Malawi

MoA/UNDP/FAO, 1992. Land resources appraisal of the Agricultural

Development Divisions. Department of Soil and Land Resources, Ministry of

Agriculture: Lilongwe, Malawi in conjunction with UNDP and FAO.

59

Munthali, W.M.; S.F.M. Kazombo and A.R. Saka, 2008. Socio economic factors

affecting the adoption of soil and water conservation technologies among

smallholder farmers in Malawi. In: Nhira, C.; A. Mapiki and P. Rankhumise (eds.),

Land and water management in southern Africa. The African Institute of South

Africa: Pretoria, South Africa.

Nanthambwe, S.J. and N.J. Mulenga,. 1999. An account of the history of soil

and water conservation related agricultural extension in Malawi. Land Resources

Conservation Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security: Lilongwe,

Malawi

Nothale, D.W. 1982. Land tenure systems and agricultural production in Malawi.

University of Malawi, Lilongwe, Malawi. Available at:

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80604e/80604E0h.htm

NSO, 2005. Integrated household survey (2004-2005). National Statistical Office,

Zomba, Malawi

NSO, 2008. 2008 population and housing census. National Statistical Office:

Zomba, Malawi

Nwankwo, U.M.; K.J. Peters, and W. Bokelmann, 2010. The journal of

Agrobiotechnology Managemrnt and Economics, Volume 12 // Number 3 & 4 //

Article 18. Available at: http://www.agbioforum.org/v12n34/v12n34a18-

nwankwo.htm.

Onyenweaku, C.E.; B.C. Okoye And K.C. Okorie, 2007. Determinants of

fertilizer adoption by rice farmers in Bende Local Government Area of Abia State,

Nigeria. Munich Personal RePEc Archive papaer no. 26116, posted 22. October

2010 / 15:27. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/26116/

60

Paras, F.O. Jr., and R. M. C. Amongo, 2005. Technology transfer strategies for

small farm mechanisation technologies in the Philippines. University of

Philippines, Laguna, Philippines. Available at:

http://www.agnet.org/library/eb/570/

Paustian, K.; J.M. Antle; J. Sheehan and E.A. Paul, 2006. Agriculture’s role in

greenhouse gas mitigation. PEW Center on Global Climate Change: Arlington,

Virginia. Available at:

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Agriculture's%20Role%20in%20GHG%20

Mitigation.pdf

Sauer, J. and H. Tchale, 2006. Alternative soil management options in Malawi -

an economic analysis. Paper presented at the International Association of

Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, August 12-18.

Siacinji-Musiwa, J.M. 1999. Conservation tillage in Zambia: Some technologies,

indigenous methods and environmental issues. in: Kaumbutho P G and

Simalenga T E (eds.), 1999. Conservation tillage with animal traction: A resource

book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA).

Harare, Zimbabwe.

Snapp, S.S.; D.D. Rohrbach; F. Simtowe and H.A. Freeman, 2002.

Sustainable soil management options for Malawi: can smallholder farmers grow

more legumes? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 91, 159-174.

Tchale, H. and J. Keyser, 2010. Quantitative value chain analysis: An

application to Malawi. Policy Research Working Paper 5242. Wolrd Bank,

Agricultural and Rural Unit, Africa. Region. Available at:

Thangataa, P.H. and J.R.R. Alavalapati, 2003. Agroforestry adoption in

southern Malawi: The case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize.

Agricultural Systems 78, 57–71

61

TLC, 2007. Chia watershed management project report. Unpublished, Total

Landcare: Lilongwe

Uematsu, H. and A.K. Mishra, 2010. Net effect of education on technology

adoption by U.S. farmers. Louisiana State University AgCenter, Los Angels.

Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics

Association Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, February 6-9, 2010

UN-REDD, 2010. Slash and burn farming. Collaborative initiative on Reducing

Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. United Nations: Available

at:http://www.un-

redd.org/NewsCentre/Slash_and_Burn_Farming/tabid/3013/language/en-

US/Default.aspx

Valencia, J.A. and N. Nyirenda. 2003. The impact of conservation tillage

technology on conventional weeding and its effect on cost of production of maize

in Malawi. In: Mloza-Banda, H. R. and Salanje, G.F. (eds.) Proceedings of the

19th Biennial Weed Science Society Conference for Eastern Africa. Lilongwe,

Malawi.

Weir, S. and J. Knight, 2000. Adoption and Diffusion of Agricultural Innovations

in Ethiopia:The Role of Education. Centre for the Study of African Economies,

Oxford.

WFP, 2008. Malawi, 2008: Investments in Agriculture. World Food Programme of

the UN. Available at:

http://one.wfp.org/country_brief/africa/malawi/factsheets/Investments_in_Agricult

ure_Fact_Sheet_August_2008_DL.pdf

Williams, J., 2008. Adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi. Unpublished,

MSc thesis, Duke University: Durham NC, USA

62

Wiyo, K.A.; Z.M. Kasomekera and J. Feyen, 2000. Effect of tied-ridging on soil

water status of a maize crop under Malawi conditions. Agricultural Water

Management 45, 101-125

63

Appendices

Appendix 1

Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Farming in Malawi

(Farmer Questionnaire)

Name of the farmer_______________________

ADD:______________________ District:________________________

EPA:______________________ Section:_______________________

Village:____________________

Socio economic information

1. Sex of the household head:

[1] Male [2] Female

2. Age:

[1] 18-25 [2] 26-35

[3] 36-45 [4] 46-55

[5] 56 and above

3. Level of education

[1] No any formal education [2] Std 1- Std 5

[3] Std 6- Std 8 [4] Some secondary education

[5] Some tertiary education

64

4. Household size

[1] 1-2 [2] 3-4

[3] 5-6 [4] >6

5. Size of the garden (Acres)

[1] 0.1-0.5 [2] 0.6-1.0

[3] 1.1-2.0 [4] 2.1-3.0

[5] >3.0

6a. Land ownership

[1] Own garden [2] Renting

[3] Borrowed [4] Others specify_______

6b. Type of land ownership

[1] Customary land [2] Private/Leasehold land

[3] Public land

7a. Estimate total income

[1] 0-10,000 [2] 11,000-25,000

[3] 26,000-40,000 [4] 41,000-60,000

[5] 61,000 and above

7b. Estimate % distribution of income

[1] Agriculture [2] Salary

[3] Piece works

65

7c. Estimate % of agriculture income

[1] Crop [2] Livestock

8. Crops grown:

[1] Maize [2] Ground nuts

[3] Cotton [4] Tobacco

[5] Soya [6] Rice

[7] Cassava [8] (Others (specify)_________

9. Livestock kept

[1] Cattle [2] Goats

[3] Sheep [4] Pigs

[5] Chicken [6] None

(Others (specify) _____________

CA Information Dissemination

10a. Do you belong to any farmer group?

[1] Yes [2] No

10b. If yes in question 10a, which group?

[1] Irrigation group [2] Livestock group

[3] Soil and water conservation group [4] Agroforestry group

[5] Others (Specify)______________

66

10c. If no in 10a, why don’t you belong to any farmer group?

[1] Not interested [2] There is no farmer group

[3] The group disbanded [4] Can’t afford membership fee

Others (specify) _______

11a. Do you have an extension worker in this area?

[1] Yes [2] No

11b. If yes to 11a, which organisation does the extension belong?

[1] Min of Agriculture [2] NGO

[3] Farmer group [4] Others (specify) __________

11c. How frequent does an extension worker visit you in a month?

[1] Doesn’t visit [2] Once a month

[3] Twice a month [4] More than twice a month

12a. Have you ever heard of conservation agriculture?

[1] Yes [2] No

12b. If yes to question 12a, where did you hear about conservation agriculture?

[1] MoAFS agriculture extension worker [2] Fellow farmer

[3] NGO extension worker [4] Farmer volunteer

[5] Attended field day [6] Others (specify) __________

67

13a. Have you ever been trained in conservation agriculture?

[1] Yes [2] No

13b. If yes to question 13 a, What were the topics covered?

[1] Crop residue management [2] Weed management

[3] Nutrient management [4] Others (specify)____________

14. Level of adoption

[1] Practicing CA [2] No longer practicing CA

[3] Never practiced conservation agriculture

15. For responses 1 and 2 in 14, how did get your initial inputs to start conservation farming? [1] I bought with my own cash [2] Loan

[3] Grant [4] Others (Specify) ___________

16a. For response 1 in 14, why are you practicing conservation agriculture?

[1]Soil conservation [2] Soil fertility improvement

[3] High yielding [4] Low cost

[5] Low labour demanding [6] Others (specify) ___________

16b. For response 2 in 14, Why did you stop conservation agriculture?

[1] Expensive [2] Labour demanding

[3] Low yielding [4] Grants stopped

[5] Did not pay back loan [6] Others (specify) ___________

68

17a. For responses 2 and 3 in question 15, would still be practicing conservation agriculture if input support stops? [1] Yes [2] No

17b. If no in question 17a, why would you not be practicing CA?

[1] Expensive [2] Labour intensive

[3] Low yielding [4] Others (Specify) ___________

18. What challenges are you/did you encountering/encountered in conservation farming? \ [1] Input scarcity [2] Equipment not available

[3] Destruction of residues by livestock [4] Burning of crop residues

[5] Others (Specify) ______________

19. Which component of conservation farming is more expensive?

[1] Land preparation [2] Weed management

[3] Inputs [4] Others (specify) ___________

20. Which farm operation is labour intensive?

[1] Laying of crop residues [2] Weed management

[3] Others (specify) ______

69

21a. Which would you say is more rewarding between CA and conventional farming? [1] CA [2] Conventional farming

21b. What are the reasons for your answer in question 21a?

[1] Low labour demanding [2] High yielding

[3] Soil and water conservation [4] Soil fertility improvement

Others (specify) ________

22. Why have you never adopted conservation agriculture?

[1] Never heard of it [1] I was not selected

[3] Not interested [4] Expensive

[5] High labour demanding [6] Others (specify) ___________

23. Should conservation agriculture be promoted?

[1] Yes [2] No

24. What do you think should happen in order to promote adoption of CA?

[1] Train more farmers [2] Establish CA groups

[3] Mount more on-farm demonstrations [4] Hold more field days

[5] Conduct more farmer exchange visits [5] Provide loans

[6] Make CA input available [7] Others (Specify) __________

70

Appendix 2

Factors Affecting Adoption of Conservation Farming in Malawi

(Field Staff Questionnaire)

Name _____________________

ADD:______________________ District:_____________________

EPA:______________________ Section:____________________

Name of Organisation_____________________

1. Have you ever be trained in conservation agriculture

[1] Yes [2] No

2a. Have you ever mounted any on-farm demonstration on CA?

[1] Yes [2] No

2b. If yes to question 2a, how many?

[1] 1-3 [2] 4-6

[3] 7-9 [4] >10

3. Do you have any criteria that you use when selecting farmers who host on farm demonstrations? [1] Yes [2] No

4. If yes to question 3, what criteria do you use when selecting framers who host demonstration plots for conservation agriculture? [1] ______________________________________________________________

[2] ______________________________________________________________

[3] ______________________________________________________________

[4] ______________________________________________________________

71

5. What is your assessment in terms of adoption of conservation agriculture?

[1] Adoption is increasing [2] Adoption is going down

[3] I don’t know Others (Specify) ________

6. What challenges are you facing in the course of implementing conservation agriculture? [1] ______________________________________________________________

[2] ______________________________________________________________

[3] ______________________________________________________________

[4] ______________________________________________________________

[5] ______________________________________________________________

7. Are there any incentives given to farmers who host the demonstrations?

[1] Yes [2] No

[3] Sometimes

8. If yes, what are they?

[1] ______________________________________________________________

[2] ______________________________________________________________

[3] ______________________________________________________________

[4] ______________________________________________________________

[5] ______________________________________________________________

9. What contribution do farmers who host the demonstration plots of CA make?

[1] Labour [2] Inputs

[3] Nothing [4] Others (Specify)______

10. Have you ever experienced some farmers dropping out of conservation programmes? [1] Yes [2] No

72

11a. Were any follow ups made to find out why the farmers decided to drop out?

[1] Yes [2] No

11b. If yes to question 11a, what was the result?

[2] The farmer did not revert to CA [1] The farmer restarted CA

[3] Others (specify) ______________

12. What were the reasons for the drop out?

[1] ______________________________________________________________

[2] ______________________________________________________________

[3] ______________________________________________________________

[4] ______________________________________________________________

[5] ______________________________________________________________

13. What opportunities do you see that can help to promote adoption of conservation agriculture in this area? [1] ______________________________________________________________

[2] ______________________________________________________________

[3] ______________________________________________________________

[4] ______________________________________________________________

[5] ______________________________________________________________

14. If conservation agriculture is to be enhanced what do you think should be added to the programme. [1] ______________________________________________________________

[2] ______________________________________________________________

[3] ______________________________________________________________

[4] ______________________________________________________________

[5] ______________________________________________________________