Advertisement
The power of farmer participation: Soil fertility and water management technology adoption in Zimbabwe
Upcoming SlideShare
CGIAR reform and approaches to climate  smart innovations that ensure farmer ...CGIAR reform and approaches to climate smart innovations that ensure farmer ...
Loading in ... 3
1 of 1
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to The power of farmer participation: Soil fertility and water management technology adoption in Zimbabwe(20)

Advertisement

More from ICRISAT(20)

Advertisement

The power of farmer participation: Soil fertility and water management technology adoption in Zimbabwe

  1. Key messages 1. Adoption of soil fertility and water management technologies has been poor in the communal areas of Zimbabwe but innovative approaches such as farmer field schools and participatory extension are proving to be successful. 2. Farmers should be encouraged to work in groups in order to promote faster learning and access to knowledge. Background There is no simple answer to the question of why many African farmers do not adopt or adapt seemingly superior technologies. However, it is clear that there is a greater need to consult with farmers about questions they need to be resolved and on the factors that prevent access to solutions. The purpose of this study was to capture the effectiveness of ICRISAT’s and partners’ participatory processes in soil fertility and water management technology promotion in the 2004/05 and 2005/06 seasons. Conceptual framework Farmer-driven processes can spur rapid widespread adoption and adaptation if appropriate complimentary support systems are put in place. The research process is based on iterative learning and feedback loops with two-way sharing of information. The process must be farmer centered, fully involving the intended beneficiaries from the early stages of problem identification to technology development and adaptation (Pretty and Hine, 2001). The responsibility of researchers is to understand farmers’ problems and this can only be done within the farmer’s own environment. Methodology A household survey consisting of 231 farmers drawn from 10 districts of Zimbabwe formed the basis of the analysis. Farmers in the sample hosted paired plots participatory adaptive trials (PATs) promoted by ICRISAT through NGOs in partnership with the national extension services. Farmers’ engagement in these PATs was to test ready-made solutions developed by ICRISAT and partners beforehand with room to refine, validate, and adapt over time. The technologies provided an easy-to-implement package for farmers who were resource constrained with limited or no access to draft power. Those farmers who hosted trials were provided with fertilizer, seed, and technical support as required. Analysis and findings Changes in farmer practice or adoption The largest promotional activity was through experiential learning plots where farmers would see, do and learn. This provided the greatest conduit for moving the technology from researchers and extension to farmers (Table 1). Farmers were asked not to modify the trials and experiment in the first year. However, when this restriction was lifted almost every farmer hosting the trial the second year modified and improved on the technologies. Farmers cited a variety of reasons for deciding to adopt the technologies (Table 2). Most farmers who worked in groups preferred centrally located plots. Teamwork was considered to be important during site selection, measurement of plots and management of trials. Farmers hosting trials for the first time requested more supervision and guidance. The presence of social capital and networks led to farmer-to-farmer extension being the most popular transmission vehicle used by more than 70% of the farmers. Farmers cited interaction with other farmers as one of the primary benefits of attending field days. Table 1. Adopted changes brought about by hosting trials Proportion of farmers implementing the change (%) Changes in farmer practice Conservation agriculture (n=194) Microdosing (n=37) Use of bottle cap to apply fertilizer 36.1 62.2 Use of fertilizer as fertility amendment 9.8 24.3 Targeted application of plant nutrients 27.3 35.1 Timely planting 17.5 N/A Minimum tillage 79.9 N/A Mulching using maize stover 4.6 N/A Winter weeding 1.5 N/A Source: ICRISAT survey data (2006) Table 2. Reasons for moving away from the old practices Old practice New practice Reasons for changing Use of cattle manure, anthill soil, ashes and compost Use of chemical fertilizer Got access to fertilizer through programs Fertilizer makes crops grow fast and improves soil fertility Broadcasting Targeted application of nutrients and microdosing Economical and efficient way of applying fertilizer Summer plowing Minimum tillage (digging basins) Enables maximum water use per plant Contours and storm drains More effective in soil erosion control Winter plowing Mulching Improves water retention by soil Improves soil fertility Source: ICRISAT survey data (2006) Table 3. Problems and solutions for the trials hosted by farmers (n=229) Problems encountered during trials Proportion of farmers encountering problem (%) Measures put in place Proportion of farmers using the measure (%) Rodents/termites due to crop residue 20 Used traditional practices (sand, ashes, treated with certain plants) 38 Stray animals 17 Protected the plot by fencing or guarding 46 Labor constraints 16 Pooled labor by working in groups 26 Invasion by worms/birds (seasonal) 13 Used traditional pesticides (special ashes, wild plants) 50 Lack of fertilizer 10 Used manure instead of fertilizer (farmers allowed to choose between manure and fertilizer) 38 Excessive rain/wind 7 Replanted destroyed crop 59 Source: ICRISAT survey data (2006) Farmers at a green field day in Masvingo; field days have the potential to disseminate information to many farmers. Adaptation of technologies Farmers employed various means to solve problems they encountered during trial implementation (Table 3). The measures taken by farmers are important feedback to scientists as these can tune the agenda for further research. Way forward 1. Participation is a continuous, rather expensive, process and requires a long timeframe for implementation and evaluation. The learning curve in participatory research is long and patience is needed for one to register sustained positive change in productivity. 2. It is imperative that scientists and promoters seriously heed feedback responses from farmers so as to achieve the real objectives of participatory processes. 3. It is paramount for both research and farmers to move beyond experimentation to scaling up and out of innovations. References Pretty J and Hine R. 2001. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture: A summary of evidence. Final report from SAFE-World Research Project. Colchester, UK: University of Essex. Pedzisa T, Minde I, Twomlow S and Mazvimavi K. 2008. Participatory technology development and transfer: The key to soil fertility management technology adoption in Zimbabwe. Report No. 2. PO Box 776, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: ICRISAT. 40 pp. This work was funded by IDRC Tarisayi Pedzisa, Isaac Minde, Stephen Twomlow and Kizito Mazvimavi Sciencewithahumanface International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics Farmer participation levels Farmers indicated their level of participation at each stage of trial implementation. Most farmers actively participated at all stages except during data collection where the greatest constraint was the use of a record book.
Advertisement