516
tors compared to conventional agriculture. Firstly, applying zero tillage may not pay
off with regard to short-term outcome for their immediate household food demand.
CSA technologies are often promoted to enhance maize production, and they reduce
the ground for growing cassava on the same ridges, which is considered as an
important crop for increasing household food security during dry seasons. If CA
fails, women would lose the opportunity of growing other crops on their small piece
of land. Secondly, applying zero tillage generally requires more inputs compared to
other CSA technologies, and without application of herbicides, it causes more
weeds that increase women’s labour. Also male farmers indicated input scarcity as
the main problem. They also associated conservation agriculture technologies with
the free distribution of inputs from NGOs. Withdrawal of NGOs from distributing
inputs demotivates most farmers, and they tend to discontinue the use of CA
practices.
Constraints to Adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies by
Male and Female Farmers
Table 3 shows the five main constraints to the adoption of CSA technologies identified by women and men in the three districts. The focus group discussions showed
that all women and men across districts invariably indicate that lack of inputs and
income are primary constraints that affect adoption of CSA technologies. Lack of
inputs such as fertiliser, hybrid seeds, ox-carts to carry residues and treadle pumps
for irrigation are some of the common constraints for both men and women smallholders. Most women listed lack of access to drought-resistant varieties and fertiliser as major barriers. Limited access to income, information, training, extension
services and restricted access to water are the major gendered constraints. Access to
land was not identified as a big barrier for women in all study areas. Although the
land is available for women, scarcity of inputs, information and training are major
challenges that constrain women’s adoption of CSA technologies more than their
access to land.
Limited credit opportunities or microloans from village savings loans (VSLs) are
other major constraints to the adoption of technologies among male and female
farmers. Women in polygamous marriages in Nkhotakota listed lack of labour support from husbands and women’s inability to join women’s local development
groups due to the number of co-wives, as the first wives often join the membership,
as one of the constraints. The interviews in Phalombe showed that although the
matrilineal marriage system seems to provide a better decision-making ability to
women over land, it does not bring significant difference in the adoption of CSA
technologies between women in patrilineal and matrilineal societies. The constraints for adoption of CSA technologies apply to women in both societies.
Several programmes provide communities with food aid such as maize and
beans, and if they have a bad harvest, they know that they will still get food. This
has created a dependency syndrome and restricts farmers’ motivation to use diversified farming methods.
T. K. Chibowa et al.
tors compared to conventional agriculture. Firstly, applying zero tillage may not pay
off with regard to short-term outcome for their immediate household food demand.
CSA technologies are often promoted to enhance maize production, and they reduce
the ground for growing cassava on the same ridges, which is considered as an
important crop for increasing household food security during dry seasons. If CA
fails, women would lose the opportunity of growing other crops on their small piece
of land. Secondly, applying zero tillage generally requires more inputs compared to
other CSA technologies, and without application of herbicides, it causes more
weeds that increase women’s labour. Also male farmers indicated input scarcity as
the main problem. They also associated conservation agriculture technologies with
the free distribution of inputs from NGOs. Withdrawal of NGOs from distributing
inputs demotivates most farmers, and they tend to discontinue the use of CA
practices.
Constraints to Adoption of Climate Smart Agriculture Technologies by
Male and Female Farmers
Table 3 shows the five main constraints to the adoption of CSA technologies identified by women and men in the three districts. The focus group discussions showed
that all women and men across districts invariably indicate that lack of inputs and
income are primary constraints that affect adoption of CSA technologies. Lack of
inputs such as fertiliser, hybrid seeds, ox-carts to carry residues and treadle pumps
for irrigation are some of the common constraints for both men and women smallholders. Most women listed lack of access to drought-resistant varieties and fertiliser as major barriers. Limited access to income, information, training, extension
services and restricted access to water are the major gendered constraints. Access to
land was not identified as a big barrier for women in all study areas. Although the
land is available for women, scarcity of inputs, information and training are major
challenges that constrain women’s adoption of CSA technologies more than their
access to land.
Limited credit opportunities or microloans from village savings loans (VSLs) are
other major constraints to the adoption of technologies among male and female
farmers. Women in polygamous marriages in Nkhotakota listed lack of labour support from husbands and women’s inability to join women’s local development
groups due to the number of co-wives, as the first wives often join the membership,
as one of the constraints. The interviews in Phalombe showed that although the
matrilineal marriage system seems to provide a better decision-making ability to
women over land, it does not bring significant difference in the adoption of CSA
technologies between women in patrilineal and matrilineal societies. The constraints for adoption of CSA technologies apply to women in both societies.
Several programmes provide communities with food aid such as maize and
beans, and if they have a bad harvest, they know that they will still get food. This
has created a dependency syndrome and restricts farmers’ motivation to use diversified farming methods.
T. K. Chibowa et al.