Abandonment of Conservation Agriculture by Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe

Abstract

This paper examines the determinants of abandonment of conservation agriculture (CA) techniques among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe. The analysis uses four rounds of a balanced panel from a survey aimed at monitoring CA adoption among farmers who participated in CA promotion projects. Findings indicate that a large share of farmers who had adopted CA during the period of active promotion eventually abandoned the practice in the absence of support from non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Households with more farming experience, bigger household sizes and a greater number of cultivated plots were less likely to stop using CA. In turn, wealthy households and farmers in the drier areas were more likely to stop using CA. The finding that persistent adoption is more prevalent among the poor, supports claims that CA is a pro-poor technology. Lastly, we find a strong, negative and robust relationship between continued NGO support and abandonment of CA. This finding suggests that improved support institutions are necessary to ensure that farmers continue to use CA as a productivity-boosting and sustainable farming method.

Weed growth and crop yield responses to tillage and mulching under different crop rotation sequences in semi‐arid conditions

“…Pedzisa et al . () identified the large labour requirements for land preparation and weeding as one of the main deterrents to expansion of area under CA by smallholders.…”

“…The recommended crop rotation for semi‐arid areas is a rotation of maize ( Zea mays L.) followed by a drought‐tolerant legume and cereal crop over a three‐year period. Evidence is limited, but it appears that with time smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe (Pedzisa et al ., ) and Zambia (Baudron et al ., ) may eventually adopt the full complement of CA practices.…”

Why do smallholder farmers dis‐adopt conservation agriculture? Insights from Malawi

“…Whereas the concept of adoption of CA has been studied extensively (e.g. Knowler & Bradshaw, 2007;Mlamba, 2010;Ngwira, Johnsen, Aune, Mekuria, & Thierfelder, 2014), dis-adoption has rarely been studied (Glover et al, 2016;Pedzisa, Rugube, Winter-Nelson, Baylis, & Mazvimavi, 2015), and reasons for its occurrence are far less known.…”

“…Because agricultural technology disseminators are mostly interested in determining the rate of adoption/diffusion (Rogers, 2003), potential impact (Glover et al, 2016), or beneficiary-targeting (Chinseu, Stringer, & Dougill, 2018), much of the existing agricultural technology adoption studies emphasise linking farm and household characteristics to adoption decisions (e.g., Nyanga, 2012;Pedzisa et al, 2015;Wendland & Sills, 2008). This however provides a poor understanding of how smallholder farming households and their production systems function (Andersson & D'Souza, 2014).…”

Adoption of Conservation Practices: Its Impact on Input Use and Performance in the Northern Region of Ghana

“…Full adoption of CA Note 2 outside South America according to Bolliger et al (2006) is rare. It is theorized by researchers and promoters as Pedzisa, Rugube, Winter-Nelson, Baylis, & Mazvimavi (2015) point out but practically, partial adoption is observed because CA adoption comes in phases and takes a long time for the incorporation of its three principles. Low rates of adoption are documented in Africa (Giller et al, 2009;Arslan, McCarthy, Lipper, Asfaw, and Cattaneo 2014) especially sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where zero uptake of CA is observed in most countries (Gowing and Palmer, 2008).…”