Social Learning on Sustainable Agricultural

Intensification: Perspectives from the

Conservation Agriculture Scaling-up (CASU)

project in Southern Province, Zambia

Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Research and Learning in Africa

(SAIRLA)

Zambia National Learning Alliance

March 2020

Authors: Patricia Masikati (ICRAF), Progress H. Nyanga (University of Zambia), Wesley Litaba

Wakun’uma (Sustainable Innovations Africa), Bridget B. Umar (University of Zambia)

Contents

1. Background .............................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Justification for the focus on trade-offs (intensification vs extensification) ............................................3

1.2 The Conservation Agriculture Scaling-up (CASU) project .....................................................................5

Justification for selection of the CASU project ............................................................................................6

Extension and Advisory Services ...............................................................................................................6

1.3 Aim .................................................................................................................................................6

1.4 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................6

2. Methodology ...........................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Planning phase .................................................................................................................................7

2.2 Social learning lab phase...................................................................................................................8

Conceptualisation and contextualisation ....................................................................................................8

Assessment and evaluation ......................................................................................................................9

Reflection .............................................................................................................................................. 11

2.3 Capturing the learning process and lessons ...................................................................................... 11

2.4 Sharing of the Results..................................................................................................................... 11

3. Results.................................................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Conceptualization and Contextualisation of Conservation Agriculture in Southern Province .................. 11

3.2 Joint Assessment of socio-ecological trade-offs of conservation agriculture ........................................ 15

3.3 Identification of priority areas for action........................................................................................... 17

3.4 Extension services .......................................................................................................................... 23

4. Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 28

5. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 30

References ................................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 1: List of participants ..................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 2: Full results across all domains and indicators - district level workshop............................................ 34

1. Background

The Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Research and Learning in Africa (SAIRLA) programme (2015 - 2020)

seeks to generate new evidence and design tools to enable governments, investors and other key actors to

deliver more effective policies and investments in sustainable agricultural intensification (SAI) that strengthen the

capacity of poorer farmers, especially women and youth, to access and benefit from SAI. The programme is

supported by the UK Department for International Development (DFID). It is implemented in six countries across

Africa including Zambia.

In Zambia, SAIRLA has supported We-Effect to bring together a National Learning Alliance (NLA) – a network of

stakeholders drawn from government, research and academia, private sector, farmer organisations, the media,

non-governmental organisations and interested members of the public. The NLA is a platform for social learning

around SAI research, best practices, and policy and investment processes. The NLA is organised around social

learning themes; land equity, trade-offs – intensification vs extensification - and extension services. Each theme

is led by a thematic group.

The trade-offs thematic group, that prepared this report, facilitated stakeholders to engage with evidence and

tools on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI) using the case of Conservation Agriculture promoted by the

Conservation Agriculture Scaling Up (CASU) project. An important reason for engagement with projects is to

facilitate sharing and learning with a wider community, ultimately including poli cy makers, civil society

organisations, donors and private sector.

1.1 Justification for the focus on trade-offs (intensification vs extensification)

Zambia, through its agriculture, forestry and environment policies, has noted the need for interventions to protect

the environment (Second National Agriculture Policy 2016, National Forestry Policy 2014). Investments in capac ity

and technologies have been made by government, donors and NGOs. The Agriculture Status Report (Chapoto et

al 2018) states that adoption of improved agricultural technologies by farmers can contribute to an economically

efficient farm sector and to financial viability of farmers through improved production and productivity. However,

production in smallholder farming systems is low (Gondwe and Nkonde, 2017; Agriculture Status Report, 2018)

while the rate of deforestation is high. This is attributed to a number of factors that include extensive and

unsustainable agricultural production practices and felling of trees for charcoal (Vinya et al., 2011; Matakala et

al., 2015). In most African countries, increases in crop production have often been attributed to an increase in

the area of land cultivated rather than to intensification (Wortman and Sones, 2017).

Farmers have traditional practices for soil and water management in Zambia (Gondwe and Nkonde, 2017, The

African Centre for Biodiversity, 2015). Conservation basins are used to harvest water in Regions I and IIa1.

Shifting of livestock pens is an indigenous practice to enrich the soil with excreted urine and faeces by confining a

herd of cattle on a small piece of land at night for three to four days and then moving on. Farmers address acid

soils in Region III2 with the slash and burn practice known locally as chitemene. Farmers learned and shared

these techniques amongst themselves, drawing on direct experience and experimentation. However, Gondwe and

Nkonde (2017) argue that these practices are insufficient to maintain productivity under intensive cropping and

need to be integrated with other practices. Such practices may include conservation tillage, crop rotation with

1 Region I: Semi-arid includes southern, eastern and western areas. Rainfall 600 to 800 mm, growing season is 80-120 days long

Region IIa: Includes much of central Zambia, with the most fertile soils and most of the country's commercial farms. Rainfall 800-1000 mm, and the growing season is 100-140 days long 2 Region III: constitutes 46% of the country’s total land area to the north and receives between 1,000 mm and 1,500 mm of rainfall annually

4

legumes, improved soil cover with mulch, cover crops and crop residues, and application of manure (Gondwe and

Nkonde, 2017).

Most small-scale farmers in sub-Saharan Africa apply little or no fertilisers to their crops and according to Rware

et al (2017) this is due to financial constraints and other socio-economic factors. In Zambia, about 60% of

farmers apply fertiliser, mainly to maize. The average rate of fertiliser application is 100 kg/ha while

recommended rates ranges from 200 – 300 kg/ha basal and the same amounts of top dressing (Agriculture

Status Report, 2018). However, Gondwe and Nkonde (2017) state that “decisions on choices of amount of each

fertiliser to apply to each crop are very complex if the intent is to maximise potential for profit and if the farmer

prefers to have several different crops” and go on to conclude that “the recommended rates of fertiliser

application (RECs) in Zambia are high compared with the economically optimal rate (EOR) determined from field

research in 28 of 31 comparators. Across all crop nutrient recommendations, the current RECs were, on average,

112% more than the EOR. Farmers who apply at REC are therefore over-applying fertiliser and missing much

profit opportunity as compared to using rates nearer to EOR”.

According to a study conducted using macro panel data download from FAOSTAT, the African agricultural sector

follows an extensive and unsustainable production pathway (Nkamleu, 2011). As the options for expansion of

agricultural land in Africa are limited, agricultural intensification is needed in order to increase agricultural

production (Nkamleu, 2011). Zambia’s agricultural sector remains one of the main causes of land degradation.

Increased opening of more land for cultivation is a key factor in the country losing approximately 275,000ha of

forests annually (Vinya et al., 2011; Matakala et al., 2015). The current agricultural production systems threaten

the sustainability of the environment and the situation is considerably worsened by the emerging issues around

climate change.

Given the increase in population, climate change and other factors, there are on -going concerns about the

sustainability of agricultural systems in Zambia. Hence it is important to seek alternatives such as sustainable

agriculture intensification (SAI). SAI has been defined as producing more output from the same area of land,

while reducing the negative environmental impacts and at the same time increasing contributions to natural

capital and the flow of environmental services (Pretty et al., 2011). A further definition of SAI is practices that aim

at increasing food production in response to demands of the growing population, reduce vulnerability to shocks

and stresses while conserving critical ecological services (Masumba et al., 2017).

The Zambian government has set out to create a conducive policy environment that can support implementation

of sustainable production systems. The threats posed by unsustainable production systems are recognised in

several policy documents, including the Second National Agriculture Policy.

The Second Agricultural National Policy has clear objectives that support Sustainable Agriculture:

1. Promote sustainable land management technologies (including conservation agriculture, appropriate stock

densities);

2. Promote characterisation, conservation and sustainable utilisation of indigenous animal genetic resources

including climate change resilient indigenous breeds (establish bio-diversity conservation centres)

As much as the aim is to increase production efficiency, farmers and other stakeholders need to better

understand under what conditions agricultural practices can either complement or detract from biological

processes and ecosystem services (Pretty et al., 2011). For example, even though conservation agriculture (CA)

has been promoted in the country and included in agriculture policy documents as a climate smart approach,

yields of major crops such as maize have not increased on a per area basis (Agriculture Status Report, 2018). A

variety of reasons have been identified. For example, two of the three principles of conservation agriculture;

5

residue retention and crop rotation (the third being minimum tillage), have been a challenge due to communal

grazing and lack of legume markets (Final evaluation of CASU project, 2018).

It is important to understand the trade-offs involved. In multifunctional agricultural landscapes trade-offs occur

within agricultural systems, between agricultural and broader environmental or socio-cultural objectives, across

time and spatial scales, and between actors (Klapwijk et al., 2014). For example, deciding whether to use crop

residues to feed livestock or the soil is a classic example of a trade-off and such trade-offs are ubiquitous when

land is managed with multiple objectives (Klapwijk et al., 2014).

An understanding of the systems dynamics that produce and alter the nature of trade-offs to achieve a

sustainable and food secure future is vital (Garnett et al., 2013). This can be achieved through trade-off analysis,

an approach for evaluating system level outcomes of agricultural production and prioritising and targeting

management interventions in multi-functional agricultural landscapes (Klapwijk et al., 2014).

A study by Klapwijk et al (2014) concluded that if stakeholders are not involved in the trade-off discussions and

analysis, then these are of little use for informing practical decision-making. The approach to involve stakeholders

in this work has been through a social learning process. Social learning has a range of interpretations, but

involves “change in understanding that goes beyond the individual to become situated within wider social units

through social interactions between actors within social networks” (Reed at al., 2010). It involves two types of

learning:

i. Instrumental learning (acquiring knowledge and skills that are task and performance oriented), and

ii. Communicative learning (understanding what others mean when they communicate with us and

understanding their purposes, values and intensions) (Diduck et al., 2012).

The Zambia NLA works with stakeholders at community, district, provincial and national levels to engage in

generating and sharing evidence through social learning to support decision making in policy and investment. The

NLA is premised on engaging stakeholders that have an interest in or influence on sustainable agriculture in the

country.

In Zambia there are several agricultural approaches and practices that may be considered to contribute to SAI,

these include CA, agroforestry, and integrated soil fertil ity management. CA has been widely promoted in the

country for some years, however as noted above, widespread sustained use has been a challenge despite

possible benefits.

The Zambia NLA sought to facilitate a social learning process to explore the contribution of the CASU programme

and CA to SAI in Zambia. Hence the social learning event focused on the CASU programme in Southern Province

aimed to provide a platform and an opportunity for the programme’s stakeholders to engage in social learning

around promotion of CA and achieving sustainable agricultural outcomes. The CASU project was implemented in

48 districts in nine provinces across the four agro-ecological zones and is one of the biggest conservation

agriculture programmes in Zambia.

1.2 The Conservation Agriculture Scaling-up (CASU) project3

The Conservation Agriculture Scaling-up (CASU) project (2013 – 2017) was implemented by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in collaboration with Government of Zambia. The €11 million

programme was funded by the European Union via the 10th European Development Fund (EDF). It aimed at

bringing CA to achieve sustainable and profitable agriculture for over 315, 000 farmers in nine out of Zambia's

ten provinces. The overall objective of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-up (CASU) project was to contribute

3 https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/projects/conservation-agriculture-scaling-project-casu_en

6

to reduced hunger and improved food security, nutrition and income in Zambia, while promoting sustainable use

of natural resources. The project’s purpose was to increase crop productivity and production for the targeted

farmers of which 40% were supposed to be women.

The project targeted at least 21,000 conservation agriculture (CA) lead farmers (LFs) and at least 315,000 small-

scale follower farmers (FFs). Total numbers reached by the project were 20 396 LFs and 247 741 FFs, where over

40% of these were female farmers (FAO, 2018). In addition to these farmers, Ministry of Agriculture staff, agro-

dealers, financial institutions, research institutions, agro-entrepreneurs and other CA stakeholders were among

the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the project activities. The greatest concentration of CASU farmers was in

Eastern and Southern Province, where CA has been practiced for many years following its promotion by various

organisations and projects.

The CASU project promoted CA based on three principles; minimum disturbance of the soil, retention of residues,

and crop rotation. It promoted the use of the hoe (to dig basins), oxen drawn plough or tractor for minimum

tillage operations (ripping). Many CA implementing agents have realised that providing different tillage entry

points to achieving CA minimum tillage was key. By restricting it to a hoe technology, projects effectively

dissuaded those who already had access to oxen or tractors from taking it up. However in the CASU project sites

most of the participating farmers had only a hoe or had to hire implements. Of the remainder, around 42%

owned a plough and 13% a ripper. (FAO, 2018).

Justification for selection of the CASU project

The CASU project has demonstrated different technologies for Sustainable Agriculture Intensification (SAI).

Hence it provides an opportunity to jointly learn about experiences, perceptions and contexts of SAI in Zambia.

Furthermore, the project has extension and support services as an integral part of it s implementation and part of

the learning the NLA is setting out to promote, is to understand and appreciate the extension services that are

effective for delivery of SAI.

Extension and Advisory Services

The CASU project used a similar approach as that used by CFU4 for provision of extension services to farmers.

The project predominately concentrated on providing extension support and practical training on Conservation

Farming (CF)/ CA to farmers on the ground, through a team of field staff who repeatedly engage with a cohort of

carefully selected LFs. The LFs, in turn, work with their communities to train several groups, usually attracting

about 10 – 15 individuals apiece, which tallies up to over 300,000 FFs across the country. According to the

project implementers, this extension system is used to deliver several modular lessons on the different aspects of

CA and associated management and business skills, and was used for the duration of the project. This approach

is meant to bring extension services closer to farmers and improve farmers’ access to information.

1.3 Aim

The aim of the social learning activity was to explore the contribution of the CASU project makes to SAI through a

participatory assessment of socio-ecological trade-offs and synergies of CA practices

1.4 Objectives

The objectives of the social learning activity were:

i. To gather perspectives from various stakeholder groups on the influence of CA on social, ecological and

economic domains.

4 The UKAID funded CFU-CSAZ project (2016-2021) covered 22 districts in two climatic zones of Zambia

7

ii. To explore trade-offs and synergies of the SAI practices

iii. To identify key investments needed to minimise negative influences.

2. Methodology

The overarching method was situated in participatory assessment and interdisciplinary approaches. A social

learning lab approach adapted from urban studies on climate change (Arrighi et al., 2016) was used as a means

or guide for operationalising the participatory assessment of trade-offs in CA. The major tenets of a social

learning lab include; co-exploration of the problem, co-production of knowledge and solutions, and

transdisciplinary epistemology to include experiences and knowledge from non-academic stakeholders such as

smallholder farmers.

The following stages were undertaken in the process of social learning.

2.1 Planning phase

The preparations for the social learning visit to one of CASU project sites in Southern Province was highly

consultative. The team engaged with the FAO, Ministry of Agriculture, Provincial and District Coordinator’s offices,

the Choma District Commissioner and other relevant government ministries and departments. It is important to

note that the CASU project ended in 2017, but both the Provincial and District Agriculture Coordinators (PACO

and DACO) had knowledge of the sites and stakeholders involved in the project.

A concept note was developed and circulated among the NLA trade-offs thematic group members for review. The

Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework proposed to be used was subjected to peer revision and later

discussed by the interdisciplinary thematic group. The selection of stakeholders to take part in the exercise was

guided by members of the NLA and expert assessment of state and non-state actors that are directly involved

with farmers. Categories of stakeholders that participated were the public sector; the private sector; civil societies

and non-governmental organisations; and the farmers. (See Appendix 1 for list of participants organized by

stakeholder group).

Table 1: Number of stakeholders participating in the three sets of activities

NGOs Public sector Private sector Farmers

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Village social learning lab 17 7 Provincial social learning lab 0 3 19 5 3 0 4 5

Individual consultations

(CASU, Provincial officers) 3 1

At this stage, the purpose of the social learning lab was explained to the Provincial and District Agriculture

Coordinators. This included explaining that the process was primarily learning through a participatory assessment

of socio-ecological trade-offs and synergies of CA practices. Roles, responsibilities and expectations were

communicated to appropriate stakeholders during this phase. For example, the PACO and DACO were tasked to

mobilise farmers (both those that practice conservation agriculture and those that do not) in a village of their

choice for a village social learning lab.

The social learning visit included individual consultations, community learning and a district level workshop. It

should be noted that although the workshop was conducted in Choma, the social learning on the CASU project

covered the Southern Province as there were Ministry of Agriculture representatives from other districts (including

8

Choma, Kalomo, Monze, Mazabuka and Pemba) and some of the consultations included the Provincial

Administration – Permanent Secretary, Provincial Agricultural Coordinator and the Provincial Agricultural Officer.

The participants took part in scoring CA on the five domains in the assessment tool (productivity, economic,

environment, human condition and social) and in the discussions that were facilitated to follow, including on the

importance of conservation farming in the area.

See below for detailed methodology of the social learning lab phase and the assessment and analysis phase.

2.2 Social learning lab phase

The social learning lab session followed the following stages after introductions:

Figure 1: Framework for joint participatory assessment of trade-off in Conservation Agriculture

Conceptualisation and contextualisation

Before beginning the trade-off assessment exercise at district level, visits were made to the offices of Provincial

Agricultural Coordinator, Permanent Secretary and District Commissioner. During these visits, introductions were

made, objectives of the visits were articulated and discussions on sustainable agricul ture projects within the

Southern Province and their impact in terms of production were held. These visits were followed by community

level meetings with farmers from Chief Macha’s area where sustainable practices being implemented by different

organisations were discussed. At the district level workshop, participants were divided into groups based on the

various stakeholder categories present in the workshop. The groups were: government, NGOs, private sector and

farmers.

To develop a common understanding of concepts for the participatory trade-off activity, participants were led

through the following exercises:

Exercise one. Participants were asked;

9

When you came to the workshop today, (1) What did you hope to gain? (2) What did you give up?

A few participants were asked to report back to the whole group on what they hoped to gain and/or what they

gave up attending the workshop.

Exercise two. In their respective groups, participants were asked to discuss with colleagues the following two

questions:

(1) What is your definition of a synergy?

(2) What is your definition of a trade-off?

Each group was asked to report back in plenary on the definition of a synergy and, the definition of a trade-off.

Assessment and evaluation

Trade-off analysis has become an increasingly important approach for evaluating system level outcomes of

agricultural production and for prioritising and targeting management interventions in multifunctional agricultural

landscapes. For participatory trade-off analysis we used the Sustainable Intensification Assessment Framework,

which presents five domains namely productivity, economic, environment, human condition and social (Masumba

et al., 2017). Within these five domains are indicators which are quanti tative or qualitative factors or variables

that provide a simple and reliable basis for assessing achievement, change or performance (Masumba et al.,

2017).

A participatory trade-off activity was developed to gather perspectives from stakeholders on the synergies and

trade-offs of CF/CA as promoted during the CASU project in the Southern Province. Trade-off analysis was done

at district level (however it is important to note that the CASU project was promoting CF/CA across the Southern

Province) with different stakeholders including farmers and extension agents. Participants were requested to: i)

gather perspectives on the trade-offs and synergies of Sustainable Agricultural Intensification (SAI) practices, ii)

identify key areas for action to minimize trade-offs, and iii) identify key data needs to assess the trade-offs and

synergies. The exercise produced comparative analyses by gender, by sector and for various SAI practices. In this

case trade-off analysis was done on conservation farming across gender and sectors.

The process has seven stages, which included scoring of indicators under the five different domains (Figure 2).

The whole process was guided by the facilitators using the assessment guide. As described previously,

stakeholders were purposefully divided into groups based on the various stakeholder categories present in the

workshop. These were: government, NGOs, private sector and farmers. Each group had about 6 participants,

they were asked to do the following exercise as a group and to note down any comments deemed important for

discussion.

10

Figure 2: The SAI framework showing interlinkages across the five domains of sustainable

intensification and cross spatial scales with examples of indicators for each domain

Step One – Identify how the SAI practice influences the indicators by scoring the level of impact. Score -5 to -1

for negative impact, 0 for no influence and 1 to 5 for positive influence. Write down the score next to each

indicator in each trade-off theme.

Step two - Within each theme, add the negative values separately from the positive values so you will now have

one negative score and one positive score for each theme. Divide the negative score by the number of indicators

rated negatively within each theme to get an average. Then divide the positive score within each theme by the

number of indicators rated positively. Do not include the zero scores in the averages.

Step three - Using the provided graph, plot the average of the positive and negative values (convert to positive

for graphing) under each theme. Use different colour marker pens to plot the averages of the positive and

negative values. Averages will be plotted on the line for each theme and then connect those dots with the

appropriate colour to make a web.

Step four - Discuss the results of the exercise and identify which one of the five themes will need the most

attention to reduce the negative impact of the SAI practice.

Step five - Within that theme, identify the indicator(s) where you may need to make a change to reduce the

negative impact. Write those indicators down on the green card provided.

Step six - Now think about the kind of investment you will need to make to reduce the negative impact on the

identified theme and/or indicator. Write down the investment you would make and what outcomes you would

expect to get.

Step seven - On the back of the card write down the factors stopping you from making the investment to

address the trade-off.

11

Reflection

At the end a discussion was initiated with the participants on general feedback on the results of the trade -off

activity, including identifying sources of any data identified as necessary to collect.

2.3 Capturing the learning process and lessons

The learning was captured at village and district levels through use of rapporteurs, flip charts, photos, direct

observation, debriefing sessions and audio recording.

At village level, rapporteurs took notes of discussions while others took pictures of various stages in the learning

process. Direct observations were also made at village level particularly in the fields where either CA or

conventional agriculture were being implemented.

Flip charts were used both at village and district levels. These were used both in groups and in plenary sessions.

Presentations from various groups provided additional opportunity of capturing lessoning processes through video

clips and audio recording. The video and audio recording were done at all levels; individual, vill age and district.

Every evening, the field team held debriefing sessions to share their observations and experiences in order to

enhance the capturing of the lessons throughout the various social learning activities of the day.

Participatory analysis was a continuous process starting from data collection through to the write-up process.

2.4 Sharing of the Results

Results dissemination will include: a report and an information brief (the latter including results from similar social

learning and assessment processes conducted with other agricultural programmes). The results were also shared

at NLA national meetings in November 2019 and January 2020. The mode of sharing beyond those meetings will

largely be electronic based. However, if funds are available it wil l be important to circulate hard copies among

farmers that participated. The social learning is meant to co-generate new evidence and support the development

of tools to support farmers, government, donors and the private sector to make good policy and inv estment

decisions. The NLA’s approach is intended to strengthen collaboration among the stakeholders to jointly learn and

find solutions. The audience for this report is primarily the government and its cooperating partners – CASU,

donors and the private sector.

3. Results

3.1 Conceptualization and Contextualisation of Conservation Agriculture in

Southern Province

3.1.1. Meeting with the Permanent Secretary of Southern Province - Choma

Prior to the field trip and workshop in Choma the team made a courtesy call to the Permanent Secretary’s office.

The Permanent Secretary (PS) welcomed the team and highlighted the importance of CA in connection with

climate change issues in the province. He stressed that the Southern Province is the most affected by climate

change in the country, in particular in relation to the impact of droughts and therefore CA is the best approach to

ensure food security for farming families and the province in general. The PS said that there is need to look at

farming as a business, however. To achieve this, farmer have to change from their conventional approaches and

embrace new systems of farming. He observed that in the same environment some of the farmers do very well

while others fail seasonally. The PS cited, as an example, one of the sites that he visited during a field day (the

NLA team visited the same fields), where two farms (CA and non-CA) were separated by a foot path. The CA field

did very well while the non-CA field did less well, and had a failed crop (see picture 1 below). He further

emphasised that it will be important to have platforms where success stories are shared with farmers and other

12

stakeholders for encouragement. He explained that this was especially the case just after a bad seas on (such as

2018-2019) because farmers would most probably listen and see the need to change and adopt the new

technologies that will give them benefits across seasons. “A farmer’s aim is to put food on the table and money in

their pockets for the wellbeing of their families” said the PS. He went on to say that culture could be another

hindering factor when it comes to adoption of technologies. The PS shared concerns, however, that investors

could lose interest in investing in the province (in new projects for example) if farmers delay too long adopting

new technology. He said;

“There is need to continue encouraging the farmer. As you may all know, culture is very important and needs to

be considered. People in Southern Province culturally take long to change hence it is imperative to be patient

with them and make them understand the importance. It is also important to consider that, if many farmers

are not willing or take too long to change and improve, fewer investors will be interested in promoting

smallholder agriculture. It is also important to consider that by nature, the people of Southern Province are

pastoralists, hence it is imperative to bring technologies that address both crop and livestock in the face of

climate. We have areas like Dundumwezi which was hit hard this year by drought affecting both crops and

livestock, this shows the extent of the effects on the local economy”

Picture 1: The fields of a CA farmer and a non-CA farmer path in Chief Macha’s area separated by a footpath

3.1.2. Understanding the CASU project with the Provincial Agriculture Co-ordinator

The NLA also visited the Provincial Agriculture Coordinator’s (PACO) office to explain the purpose of the visit and

also to enable the team to understand more about the CASU project. The PACO said that the CASU project

involved farmers who originally practised conventional farming. He went on to say that;

“Generally, the CASU project focused on soil fertility, crop diversification and water management. The project

aimed at introducing CA and highlighting that current methods of ploughing exposes the soil and reduces soil

fertility. The areas where the project was being implemented had few farmers with implements hence the

project assisted farmers with tractors. Farmers do produce food on a yearly basis using their own

13

approaches and methods and not what they are taught by extension, however if asked they are able to

articulate the benefits of CA”.

The PACO raised the question as to why farmers are not adopting some of the technologies, including CA, while

clearly being able to articulate the benefits of CA and other technologies.

“The question still remains as to: why farmers do not adopt CA or any other technology that has been

promoted? Is there anything that is not being done properly? Have farmers who are not doing well

indicated any reason for that?”

The PCO’s view is that some of the answers could also lie in the availability of markets;

“There are clear issues that we can look at - for example crop rotation: farmers know that when they

plant maize it will be bought but when they rotate who will buy the legumes? The other challenge was

legume seeds as they are not readily available making it difficult to practice rotation and the markets are

limited compared to maize”.

The PACO said that, to deal with the market issue, FAO collaborated with the World Food Progamme (WFP) who

were purchasing cowpeas from the farmers in the project area for school feeding programmes. Although the

cowpeas had a local market, for sustainability they also looked at other possible markets within the region.

However, the variety that was being promoted was not competitive regionally. For example, Botswana was

looking for the white and black eyed peas, while farmers were growing GTAZ, a different variety. The black -eyed

pea is a legume which could work well for rotation, so farmers could have simply switched and start growing the

variety in demand. The other challenge highlighted by the PACO was lack of integration of other crops such as

soya beans and other legumes.

“It is important to note that one of the biggest challenges with technology is that it brings out conflicts

and these are never resolved”.

The extension approach used in CASU was that each camp had a number of lead farmers and then each lead

farmer had about 10 to 15 follower farmers. The PACO said that, in terms of numbers of farmers reached, the

project was too ambitious – with targets defined in the project document and not necessarily relating to reality on

the ground. As explained in the final report the number of follower farmers fell short by about 22% (FAO, 2018).

Extension officers were trained and in turn worked with lead farmers in their respective camps. Motor bikes were

given to the officers for transport, however execution of the project did not go as expected due to challenges

such as transfers.

“Although the extension approach was good there are not so many adopters, it is mainly those that can

manage, and these are farmers where field days were done and a few other lead and follower farmers”

3.1.3. Conceptualisation and contextualisation of CA with farmers and other stakeholders

There was generally a common understanding of CA among stakeholders in the social learning labs. During the

social learning lab at village level farmers said that CA included;

• Using herbicides

• Minimum tillage

• Weeding using a hoe

• Soil conservation

• Use of lime

Respondents were asked to show by the way of raising hands if they were practising; CA alone, conventional

agriculture alone, or both CA and conventional agriculture. Conventional farming generally consists of ploughing

with a mouldboard plough, minimal to no application of fertiliser, herbicides and pesticides, mainly weeding once

14

and practicing mono-cropping. Results showed that, in this particular village, conventional agriculture was more

dominant among farmers than CA and women tend to practice CA more than men (figure 3).

Figure 3: Use of farming systems by gender in a selected village in Macha Chiefdom, Choma District

3.1.4. Reported advantages and disadvantages of conservation agriculture

The participants were asked to list benefits of CA. After listing the benefits, they were asked to score benefits

from 1 to 10, where 1 indicated the least important benefit and 10 the most important benefit. Men reported

more advantages than women (Table 2). This could reflect the differences in knowledge levels on CA between

men and women. Both women and men rated advantages related to labour saving, water conservation and soil

fertility improvement highly. In addition, men also rated advantages relating to allowing lime and manure

application highly. For women, fewer termites was an important benefit of CA – something not reported by men

at all.

Table 2: Benefits of Conservation Agriculture by gender

Advantages Men Women Average

Time saving hence can plant more within a short time 7 8 7.5

Water harvesting 6 8 7

Soil fertility improvement 7 6 6.5

Less termites - 10 5

Early land preparation & planting 9 - 4.5

Allows Lime application 9 - 4.5

Allows manure application 8 - 4

It grows fast & high yield 2 4 3

Less soil erosion 5 - 2.5

Good germination 4 - 2

Key: (1=least important benefit 10=most important benefit)

After participatory assessment of benefits, participants were asked to list disadvantages of CA and rank them

from 1 to 10 where 1 indicated the least important disadvantage and 10 as the most important disadvantage.

Farmers’ listing of disadvantages of CA showed that the women’s responses were more diverse than the men’s

responses (Table 3). This suggests that women could have more practical experience of CA than men, particularly

with regard to the manual labour required.

15

Table 3: Disadvantages of Conservation Agriculture by gender

Benefits of CA Men Women Average

Herbicides not easily accessible 3 4 3.5

High weed pressure if herbicides are not applied - 5 2.5

Lack of places to buy chemicals - 4 2

Hand hoe basins take too much time - 4 2

Some weeds or grass do not die with herbicides - 3 1.5

Low germination - 3 1.5

New equipment is needed 3 - 1.5

If there is too much herbicides crops get destroyed - 2 1

Need money for herbicides 2 - 1

With dry spell herbicides seem not to work well 2 - 1

Dependence on herbicides - 1 0.5

Key: 1=least important disadvantage, 10=most important disadvantage

3.2 Joint Assessment of socio-ecological trade-offs of conservation agriculture

Joint Participatory Trade off Analysis of CA was done in groups (Private sector; public sector; civil society

organisations and non-governmental organisations, female and male farmers). The results generally show more

positive than negative influences of CA among the five domains (table 4 and figure 4). For complete results see

Appendix 2.

The private sector, CSO/NGOs and farmers gave high scores on the agriculture productivity domain, while

government district and government provincial level participants gave low scores - under crop residue and

livestock production. While in the previous session (see above) farmers had highlighted both advantages and

disadvantages of CA (with men reporting fewer disadvantages than women), their scores in the current exercise

tell a different story – particularly for women farmers who ranked CA with higher positive scores than male

farmers across all domains. Women farmers did, however, also highlight some negatives scores thereby

underlining their concerns about the disadvantages of CA. The NGO/CSO participants ranked CA with all positive

scores while the Government provincial level participants scored the lowest on all domains as compared to the

other groups.

Under the human condition domain, CA was highly ranked by all stakeholders, except the government provincial

level group. The high ranking may be because rotation with legumes (a potentially high source of protein) is one

of the CA principles and also increases maize production. A larger number of negative scores were highlighted by

most stakeholders under the social domain relating to credit, government institutions and information. Access to

markets and information could assist farmers in producing the right varieties for available markets.

Table 4: Average score across sustainable agricultural intensification assessment domains by different stakeholders. Domain Direction

of influence

Private sector

Farmers (male)

Farmers (female)

NGO / CSO

Gov. (District)

Gov. (Province)

Average scores

Agricultural

Productivity

Positive 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.3 3.3 1.8 3.9

Negative

Income Positive 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.1 2.9 2.8 3.5

Negative 1.0 5.0 3.0 2.5 1.5 2.7

Land Health Positive 4 4.8 5.0 4.1 3.7 2.1 3.9

16

Domain Direction of influence

Private sector

Farmers (male)

Farmers (female)

NGO / CSO

Gov. (District)

Gov. (Province)

Average scores

Negative 1.5 3.5 3.0 2.5

Human

Condition

Positive 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.9 2.5 4.3

Negative 3.0 3.0

Social Positive 2.7 4.0 5.0 3.3 3.2 2.3 3.4

Negative 1.3 1.0 2.0 1.4

Key: Positive influence meaning farmers are benefiting, negative shows losses or barriers

Domain 1: Agricultural productivity

Participating farmers realised the importance of applying full principles of CA. The private sector echoed this

when they noted that, for CA promotion to be successful, there is need for extension officer involvement and

more resources and funding. Government at provincial level said that the impact of CA on productivity was not

high because CA components were incompletely adopted and CA principles were not consistently applied. For

example ripping was more highly practiced than rotation. Government representatives at district level highlighted

that CA can increase maize yields by about 40-60%, however lack of markets, especially for legumes, hinders

crop diversification.

Domain 2: Income / economic

Farmers and private sector clearly and consistently highlighted challenges with markets and market information,

while government participants were of the view that markets and information were available (although under the

agricultural productivity domain they highlight that markets were a challenge - especially for legumes).

Government stakeholders also highlighted challenges with climate change, which might affect production

consistency. NGOs suggest CA is highly profitable because of reduced input costs and optimal utilisation of inputs.

District government staff reported that, in CA, demand for labour is reduced, use of inorganic fertilisers reduces

and there is efficient use of resources – however climate change has contributed to lowering incomes.

Domain 3: Land Health and environment

Farmers say that CA promotes land health if instructions are followed but when herbicides are used there is a risk

of killing the insects that protect the crops. Negative effects of herbicides on water quality was also mentioned by

the private sector, while government participants said that herbicides do not encourage growth of natural

vegetation.

Domain 4: Human condition – food, security and health

All stakeholders agreed that improved crop productivity and diversity ensures that families are food and nut rition

secure all year round. Increased income enables parents to afford to send more children to school and children

are also healthier. However male farmers are concerned that chemicals sprayed can have negative health

impacts on people in the surroundings.

Domain 5: Social - equity / gender, social cohesion, collective action

Low access to credit facilities was highlighted as a challenge by all stakeholders, with the reasons being that most

financial institutes require collateral and also that farmer education on loan management is lacking. Participation

of youth was also highlighted as a challenge - there is need for incentives to encourage them to be involved in

agricultural activities

17

3.3 Identification of priority areas for action

Participants were asked to discuss the results of the previous exercise and identify which one of the five domains

will need the most attention to reduce the negative impact of the SAI practices (Table 5). Within that domain

stakeholders identified indicators where there was need to make a change to reduce the negative impact.

Different stakeholders highlighted negatives in different domains, the most negatives being scored under the

income, land health and social domains. Indicators that many groups scored negatively were; access to market;

insect biodiversity and water quality; and access to credit and government institutions - under the income, land

health and social domains, respectively. Under land health, negative scores for insect biodiversity and water

quality were as a result of herbicide use. It will be important for implementers to discuss such issues with

stakeholders so they understand the benefits and challenges associated with different agro-chemicals. The

private sector had the most negative scores under the social domain. They highlighted lack of participation of

youths (score -1), lack of participation of marginalised groups (score -1), access to credit (score -2) and access to

government institutions. They said that barriers to access ing information and barriers participation are mainly

caused by a lack of funding going to the right people and poor guidance. There is need for more sensitisation and

increased funding opportunities to increase participation.

The farmers and government said that lack of access to market information is mainly due to a lack of agricultural

officers to teach communities and also lack of knowledge about how to access information needed. Farmers

suggest that they can form groups and also have demonstration sites where they can learn from each other.

Farmers do realise that CA can increase yields if properly followed, however all gains will be in vain if there is no

market information as their produce will end up in the hands of “briefcase buyers”.

.

18

Figure 4 Assessment of socio-ecological trade-off by different stakeholders showing positive and negative influences of conservation agriculture across the five sustainable intensification domains

19

Table 5: Comments from different participants on socio-ecological trade-off assessment on conservation agriculture across the five SAI domains

Domain Male Farmers NGOs Private Government

Agricultural productivity

• CA increases productivity when instructions are followed

• CA increases productivity in accordance with soil type

• Crop residues are higher when using basins than

when ripping

• Crop productivity-less labour

• Optimal utilisation of

inputs • High water harvesting

technique • Facilitates timely

planting

• Improved agricultural activity; more production more food

• Need more

involvement from extension workers to achieve

• More resources and more funding needed to achieve it

• District • Crop productivity-it is above 41%-60% higher than

conventional farming

• Less residue is retained because of bush fires and livestock feeding

• Low livestock productivity due to low residue and supplementary feed availability

• Farmers produce consistently regardless of the weather conditions.

• Issues of crop marketing is hindering crop

diversification legumes are believed also to be crops of less importance

• There is increased productivity leading to surplus • Province • Impact was not very high for crop productivity because

of incomplete adoption of the whole package of CA • Low plant residue-due to animal and livestock conflict-

open range • No component of livestock production and only

emphasized on the use of animal by-products such as manure.

• Inconsistency to adhere to CA principles E.g. ripping

was high while crop rotation was low • Crop diversification was low due to unavailability of

seed and market for legumes

20

Domain Male Farmers NGOs Private Government

Income • Income is variable but most of the time it depends on the prices at the market level

• The market Information under CA is difficult due to the briefcase buyers and FRA

• Consistent profit affected by business environment and natural factors (dry season)

• Highly profitable

because of reduced input costs and optimal utilization of inputs

• Crop diversification and crop livestock integration

• Less input wastage • Increased capacity to

sell because of high production

• Income improves and more profits

• Input use intensity is more when starting but reduces with time

• More production requires more labour

• Information on markets is not enough, many farmers are still ignorant

• District • Labour is reduced, use of inorganic fertilizers reduces

and there is efficient use of resources • Early planting thereby taking advantage of the nitrogen

flash

• Profits are consistent seasonally • Capacity to sell increases, farmers can sell the excess

produce • Access to market information-through extension

officers, radio programmes or ZNFU platform • Low production scale can affect income

• Climate change has contributed to the low income • Province • Reduction in cost of production as labour requirements

reduces due to use of herbicides and low cost of land preparation if technology is adopted

• Influence of weather affects consistency despite the

adoption of the technologies • Crop and livestock diversification increased with the

adoption of CA technologies • Markets for both cereals and legumes where readily

available and so was market information via SMS, radio, TV and internet

Land health • CA promotes land

health if instructions are followed but when herbicides are used there is an aspect of killing the insects that protect the

crops

• Water harvesting in

basins and rip lines • Improved soil structure

through manuring, liming to address acidity

• Degraded soils

become good soils overtime or activated

• Use of more chemicals can be useful but

• water sometimes become

contaminated due to chemical runoff

• Use of herbicides does not encourage natural

vegetation growth • Practices used are aimed at water harvesting and helps

to improve the water table • Soil fertility and soil structure improves

21

Domain Male Farmers NGOs Private Government

Human condition

• Most of the time when spraying we disregard the people that are surrounding us, hence human

health is disturbed due to chemicals

• Production and productivity increases leading to increased income

• Crop diversification

incorporates planting of legumes which help improve nutrition and health

• High production leads to high income therefore family able to send children to school

• When there is more food there is better nutrition and more children can be sent to school since they are health and

parents are able to sponsor them

• Nutrition improves because the family has wide range of crops

• Food security-due to increased yield per hector and available all year round

• Human health-improves because there is less labour

and diversified nutrition • Access to education is improved as the income status

improves the ability to pay for education

Social • No access to

information due to lack of officers coming to our villages

• Government has not taken keen interest in CA

• Youths are not

willing to be part of the agricultural system

• Youths are involved in

the implementation, but majority are in schools

• Woman participate in training, are generally more involved in implementation although doing small hectarages

• Marginalized groups still

believe in handouts hence the low participation

• Due to lack of collateral, lower numbers of farmers have access to credit

• High access to information due to interactions

• Many youths are not

involved hence they look for jobs in towns

• A few woman are involved

• Few have access to credit due to the fact that they have no

security to offer and lack information on how to go round

• Youth not participating to the highest extent

• Women participation is high because they have seen the results

• The marginalized groups- they are not seen to be participating

• Low access to credit because institutes have little confidence in farmers in paying back loans

• Farmers can access information through radios, lead farmers and extension officers

• Farmer have government officers to assist them. • Deliberate policy to include youths, women and the

marginalized as lead farmers

22

Table 6: Investments needed to effect change and the stumbling blocks that are hindering stakeholders from addressing the trade-offs

Domain needing most attention

Indicators that needs most attention

Investments needed Barriers to investments

Farmers Income

• access to market

information • input use intensity • • •

• forming groups & Cooperatives

• knowledge & training • keeping of livestock for manure • planting of trees for manure • keeping of crop residues • Value addition

• Still have gaps in knowledge

• lack of agricultural officers to teach communities on investment systems

Private

sector group

social

• access to information

• more participation

• more sensitisation and access to

information

• poor guidance

• poor funding to right personnel/institutions

Public sector group

Land Health • vegetative cover • plant biodiversity • fuel security

• vegetative cover • fuel security • plant biodiversity

• resources inadequate-transport fuel for field staff, review meetings etc.

• low use of participatory approach in extension service delivery •

income • Increase profitability by increasing scale of production

• promotion and expansion of high value crops

• mechanised farming

• access to mechanical service providers

• lack of capital to procure machinery

Income • labour requirement • input use intensity • consistent from each

cropping season

• sensitisation of benefits of using organic inputs

• investment in irrigation infrastructure • sensitisation in weather index

insurance

NGOs Social • low participation of the marginalised groups

• low participation of the marginalised groups

• more sensitisation on the need for participation

• more sensitisation on the need for participation

23

3.4 Extension services

The CASU project used the lead farmer approach where each lead farmer receives training and has about

10 – 15 follower farmers. Government extension officers played an important role as they followed up on

the lead farmers to share information.

During the workshop, participants were asked to identify the characteristics of the extension system they

would like. Their responses (table 7 below) echoed the views of the PACO who made a presentation on

facilitation and basic skills for extension officers. He said that, in the past, extension services used a top

down approach (Figure 5a). Current extension workers do not know what to do (Figure 5b) and what is

desired for the future is an extension system that uses participatory approaches (Figure 5c).

Figure 5: Different kinds of extension services in Zambia: past, present and desired

24

Table 7: Desired extension service characteristics, what stakeholders expect in the near future and priority areas for investment List the desired

characteristics of agricultural extension system

What is the expected future (next 2-10 yrs) of agricultural extension systems given the current situation?

What are the priority areas?

What investments are needed for each priority area

Private

sector

• Skilled extension officers of right numbers, qualified and provided with refresher courses, up to date with new technology and systems

• Well equipped with right tools, transport and training

aids • Efficient, good communication

and • response to calls • Provide sources of funding for

market linkages • Provide incentives to well

performing farmers • Monitoring & evaluation • Direct demos “seeing is

believing”

• Increased number of skilled officers

• Availability of right equipment • Improved farmer motivation • Enhanced monitoring and

evaluation systems • Improved direct demos

• Governance structures: put all departments in place and allocate responsibilities

• Methods: systems to be employed

• Capacity: training on how

systems employed will work • Management: monitoring &

evaluation implementation

• Governance structures: • increased funding • increased manpower • Capacity: training, equipment • Management: monitoring &

investments in proper supervision of field workers

• Methods: increased research activities, increased knowledge transfer, capacity building

Farmers • Trained volunteers within the village

• Camps to be divided into a ratio of 1:500

• Transport needs to be provided from the government

• Follow-up to be made in order to evaluate what was taught to the farmers and see if instructions were followed

• Local languages to be used

when visiting people

• There will be a change; The message will reach the responsible persons to help (volunteers)

• The work will be easier for the officer because the number o f farmers is small

• The work will be corrected when being visited during follow ups

• Farmers will get information correctly

• Capacity • Management • Methods

• Governance structures

• Capacity: more officers to be employed to cater for all farmers; more trainings for camp officers, lead farmers

• Management: demo plots to be grown; officers should visit officers and tell farmers what is to be done next

• Methods: visitation should be planned on weekly basis e.g 500 farmers in a month, meaning that 1:125 on a

weekly basis; involve the private sectors

• Governance: to employ more trained officers

• Public, private, CSOs/NGOSs,

25

List the desired characteristics of agricultural extension system

What is the expected future (next 2-10 yrs) of agricultural extension systems given the current situation?

What are the priority areas?

What investments are needed for each priority area

outgrowers should work

together in providing officers to the farmers

Gvt

District I

• An extension officer should be a facilitator and not a teacher

• A system that uses Participatory extension approach

• Systems should be well funded in terms of resources

• Systems with reliable transport

• Players in the extension system should be motivated e.g refresher courses, provision of right kits, right information promotions

• We are not expecting any change from the current extension system unless; the right agriculture policies are put in place strictly followed and implemented

• and also that agriculture is

put as a priority

• Capacity: availability of human resource, skill, knowledge and resources

• Methods: rightful methods of extension delivery effective exterior extension delivery of information

• Governance structure: involvement of collaborating partners very important in extension

• Management: monitoring & evaluation at all stages of extension system

• Capacity: recruitment of qualified human resource and good funding

• Methods: training of player in the extension services eg officers

• Governance structure:

stakeholders meetings • Management: investing in

reliable transport

Gvt

District II

• Outgrower system because the market will be assure

quality and quantity of production

• Outgrower scheme provider will assure full support to the system in order to maximize quality production

• Capacity - 1 CEO : 400 farmers

• the CEO should be well equipped with facilitation skills they should have frequent refresher courses to keep them updated with latest technologies

• Management should be both supply and demand driven

• Strong monitoring and evaluation (help in

• Things will worsen because of inadequate funding which

helps with the facilitation of logistical requirements

• this is because the farmer population is increasing in the face of climate change

• Capacity; officers should be given the means to do the

work e.g skills, resources (transport) and other logistical requirements

• Management; monitoring and evaluation of farmer performance, assessing whether it is supply or demand driven

• Methods; mode of

transmission governance • remains the way it is

• Governance structure • Capacity: training,

investments in transport • Management: resources

(physical and financial) • Methods: resources, skills

26

List the desired characteristics of agricultural extension system

What is the expected future (next 2-10 yrs) of agricultural extension systems given the current situation?

What are the priority areas?

What investments are needed for each priority area

assessment of gaps)

• Methods: both private sector and Govt should run the outgrower scheme; the Govt has the obligation to ensure that there is food security and it would help because they would specify what is needed in terms of crops to be grown as well as quantities that will

be considered as food security

NGO/CSO • Have necessary skills , capacity-transport to visit farmers

• Communication in local language

• Believe in what they are training, not biased, good trainer and facilitator, must be

creative • good organization of skills

• Given the current scenario the characteristics of extension system will go down

• The farmer will have lower production, losses of income, lower productivity and lover livelihood (low standard of living and quality of life

among farming communities and the country at large)

• Capacity:-finance for programme coordination and transport to visit to communities

• Management: the extension system is not well monitored and evaluated, low control

• Methods: farmers/extension

officer ratio too higher • Governance structure: public

structure lacks capacity

• Capacity: Finance-Govt should invest more finances in building the capacity of the extension system

• Management: Govt should increase man power to enable the system to manage the program improve the tracking

system in order to improve monitoring and evaluation of extension system

• Methods: increased number of extension officers to 1:1500

• Governance structures:; improve on collaboration among stakeholders

27

List the desired characteristics of agricultural extension system

What is the expected future (next 2-10 yrs) of agricultural extension systems given the current situation?

What are the priority areas?

What investments are needed for each priority area

Governme

nt

Province

• Both supply led and

demand driven for new technologies

• Use participatory approaches such as farmer field schools as opportunity for farmers to learn, demonstrations, field days, agriculture shows. Also

farmer exchange visits, exposure visits

• Strengthened lead farmer concept; at least a 1:500 extension worker to farmer ratio to enable effective contact

• Well-equipped extension

service: mobility (transport), equipment (tape measures, gps, funds-fuel)

• Availability of refresher courses to enhance capacity building

• Strengthened research

extension linkages • Enhanced synergies

amongst key stakeholders (agriculture, agro businesses, CSOs, forest)

• All things equal, it is

possible to change for the better. Eg -extension to farmer ratio will be reduced to 1:800 strengthened extension-research linkage

• Capacity: current officer to

farmer ratio is high/resources for officers not adequate to carry out mandate/refresher courses for extension staff are few or non-existent

• Management: the participatory approach is

not working well-Need to combine both supply led and demand driven approach

• Methods: Current lead farmer concept is not working well. Need to revisit lead farmer selection

• Governance structure:

currently, stakeholders not working together hence confusing farmers eg each stakeholder carrying different messages.

• Enhance synergies

• Procurement of equipment,

transport by govt/refresher courses for govt extension officers, recruitment of extension officers

• Training in extension approaches by government and private sector. Training for lead farmers by

government and private sector, CSOs and NGOs

• Stakeholder meetings, joint field days and demonstrations by private sector, government and CSOs.

28

4. Discussion

The Conservation Farming/CA approach is generally defined as a management system based on three principles

that should be applied in unison in a mutually reinforcing manner; minimum physical soil disturbance,

permanent soil cover with live or dead plant material (e.g. crop residues) , and crop diversification, (e.g. crop

rotations, cover crops or intercrops with legumes).

Our results show that currently farmers are largely practicing only one of the three main principles of CA at

most, minimum tillage. Rotations are not possible due to small areas under legumes, and residue retention is

difficult to achieve due to free/communal livestock grazing. Stakeholders asked during the meeting about CA

adoption, described components that farmers are applying at different levels, however, So even though not

many components are being practised by all farmers, a few can be applied at different levels. Agroforestry was

one project component, however, that our results show is less commonly practised. In addition, most land area

is under different forms of conventional farming. Farmers are only practising CA on small portions of land.

There is need for deeper understanding of reasons why farmers chose certain components of CA and apply

them on their farms and important to address the challenges highlighted by farmers in relation to the trade -

offs they have identified if CA is to be fully practiced.

The concept of higher yields or productivity and nutrition are among the most common narratives among all

stakeholders, with the exception of government provincial level participants. However, one of the burning issues

that emerged was that of rotation and residue retention. It was generally agreed that markets , especially for

legumes, are one of the biggest challenges to expanding the area under legumes. Access to market information

was highlighted as a challenge by farmers and the private sector. Farmers need access to information on

legume varieties and available markets prior to the cropping season.

Livestock production is one of the main livelihood activities in Southern Province. Communal grazing is practised

and hence retaining residues is a challenge, although farmers argue that animals will only eat some of the

residue and some is left in the fields (Picture 2). It will be important for research to assess the amounts of

residue that is left on the farms and if the quantities are enough to reach the recommended CA levels .

Use of herbicides was also highlighted as an issue as they can potentially affect ground water. There is need for

training and information sharing on proper selection and use of herbicides so that land health will not be

affected.

29

Picture 2: Maize Residue from previous season at Mr. Mudenda's farm

All participants agree that there is need for farmer training and extension services. However, for extension to be

effective there is also a need to equip the officers with skills and knowledge (including of the latest

technologies) and resources, tools and equipment such as transport and other logistical requirements. Farmers

are aware that CA can increase yields especially when they follow instructions. Farmers are also aware that soils

are a factor when it comes to practising CA. Information on soil type and what technology to use is important to

farmers and extension officers are the ones with capacity to assist. One of the challenges is that the current

extension officer to farmer ratio is very low (1:1500). Stakeholders expressed the view that, for extension to be

effective, the extension officer to farmer ratio must be around 1: 400 or 500.

30

Figure 6: Levels of adoption of CA components as perceived by different stakeholders

5. Conclusions

The CASU project targeted over 21,000 lead farmers and 315,000 follower farmers, however both the

discussion with the PACO and the FAO final project evaluation indicate that not many farmers are practicing CA.

CASU project farmers do practice minimum tillage (one of the CA components). The other two components,

residue retention and rotation, are practiced less. Use of residue to feed livestock in the dry season is a threat

to residue retention. However, as the animals do not eat all of the residue (tending to leave the stalks 5 on the

ground) it is less of a challenge than crop rotation which is threatened by lack of access to markets for

legumes.

The finding that the full benefits of CA are not being attained by farmers is also evidenced by maize productivity

levels that have stagnated over the years at 1500 kg/ha, despite investments in practices such as CA. Farmers

continue to devote some of their crop land to conventional farming (see figure 6). Trends have clearly shown

that this results in land degradation leading to farmers abandoning old fields and opening new ones.

Sustainable agriculture intensification, in this case CA, has potential to increase production on current farm

sizes, however this potential still needs to be realised.

CA is being promoted but the lack of use of participatory, iterative approaches in the extension method used

means that issues and trade-offs that farmers face in the adoption of CA are not being addressed. There is also

insufficient consideration of the important roles that other stakeholders can play in resolving some of the issues

experience by farmers: for example involvement of the private sector in market development.

Understanding (and taking into consideration) farmers’ decision making processes, their priorities and the trade-

offs they manage is critical to addressing issues around adoption of CA. Participatory approaches such as the

social learning labs are important for the assessment of trade-offs, refining and targeting of appropriate

technologies or for fine tuning and tailor making of practices for effectiveness.

5 Research has shown that stalks have a high carbon to nitrogen ratio and can cause nitrogen immobilisation. However, for CA the general rule is that there must be >70% residue cover on the soil. There was insufficient information gathered to enable assessment of the extent to which this is happening.

31

References

Arrighi, J., Koelle, B., Besa, M. C., Spires, M., Kavonic, J., Scott, D., Kadihasanoglu, A., Bharwani, S., Jack, C.

2016. Dialogue for decision-making: unpacking the “City Learning Lab” approach . Fractal working paper #1.

Produced by the city learning cluster.

Biodiversity, Johannesburg, South Africa. https://www.acbio.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Zambia-

report-2015.pdf

Chapoto, A., Chisanga, B., Kabisa, M. 2018. Agriculture Status Report. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research

Institute, Lusaka Zambia

Diduck A, Sinclair A. J, Hostetler G, and Fitzpatrick P (2012) Transformative learning theory, public

involvement, and natural resource and environmental management, Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management, 55:10, 1311-1330, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.645718

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. Final evaluation of the Conseravtion Agriculture

Scaling-Up (CASU) project funded by the European Union. http://www.fao.org/evaluation

Garnett T., Appleby M. C., Balmford A., Bateman I. J., Benton T. G., Bloomer P., Burlingame B., Dawkins M.,

Dolan L., Fraser D., Herrero M., Hoffmann I., Smith P., Thornton P. K., Toulmin C., Vemuelen S. J., Godfray H.

C. J. 2013. ‘Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies’, Science 341: 33–34, USA: AAAS

Gondwe, B., Nkonde, D. (2017) Optimizing fertilizer use within the context of integrated soil fertility

management in Zambia. In : Fertilizer use optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa. Charles S. Wortman and Keith

Sones (eds). CAB International, Nairobi, Kenya, pp 210-219

Harrison Rware, Kayuki C. Kaizz, Catherine J. Senkoro, Wondimu Bayu, George Oduor and James Watit i (2017)

Enabling Fertilizer Use Optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa In : Fertilizer use optimization in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Charles S. Wortman and Keith Sones (eds). CAB International, Nairobi, Kenya.

Klapwijk C. J., van Wijk M. T., Rosenstock T. S., van Asten P. J. A., Thornton P. K., Giller K. E. 2014. Analysis of

trade-offs in agricultural systems: current status and way forward. Current opinion in Environmental

Sustainability

Matakala, P. W., Kokwe, M., Statz, J. 2015. Zambia national strategy to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). UN-REDD programme

Musumba, M. Grabowski, P, Palm, C, Snapp, S. 2017. Guide for the Sustainable Intensification Assessment

Framework. 46 pgs.

Nkamleu, G. B. 2011. Extensification versus Intensification: Revisiting the role of land in African agridcultural

growth. African Economic conference, 2011

Pretty J., Toulmin C., Williams S. 2011. Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain.

2011;9:5–24. doi: 10.3763/ijas.2010.0583

Reed, M. S., Evely A. C, Cundill G.,. Fazey I, Glass J., Laing A., Newig J., Parrish B., Prell C., Raymond C., and

Stringer L. C.. 2010. What is social learning? Ecology and Society 15(4): r1.

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/resp1/

32

The African Centre for Biodiversity (2015) Which way forward for Zambia’s smallholder farmers: Green

Revolution input subsidies or agro-ecology? The African Centre for

Vinya, R., Syampungani, S., Kasumu, E.C., Monde, C. & Kasubika, R. (2011). Preliminary Study on the Drivers of Deforestation and Potential for REDD+ in Zambia. A consultancy report prepared for Forestry Department and FAO under the national UN-REDD+ Programme Ministry of Lands & Natural Resources. Lusaka, Zambia.

Zambia Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock. Second National Agriculture Policy 2016

Zambia Ministry of Tourism, Environment and Natural Resources. National Forestry Policy 2014Z

33

Appendix 1: List of participants

Full Names Sex Organisation Position

1 Davies Langeni M Meterological Department Senior Meteorlogist

2 Funda Sakaumba M Ministry of Agriculuture - DACO Agronomist

3 Nswana Kafwamfwa M Zambia Agricultural Research Institute

Researcher

4 Mwansa Tasha M ATS Agro Chemicals Manager

5 Mabvuto Phiri M Ministry of Agriculuture - DACO Agronomist

6 Kalima L. Nkana M Ministry of Agriculuture - DACO Extension Officer

7 Humphrey Daka M Zambia National Farmers Union District Facilitator

8 Munambeza Muwanei M Times of Zambia Journalist

9 Akalowa Akabondo F Forestry Department Snr Forestry Technician

10 Rosemary Masuku F District Farmers Association Farmer

11 Tebisa Sinkende F District Farmers Association Farmer

12 Kennedy Chilimboyi M Zambia Agricultural Research Institute

Researcher

13 Love Syachiputa F District Farmers Association Farmer

14 Edna Samuhamba F Ministry of Agriculuture - DACO Ag. Senior Agricultural Officer

15 Phanuel Muleya M District Farmers Association Farmer

16 Kache Donia F District Farmers Association Farmer

17 Asset Mazandu M Export Trading Group Agronomist

18 Mbanga Makumba M Ministry of Agriculuture - DACO Agronomist

19 Jennipher Handondo F District Farmers Association Vice Chairperson

20 Emelda M. Kapata F Ministry of Agriculuture - DACO Agricultural Assistant

21 Elijah Masika M Ministry of Agriculture - DACO CHO

22 Limose Shamuu M Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock Livestock Technician

23 Passmore Handongwe M Conservation Farming Unit Field Officer

24 Robert Tembo M Ministry of agriculture - DACO District Agricultural Coordinator

25 Goliath Chonoya M Ministry of Agriculture - PACO Senior Field Management Officer

26 Lillian Kainda F Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust

Crop Technician

27 Paul Nyambe M Ministry of Agriculture - PACO Provincial Agricultural Officer

28 Dennis Yusiku M Ministry of agriculture - DACO Driver

29 Nbonabi Muitfe M Zambia Agricultural Research

Institute

Agricultural Assistant

30 Chimuka Mulawo M Ministry of agriculture - DACO DMDO

31 Constain Chimuka M District Farmers Association Farmer

32 Victor Muleya M Mwachipapa Dairy Farmer

33 Progress Nyanga M University of Zambia Researcher

34 Nina Lengesela F Sustainable Innovations Africa Project Manager

35 Yotam Mkandawire M Grain Traders Association of

Zambia

Programme Manager

36 Emmerson Malamba M University of Zambia Researcher

37 Patricia Masikati F ICRAF Systems Scientist

38 Lillian Mana F Sustainable Innovations Africa Programme Manager

39 Modesty Syandebwe F University of Zambia Researcher

34

Appendix 2: Full results across all domains and indicators - district

level workshop

Domains and indicators Private Sector

Farmers(Male)

Farmers (Female)

NGO / CSO

Govt. MOA / MFL (District

Group I)

Govt. MOA / MFL (District

Group II)

Govt. Provincial

Average

Agricultural Productivity

crop productivity 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 1.0

plant residue productivity 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 0.0

livestock productivity 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 0.0

consistent production over

time 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0

crop diversity 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 1.0

capacity to produce surplus for the market

5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0

average positive 5.0 4.5 5.0 4.3 2.2 4.3 1.8 3.9

average negative

Income

profitabilty 4.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0

consistent profit from each cropping season

5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

income diversification 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 3.0

input use intersity 2.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 -3.0 -1.0

labour requirement 3.0 4.0 -3.0 3.0 3.0 -3.0 -2.0

capacity to sell agriculture

products 5.0 5.0 -3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0

access to market information

-1.0 -5.0 -3.0 4.0 1.0 4.0 4.0

average positive 4.0 3.8 4.3 4.1 2.6 3.2 2.8 3.5

average negative -1.0 -5.0 -3.0 -3.0 -1.5 -2.7

Land Health

vegetative cover 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 -2.0 5.0 3.0

plant biodiversity 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 -2.0 5.0 2.0

fuel security 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.0

insect biodiversity -2.0 -4.0 -3.0 4.0 2.0 5.0 2.0

water availability 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.0

water quality -1.0 -3.0 -3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 0.0

soil health 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 3.0

average positive 4.0 4.8 5.0 4.1 2.6 4.9 2.1 3.9

average negative -1.5 -3.5 -3.0 -2.0 -2.5

Human Condition

nutrition 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

35

Domains and indicators Private Sector

Farmers(Male)

Farmers (Female)

NGO / CSO

Govt. MOA /

MFL (District Group I)

Govt. MOA /

MFL (District Group II)

Govt. Provincial

Average

food security 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0

human health 5.0 -3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

access to education 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0

average positive 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 3.3 4.5 2.5 4.3

average negative -3.0 -3.0

Social

participation of the youth -1.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

participation of woman 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 2.0

participation of

marginalized groups -1.0 2.0 5.0 2.0 0.0 3.0 0.0

participation in farmer groups/women groups/youth groups

4.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 0.0

access to credit -2.0 -1.0 -2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

access to government

institutions -1.0 -1.0 -2.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 1.0

access to information 1.0 -1.0 -2.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

average positive 2.7 4.0 5.0 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.3 3.4

average negative -1.3 -1.0 -2.0 -1.4