.V
9‘.

1- , t V: 'rt-Z‘i. F

kit“ .

:4

V A "$5“ -
: '“\O“h

 

 

1 LIBRARY
290... Michigan State

{a 2 1,20 7 0 University

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

FACTORS AFFECTING SMALLHOLDER FARMERS’
ADOPTION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
PRACTICES IN ZAMBIA

presented by

GEOFFREY NDAWA CHOMBA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MASTER OF degree in Agricultural Economics
SCIENCE

 

 

CAM c Dow

 

’ Major Professor’s Signature

December 17, 2004

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2105 animatoDueJndd-p. 1 5

 

fi-

FACTORS AFFECTING SMALLHOLDER FARMERS’ ADOPTION OF SOIL AND
WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN ZAMBIA

By

GEOFFREY NDAWA CHOMBA

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of '
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Agricultural Economics

2004

ABSTRACT
FACTORS AFFECTING SMALLHOLDER FARMERS’ ADOPTION OF SOIL AND
WATER CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN ZAMBIA
By
GEOFFREY NDAWA CHOMBA

Land and water for agriculture are scarce natural resources hence the promotion
of good land management has taken center stage in Zambia. This study attempts to
measure the factors that could be associated with the adoption of conservation farming
practices considering that farmers have multiple practices to choose from and may adopt
a given technology package in pieces.

Based on a 1999/2000 national representative sample, the study suggests that
farmers may be using intercropping to manage risk in low rainfall areas whereas pot
holing does not yet appear to be considered as a risk reduction option. The thrust of this
study is that policy makers should strive to build human capital, while at the same time
retain skilled farmers through reduced adult mortalities. Provision of extension services
should concentrate in areas with relevant physiographical factors while infrastructure
should be improved to minimize costs of delivering extension services and agricultural

inputs.

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my wife Doreen and my little daughter Chomba. The patience
they showed and the support they provided during the time I was studying up to the very

end of writing this thesis was wonderful.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many thanks and appreciation goes to the following institutions and individuals
whom without their help and support, the successful completion of my study would not
have been possible:

The Government of Zambia, particularly the Ministry of Agriculture and
Cooperatives, for allowing me to study outside my country whilst keeping my job.

The United States Agency for International Development (U SAID) for the financial
support they gave me for the whole period of my study. Without this help it would not
have been possible for me to come all the way from Zambia (Africa) to come and study
at Michigan State University (MSU). I also thank the Agency for facilitating in bringing
my family over to the United States of America.

The Department of Agricultural Economics at Michigan State University (MSU),
for offering me an opportunity to study in this country. I thank the Department especially
for granting me assistantship through Food Security Research Project. This gave me an
opportunity to meet and make new friends. More importantly, the knowledge I gained
during my study will surely be beneficial to my country.

I would like to sincerely thank Cynthia Donovan who was my major professor
during the write up of this thesis. I am so grateful for the advice and timely help she
offered. I owe so much for the knowledge I gained and for her tireless effort in shaping
this work. Many thanks go to John Kerr and Scott Swinton my committee members for
the guidance and encouragement I received. Their guidance availed me an opportunity to

widen my academic knowledge. The useful suggestions given are highly appreciated.

iv

I extend my thanks to all the lecturers and students in the Department of Agricultural
Economics, and all those individuals who supported me as pursued my studies.
Finally, I thank God for his wonderful mercies to enable me complete my study

successfully.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................. x

ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1 ........................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

1.0 Background of the Study and Problem Statement ............................................... 1

1.2 Objectives, Rationale of Study and Key Questions ............................................. 5

1.3 Overview of the Thesis ........................................................................................ 7
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................ 9
AGRICULTURE, SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION IN ZAMBIA ....................... 9

2.1 Location ............................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Geographical Features and Climate ..................................................................... 9

2.3 Rainfall and Vegetation ....................................................................................... 9

2.4 The Economy of Zambia ................................................................................... 11

2.5 Significance of Agriculture in Zambia .............................................................. 11

2.6 Relevance of Soil and Water Conservation ....................................................... 15

2.7 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Promoted ............................................. 20

2.8 Study Area ......................................................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3 ...................................................................................................................... 26
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................... 26

3.1 Behavioral Model of Adoption .......................................................................... 26

3.2 Factors Included in the Model and Expected Effects ........................................ 31

3.3 Behavioral Model of Technology Disadoption ................................................. 37
CHAPTER 4 ...................................................................................................................... 40
EMPIRICAL METHODS AND DATA ............................................................................ 40

4.1 Data .................................................................................................................... 40

4.1.1 Operational definitions of Variables .......................................................... 42
4.1.2 Limitations of the Data .............................................................................. 46
4.1.3 General Environment ................................................................................. 47
4.2 Empirical Methods ............................................................................................ 49
4.2.1 Adoption Estimation Model for Intercropping and Pot holing .................. 49
4.2.2 Econometric Specification for Conservation Farming Practice and Other
Sets of Practices ......................................................................................................... 53
4.2.3 Procedure to Analyze Disadoption of Practices ........................................ 58

vi

CHAPTER 5 ...................................................................................................................... 61
DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS ......................................................................................... 61

5.1 Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices - Descriptive Analysis
Results61

5.2 Adoption of Technologies - Econometric Analysis Results ............................. 72
5.2.3 Regression Results for Intercropping and Potholing ................................. 73
5.2.4 Results for Ranked Practices (Ordered Logit) ........................................... 79

CHAPTER 6 ...................................................................................................................... 86
DYNAMICS OF CONTINUITY OF USE OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
PRACTICES ...................................................................................................................... 86

6.1 Descriptive Analysis of Abandonment of Practices .......................................... 86

6.2 Statistical Comparisons Based on T-Tests of Mean Differences ...................... 90

CHAPTER 7 ...................................................................................................................... 99
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS .................................................... 99

7.1 Pot holing and Intercropping ............................................................................. 99

7.2 Individual Practices in General ........................................................................ 101

7.3 Ranked Conservation Practices ....................................................................... 101

7.4 What key factors might hasten disadoption? ................................................... 102

CHAPTER 8 .................................................................................................................... 104
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 104
8.1 Conclusion of this Study .................................................................................. 104
8.2 Recommendations from This Study ................................................................ 106
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 109
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 113

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Soil and Water Conservation Categories Promoted Among Farmers ................. 21

Table 2: Districts and Zones in Research Area Where Soil and WaterConservation

Technologies Have Been Promoted ........................................................................... 25
Table 3: Effects Expected From Switch to Intercropping Practice ................................... 35
Table 4: Effects Expected From Switch to Pot holing or Conservation Farming ............. 36
Table 5: Sample size of Household Surveyed ................................................................... 41
Table 6: Sample size of Household Surveyed in Selected Districts .................................. 41

Table 7: Summary Statistics of Farmer and Farm Characteristics: Continuous Factors...48

Table 8: Summary Statistics of Farmer and Farm Characteristics: Dichotomous Factors...

.................................................................................................................................. .49
Table 9: General Grouping of Technologies ..................................................................... 56
Table 10: Summary Statistics of Farmer and Farm Household Profile ............................. 62
Table 11: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation ....................................... 63
Table 12: Source Where Farmers Learned about Any of the Conservation Practicesl ..... 64
Table 13: Source of Information for a Practice, for Those Who Used It .......................... 65

Table 14: Farmers that learned practices through traditional sources by level of Education
................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 15: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation, by Farm Size Category.
................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 16: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation by Gender from the Given
Total Number (N) within Each Farm Size Category ................................................. 67

Table 17: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation Among all farmers by
Rainfall Zone ............................................................................................................. 68

Table 18: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation within Each Adult Labor
Quartile (Percentages) ............................................................................................... 69

viii

Table 19: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation within Each Quartile of

Land Area Cultivated ................................................................................................. 70
Table 20: Combination of Practices Used Among Farmers .............................................. 72
Table 21: Econometric Analysis of Factors Affecting the Use of Selected Individual

Practices (Logit Regression) a ................................................................................... 76
Table 22: Odds Ratios for Selected Variables Affecting Individual Practices .................. 77

Table 23: Marginal Effects for the Estimated Parameters: Conservation Farming Practices
(Ordered Logit Regression) '1 ’ ‘2 ............................................................................... 82

Table 24: Abandonment of Practices by Farmers over the Period of 1999/2000 and
2000/2001 Agricultural Season ................................................................................. 87

Table 25: Farmers Abandoned Specific Practices in 2000/2001 (As a Percentage of Those
Who Used the Practice in 1999/2000) by Province ' ................................................. 88

Table 26: Farmers Who Disadopted Specific Practices in 2000/2001 (As a Percentage of
Those Who Use the Practice in 1999/2000) by Gender and by Marital Status ......... 89

Table 27: Farmers Who Abandoned Specific Practices in 2000/2001 (As a Percentage of
Those Who Used the Practice in 1999/2000) by Farm Size Category and by Tenure
Status ......................................................................................................................... 90

Table 28: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Use Intercropping

.................................................................................................................................. .92
Table 29: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Implement

Improved Fallow ........................................................................................................ 95
Table 30: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Implement Pot

Holing ........................................................................................................................ 96

Table 31: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Implement Crop
Rotation ...................................................................................................................... 97

Table 32: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Leave Crop Residue
after Harvest ............................................................................................................... 98

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Map Showing Agro-ecological Zones in Zambia .......................................... 10
Figure 2: Rainfall Performance in Zambia in 2000/01 ...................................................... 16

Figure 3: Trend of Growth Rate of Real GDP (1994 Prices) of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries ..................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 4: Targeted Districts for Extended WFP Emergency Food Distribution as of July
2002 ........................................................................................................................... 19

BOZ

CSA

CSO

CIMMYT

CLUSA

DAPP

EEOA

MACO

NGO

ORGUT

PHS

SCAFE

SEA

ZMK

ZNFU

ACRONYMS
Bank of Zambia
Census Standard Area
Central Statistical Office
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
Cooperatives League of United States of America
Development Aid from People to People
Economic Expansion in Outlying Areas
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
Non Governmental Organization
ORGUT Consulting AB
Post Harvest Survey
Soil Conservation and Fertility
Standard Enumeration Area
Zambian Kwacha

Zambia National Farmers Union

xi

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background of the Study and Problem Statement

Livelihoods of most of the rural households in Zambia are dependent on land.
The smallholderl households comprise about 88% of the farming population of
Zambia. The small householder farmers could further be classified into small-scale
farmers and medium scale farmers. The former cultivate land area less than five
hectares and comprise about 85% of the agricultural households whilst the latter
group cultivate land area between five and twenty hectares and are about 13% of the
agricultural households. Both these smallholder households largely use land for
agricultural purposes, with an ultimate contribution of 60% to the value of national
agricultural output (Saasa 2003). The land resource has been employed in varied
proportions to meet both subsistence needs and/or cash needs. Principally the
endowment related to soil types and the prevailing rainfall has had a bearing on the
way the resource has been used. Farmers that live in high rainfall areas, where the
soils are acidic, have generally tended to practice shitting cultivation while those that
live in medium rainfall zone of the country have tended to practice semi-permanent
hoe and ox plough farming systems. In addition, water shortage concerns in low
rainfall areas have tended to lead farmers to water harvesting or moisture

conservation methods.

 

l Smallholder farmers as used in this study covers both small-scale and medium-scale farmers of
Zambia. See Chapter two for the definition of small and medium scale farmer.

Farmers have long recognized that land cannot be used without limit. They
have before experienced a decline in land productivity necessitating some action on
their part.

Traditionally the redemptive action has been through land-fallow practices or clearing
new land areas (using a system commonly referred to as chitemene ) or crop rotation
(though in a limited sense of the word). However, with increasing land constraints in
most areas, fallow periods have drastically declined from a range of 15-20 years to an
average of 3 years (Kwesiga et al. 2003). The traditional farming systems that farmers
have previously employed to sustain their productivity cannot any longer effectively
work due to population pressure. It is now evident that in provinces such as Central
and Southern Provinces where yield for maize used to be around 2.4 metric tones per
hectare in 1981, the typical yield now is about 1.5 metric tones per hectare (Mulenga
2003)

Farmers have perceived a decline in soil productivity, and continued water
shortages in low rainfall areas. They consider these problems to be a natural course,
which cannot be avoided (Siachinji-Musiwa 1999). The effects of soil degradation
and water shortages on crop productivity have induced researchers to introduce some
innovative practices such as mulching, bunding, contour ridging, ripping, minimum
tillage and others to check the downward spiral in agricultural production. Varied soil
and water conservation practices requiring varied farmer inputs have been promoted
among farmers for over a decade now (Chelemu and Nindi 1999; Haggblade and
Tembo 2003 a; Mulenga 2003). In the early 19808 the emphasis by the Ministry of

Agriculture and Cooperatives (MACO) and collaborating partners was on physical

control measures such as soil bunds and contour ridges. Thereafter, the focus was on
a combination of physical and biological measures (e.g. vetiver grass, improved
fallow and bunds). During the latter part of the 19903 the focus shifted to land
management and conservation farming.

According to studies on livelihood strategies, the rural poor when faced with
limited resources adapt to environmental degradation by mitigating its effects or by
rehabilitating degraded resources (Scherr 2000). With deterioration in land
productivity due to soil degradation and erratic rainfall, which is also evident to
farmers themselves, one would expect most farmers should have embraced the
practices by now. Nevertheless, studies that have attempted to look at farmer
participation in soil and water conservation practices2 give mixed results ranging
from 8% (Haggblade and Tembo 2003 a) to 48 % (Kwesiga et a1. 2003).

The study conducted by Luputa and Malesu (1999) on utilization of water
conservation practices indicate that less than 10 % of farmers had adopted rainwater-
harvesting practices. The study on prevalence of conservation tillage practices, based
on 1999/2000 post-harvest survey reported that 7.8 % small-scale farmers and 13%
medium scale farmers were using planting basins (Haggblade and Tembo 2003 b). In
the same year the study that looked at adoption of improved fallow in Eastern
Province of Zambia found that 60,000 farmers, (approximately 48%) were following
the practice (Kwesiga et a1. 2003).

The percentage of farmers using the soil and water conservation practices is

still low, especially when one considers that these studies have simply reported

 

2 . . . . . .

Some of the sorl and water conservation practices that have been promoted in Zambia are improved
fallow, planting basins, pot holing, planting of vetiver grass, ripping, soil bunds and terraces. A more
detailed account of these and other practices not mentioned here is given in Chapter two.

elements of the total recommended packages. Faced with such low levels, one may be
tempted to conclude that soil and water conservation practices are not profitable.
Such doubts would be in direct conflict with the emerging evidence in the country,
which demonstrates the benefits of soil water conservation. The appraisal study by
Keyser and Mwanza (1996) conducted in Mumbwa noted differential income to the
user of conservation farming techniques in the order of 45-60% over and above the
users of conventional farming. Haggblade and Tembo (2003 b) stated that water
basins were responsible for yield increments on average of 460 Kg per hectare among
cotton growers in Mumbwa district and an incremental yield averaging about one
metric tonne among maize growers in the same district. The returns to labor per
hectare for the practice of minimum tillage were US $9.00 above the practice of
conventional cultivation among maize farmers. The paper reviews of adoption of
conservation technologies in Sub-Saharan Africa undertaken by Haggblade et a1.
(2004) also recognize the likely potential in financial incentives of soil conservation
practices.

The foregoing situation where there is low adoption despite potential financial
returns makes it necessary to further understand factors germane to adoption of soil
and water conservation practices. Previous studies on adoption of soil and water
conservation practices in Zambia have simply highlighted the proportion of farmers
participating in conservation practices while those that have looked at factors
influencing farmers have largely addressed the adoption issues as a binary choice and
have largely concentrated on farmers participating in out-grower schemes or

individual project-supported areas rather than an extensive area of the country. For

now no known study has attempted to measure the factors that influence the adoption
of soil and water conservation practices against the background that farmers have a
multiple choice of practices.

1.2 Objectives, Rationale of Study and Key Questions

The overall objective of this study is to assess the adoption of soil and water
conservation practices among small to medium scale farmers in Zambia from a
perspective that farmers combine practices though they may not necessarily use all
the practices in a given package. The specific objectives are:

1. To determine the factors which significantly influenced the use of soil and
water conservation practices in 1999/2000 cropping season;

2. To assess whether farmers maintained the same soil and water conservation
practices in 2000/2001 from the previous agricultural season.

The smallholder farmers have been experiencing declining yields due to land
degradation. Their participation in maintaining and improving land resources require
identifying some factors that could act as incentives. The farmer incentives have
generally revolved around marketing related factors. It would be worthwhile to
determine whether the incentives entailed by proximity to market, input and output
prices can also have any effect on farmer decision to adopt conservation practices in
Zambia. Moreover, farming systems have been determined by location. It is
important therefore, that some insight is gained into what role location factors would
play on farmer’s choice of conservation practices. Equally important is the realization
that farmers are always trying technologies. This being the case, it is important to

understand potential changes in farmer use of conservation practices.

Appropriate improvement and corrective measures in promoting soil and
water conservation can only be made when there is a way of determining critical
factors for any given practice. Anything less than this may lead into unnecessary
financial expenditures that could otherwise be avoidable. A better understanding of
the factors that will condition adoption and possibly restrict the adoption of soil and
water conservation practices would allow the formulation of well-tailored
interventions that could result in rationalizing the scarce physical, financial and
human resources that the nation most requires for use in other sectors of the economy.
A better understanding could further facilitate close monitoring of conservation
activities. Moreover, future related efforts in other areas with similar characteristics
may be targeted with less difficulty and it would allow for prediction of the speed at
which adoption of the practice to be introduced would likely take place.

The key questions that this study attempts to address are:
0 What factors have been critical for adoption of individual and multiple soil and
water conservation practices?
V Do output and input prices act as incentives for the use of soil conservation
practices in Zambia?
/ Does proximity to market matter for farmer’s adoption of soil conservation
practices?
V Are farmers in the low rainfall areas more likely to use potholing and mixed
cropping practices as a risk reduction strategy than other areas?
0 Was there a significant change in farmers’ use of individual soil and water

conservation practices between 1999/2000 and 2000/01 agricultural season? What

factors could be associated with those who did not maintain the individual
practices the following agricultural season?
1.3 Overview of the Thesis

This study is structured into eight chapters. The first chapter has given a brief
overview of the problem this study is pursuing, and what it expects to achieve by the
end of its discourse. The chapter that follows expands on the background of the study.
It shows the importance of agriculture in Zambia and to the livelihoods of its rural
population. It further discusses the relevance of soil and water conservation and how
it has been induced by policy (market and others), and climatic changes. The chapter
concludes by highlighting the type of practices that have been promoted and which
research area this study focuses on. It is worth noting that this study refers to land
management and agronomic practices that have a direct impact on ameliorating soil
degradation as soil and water conservation practices.

Chapter three provides a behavioral model based on literature and economic
theory. As much as is possible the discussion in this chapter specifically looks at
practices focused on by this study. The chapter highlights the selection of the
analytical framework to guide the selection of arguments to include in the analytical
model for this study. It then explains the categories of theoretical variables and for
each one it shows the empirical variables relevant to this research situation. It also
gives a synopsis of the contribution of previous studies and literature on disadoption
of soil and water conservation technologies among farmers and then closes up with a

discussion on appropriate estimation models for this study. The fourth chapter follows

on to discuss the data this study used and the empirical methods for this study’s
analysis.

Chapter five and Chapter six present results of the study interposed with very
limited comments or observations. Chapter seven discusses the results and their
implications and the last chapter makes some inferences based on the results and
discussion of this study and it suggests future research efforts and makes policy
recommendations aimed at enhancing conservation activities among small and

medium scale farmers in Zambia.

CHAPTER 2
AGRICULTURE, SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION IN ZAMBIA
2.1 Location
Zambia is a landlocked country located in the southern part of Africa. It is
situated between latitudes 8 and 18 degrees South of the equator and between
longitudes 22 and 36 degrees East. It has a land area of about 752,000 square meters.
2.2 Geographical Features and Climate
The country has three main topographical features namely (1) mountains with
an altitude of at least 1500 meters above sea level; (2) plateau area with an altitude
ranging from 900 to 1500 meters; and (3) low lands with an altitude of between 400
and 900 meters. There are three distinct seasons and these are:
0 Cool and dry season from May to August;
0 Hot and dry season from September to November; and
0 Warm and wet season from December to April.
2.3 Rainfall and Vegetation
Zambia is divided into three major ecological zones. Zone 1 receives rainfall
below 800 millimeters; Zone 2 receives rainfall between 800 and 1000 millimeters
whilst Zone 3 receives rainfall above 1000 millimeters (Refer to Figure 1 for location
of zones). The vegetation of the country is mainly savannah woodlands in high

rainfall regions of the country and tropical grassland in low rainfall regions.

~99.an 3.3-2.5 .>o?=..m zom “ 8.53
82 .3283

 

23080.! g a 8m

a: commom

 

 

 
     

raucson .0320

>mx

 

 

 

E semen

«En—«N 5 BEN _3_wo_eoo-e..u< “£33m he: < J 0.5“:—

10

2.4 The Economy of Zambia

Zambia has been experiencing sluggish economic growth since the early 19805.
The mediocre performance of the economy has been attributed to the long dependence of
the country on copper exports. Since the time copper prices failed to measure up to
expectation at the London Metal Exchange, in the latter half of the 19703, the government
has been facing difficulties to cover its budget deficits. The recent closures of most of the
manufacturing industries, the poor operational state of the mines and the escalating
inflation rate have reduced the country to one of the poorest countries in the world. About
70% of the population is affected by the high poverty level (Saasa 2003). Faced with such
economic difficulties the government has been looking for other alternatives to redeem
the economy from collapse.
2.5 Significance of Agriculture in Zambia

The government views agriculture as the best alternative to mining due to its
contribution to the gross domestic product (GDP) — 18.5% in 1995 and 17.2% in 2000
(BOZ 2003). The sector has been able to contribute a considerable amount of foreign
exchange earnings through the horticultural subsector. Agriculture is important in Zambia
because of the following reasons: (1) It employs most of the rural households and it is
the primary source of food for half the population; and (2) It is a potential source of
foreign exchange for the country, which is partly used to offset the balance of payments
deficit.

The smallholder farmers in Zambia heavily depend on land and rainfall for their
agricultural activities. This land is held in trust for the nation by the president, and people

get it on lease for a period of ninety-nine years through the Ministry of Lands. Only very

ll

few smallholder farmers have land with title deeds while the majority of the people have
customary use rights. They access land through the customary tenure system after getting
approval of traditional rulers such as chiefs and headmen. Arable land covers 47% of the
country’s total land but only 15% of this land, which is approximately 7% of total land, is
under cultivation (BOZ 2003). Most land lying in opened up areas is occupied but
unexploited agricultural land, which generally is far from where minimal infrastructure is
developed, still remains unoccupied. This has resulted in great pressure on cleared arable
land by the fast growing population, which currently stands at 3.2%. Farmers are now
constrained in their traditional practice of shifting cultivation (the fertility management
methods are fully explained below) from the previous average period of 15-20 years to 3-
4 years now. This period is not long enough for farmers to sustain their agricultural
production.

The agricultural sector is composed of three categories of farmers. These are
large-scale farmers, medium-scale farmers and small-scale farmers. According to the
classification of Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives large-scale farmers
comprising about 2% of the farmer population cultivate more than 20 hectares. They are
generally characterized by high mechanization and have a well organized farmer
network, which facilitates the acquisition of inputs. Medium-scale farmers, comprising
about 13% of the farmer population, by definition cultivate a land area between 5 and 20
hectares. In the case of small-scale farmers (85% of farmer population), they cultivate
land area that is less than 5 hectares.

There are five major farming systems that have been identified in Zambia. These

are shifting cultivation, semi-permanent hoe system, semi permanent hoe and ox plough

12

system, semi commercial cultivation and commercial systems (Saasa 2003). The

smallholder households are mainly associated with the first four farming systems whilst

the large-scale farmers are largely associated with the latter farming system.

Shifting Cultivation System: This system has traditionally been practiced in
Region1 HI (Zone 111) where chitemene system (slash and burn) has been used
(Refer to Figure 1). It has also been practiced in some medium rainfall regions
where fallowing system has been used. The fallowing system involves leaving
completely cleared and destumped fields unused for a period of 15 to 20 years
(Kwesiga et a1. 2003). The dominant crops have been maize, cassava, millet,
groundnuts and beans. This system is unsuitable in the long run because of
inadequate land to allow long fallow periods. The practice has seen some level of
decline with the fertilizer subsidy support system that the Government introduced.
The usage of fertilizer took the place of the burning of leaves previously used to
improve soil fertility. The switch to fertilizer use, more especially ammonium
nitrate exacerbated the acidic levels in the soils.

Traditional system: This system is practiced in the lowest rainfall bracket of the
country known as Region I hereafter referred to as Zone I (See Figure 1). The
weather is generally unsuitable for crop production and it is prone to droughts or
spurts of rainfall that cause floods and crop destruction. The dominant crops
grown are sorghum and maize but the crop output in this region in most cases is

low.

 

I In much of the later texts Regions 1, 11 and III will simply be referred to as Zones 1, 11 and Ill.

13

The Semi-Permanent Hoe and Ox plough: This farming system is prevalent in
Region II (Zone 11) where rainfall ranges from 800mm to 1000 mm (See Figure
1). The dominant crops grown are finger millets, maize, cassava, groundnuts and
beans. Livestock has been the major source of draught power though this has
recently declined due to disease and droughts. The soil structure is generally good
though the long usage of the same pieces of land have resulted in soil exhaustion.
The farmers under this system are not able to counteract the effect of soil
acidification due to various reasons some of which are unavailability of lime, or
where lime is available, farmers lack knowledge or they do not have the finances
to purchase it.

Semi-Commercial Hole and Ox Plough System: The farmers falling in this
category are mainly found in region 11 (See figure 3). The dominant crops grown
are maize, groundnuts, cotton and beans. Livestock is the major asset for the
farming activities and the farmers have equally been affected by the pestilence
that attacked the animals. The farmers in this category have equally been
dependent on fertilizer at the expense of other practices aimed at improving soil
quality.

The Commercial Farming System: This is characterized by well-developed
agronomic management practices and intensive usage of mechanized farm
equipment. The farmers implementing this system tend to mitigate the effects of

soil acidification through lime application.

14

2.6 Relevance of Soil and Water Conservation

The need to promote soil and water conservation was induced by both economic
and physical factors that became a common experience of the farmers. The late 19703
and early 19803 saw the heavy promotion of high yielding input practices such as
fertilizer and hybrid seeds. Packaged inputs designed to cater for a quarter of a hectare
were advanced to the farmers by the government. For enhanced results the
recommendations discouraged mixing crops in the same field. With time farmers got
used to subsidized inputs and guaranteed markets for outputs that offered pan-territorial,
pan-seasonal prices. In recent years, the steady withdrawal of subsidies made fertilizer
unaffordable to most of the farmers, and there is only a limited guaranteed market for
maize grain.

Secondly farmers that in the past tended to rely on animal draught power
experienced loss of animals in the early 19903 due to plague. Thirdly, compounding the
problem of disease was the steady decline in the length of the rain season in Southern half
of Zambia from an average period of 120 to 140 days, to less than 110 days, and the
amount of rainfall in some seasons has been reported to be 30% to 40% below normal
(Banda 2002). The country experienced severe droughts that affected the crop output in
1992/93, 1998/99, and 2001/02 seasons (see figure 1 below for the 2001/02 rainfall
performance). The impact of these droughts has not only been felt in rainfall deficit
provinces but also at national level as reflected by the pattern of the growth rate of GDP
of agriculture and other related sub sectors (see Figure 2). The real growth rate of GDP

for agriculture and related subsectors was poor during the years of severe droughts.

15

Figure 2: Rainfall Performance in Zambia in 2000/01

>2

 

Source: Meteorological Department, Zambia; 20022

 

2 The Department presented this map to the National Early Warning Committee in Lusaka

16

Figure 3: Trend of Growth Rate of Real GDP (1994 Prices) of Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries

 

_l .A
o N
r

 

Growth Rate (%)
lb 0 N as a: on

1998
2000
002

 

 

 

at.

Year

Source: Central Statistical Office, Ministry of Finance & National Planning; 2003

Lusaka.

Due to the above problems, agricultural development agents’ interest in
addressing the quality of soil through soil conservation practices was rekindled. The
small household farming left unaided appeared to be the most vulnerable to the above
problems whilst the large-scale farmers had recourse to some problems such as purchased
inputs. In recent years the food situation has even been more worrying because Eastern,
Southern and Central Provinces, which for a long time have been known to be surplus
regions in field crops such as maize have now become targets for food distribution in
disaster years. A primary example is shown in Figure 4 below for the fiscal year of 2002.
After the regions were hit by the severe drought during the 2001/2002 rainfall season,
almost all the districts from these provinces became targets of emergency food aid.

According to the World Food Program report given to the

17

National Early Warning Committee in Zambia in July 2002, between April and
July 2002, districts in Eastern Province received a total food tonnage of 5,390 while
districts in Southern Province received a total food tonnage of 4,599. Mumbwa, Mkushi
and Chibombo districts of Central Province were under consideration for food relief.
Evidently the farmers have become increasingly vulnerable to the harsh environment
surrounding them.

Against the background given above, land management and conservation farming
activities have occupied a center stage in Zambian agriculture. Considerable assurances
for policy support have even been provided to the agricultural sector to ensure that there
is food security, and enough revenue is earned through exports. The government has
reiterated that in its policy goals of agriculture it will ensure the resource base is

maintained through sustainable practices by providing extension support services.

18

Figure 4: Targeted Districts for Extended WFP Emergency Food Distribution
as of July 2002

 

2.7 Soil and Water Conservation Practices Promoted

There are many soil and water conservation practices that have been promoted by
MACO and collaborating partners among farmers and they can be categorized into three
groups: (1) conservation tillage practices, (2) soil fertility improvement practices, and (3)
erosion control practices. Conservation tillage covers a broad range of practices such as
reduced tillage, minimum tillage, zero tillage, mulch tillage and strip tillage. Soil fertility
practices refer to soil conservation practices that directly provide nutrients to the soil, for
instance crop residue through organic decomposition. A combination of practices that
result in improved yields or reliability with reduced inputs of fertilizer or labor are
captured under a title of conservation farming.

The fast track and medium track concepts have recently been employed to
describe conservation farming practices. The fast track technologies refer to a sequence
of practices, which must be done by the farmer and these recommendations give
immediate as well as medium term benefits and have been proven in agro-ecological
regions I and II (Mulenga 2003). Examples of fast track technologies are ripping and pot
holing. The medium track technologies on the other hand do not give immediate response
within the growing season; the impact is medium to long term. Examples of technologies

falling in this category are cover crops and improved fallow (Mulenga 2003).

20

The practices that have been promoted in the country are summarized in Table 1

below.

Table 1: Soil and Water Conservation Categories Promoted Among Farmers

 

 

Soil Fertility Practices Tillage Practices Erosion Control Practices
Leave crop residue in field Pot holing / planting Level bunds / contour ridges
after harvest basins

Crop rotation Ripping Terracing

Improved fallow Zero Tillage

Mulching

Mixing crops in same field

 

Source: Compiled based on Land Management and Conservation Farming: 1999-2002
Completion Report; MACO & ORGUT, 2003.

Physical control measures characterized by terracing, soil bunding and contour
ridging began to be promoted by the early 19803. A farmer would follow some of the
practices depending on the topography of his/her farm. The following is a short
description of the practices mentioned above:

0 Soil bunding: This practice is where an embankment of earth is constructed across

a slope to prevent soil erosion across the field. Contour ridging is technically the

same as contour or soil bunding. Soil bunding helps in soil and water conservation

on moderately sloped fields.
0 Terracing: This is a practice of leveling land into layers to reduce runoff on a
steep slope area. Terracing is commonly practiced on hilly places with a

beneficial outcome of reduced water erosion of soil.

21

The above practices were largely promoted by MACO through a number of
projects. In the early 1995/96, the Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNF U) began to
promote land management and conservation practices (tillage and fertility enhancement
practices listed in Table 1 with an exception of mulching) expanded on below. These
practices were adopted by MACO as a priority practice in late 1999. The practices
MACO promoted to start with in 1999 were based on the tillage practices of inverting the
soil (MACO, 2003). This study will specifically focus on practices/ technology package
adopted and promoted by ZNF U and MACO. It will analyze the practices as a technology
package under the title of conservation farming, and also as sets of practice33. The latter
refers to a situation where a farmer implements pieces of the technology package.

The three key elements (techniques) of the technology package of land
management and conservation practices, also referred to as conservation farming, are
crop rotation, minimum tillage (e.g. pot holing or ripping), and leaving crop residue in the
field. These have to be combined with agronomic recommendations such as tilling land
before the onset of the rains, establishment of precise and permanent planting stations or
furrows or contour ridges and planting the seeds with the first rains. A brief description of
these practices together with other related practices is given below:

0 Leaving crop residue in field after harvest: This is the practice where farmers are
encouraged not to burn the crop residues after harvest, with an exception of cotton
and tobacco. Cotton and tobacco stalks are subject to the Rattoon Crop
Agricultural Act, which is aimed at preventing breeding and pest build up. The

rationale for leaving the residues is that the crop nutrients locked-up in the residue

 

3 U D I O O C O O I 0
Conservation farming may be implemented m pieces. Each combination of the pieces IS consrdered as a
set.

22

should get back into the soil. The residue at the same time acts as a physical
barrier to sun exposure of the soil. The residue also shields land from wind
erosion, which ultimately reduces soil loss.

Pot holing: This is a practice where a crop is planted in planting holes or basins,
largely for the purpose of harvesting water. The practice also rationalizes the use
of fertilizer, as there is proper targeting in the application of the input. This
practice does not use conventional plowing and disturbs only a small percentage
of the topsoil area of fields.

Crop rotation: This is a practice of alternating crops of different families every
year in a field in order to reduce incidences of crop diseases and pest attacks as
well as contribute to improved soil composition. The crops alternated should
make different demands on soil requirements. Farmers are in most cases
encouraged to plant legumes afier cereals for the purpose of nitrogen fixation in
the soil.

Mixing crops in one field: This is a practice of planting different crops in one
field in the same row or ridge. This practice also referred to as intercropping may
be used, depending on planting density and other inputs, for land-use
intensification thereby confining land degradation and wearing effects to a less
extensive area. It can also be useful to fix nitrogen into the soil when a legume is
planted together with a cereal crop.

Improved fallow: This is a practice of planting leguminous plants such as
Sesbam'a sesban or Leucana Ieucocephela in a field for the purpose of restoring

soil fertility. These plants help in the fixation of nitrogen in the soil.

23

0 Only animal traction (Ripping): This is a management practice of breaking up a
compact horizon that resists root penetration. This is done to a depth of 45 — 75
cm (18-30 in) with a special implement known as ripper. This practice avoids full
soil inversion characterized by digging with hoe, ridging, plowing, disking and
harrowing.
2.8 Study Area

The study area covers part of Zone I and Zone IIa. These are the districts where
the conservation practices have been promoted as summarized in Table 2 with their
respective agro-ecological zones indicated in brackets. They are the same districts that
have particularly been experiencing declining levels of rainfall. Some districts such as
Chongwe have an overlap of zones within the confinements of the district and hence the

indication of both zones in brackets.

24

Table 2: Districts and Zones in Research Area4 Where Soil and Water Conservation

Technologies Have Been Promoted

 

Central / Lusaka Province Eastern Province

Southern Province

 

Chibombo (IIa) Chadiza (Ila)
Kabwe (Ila) Chama (Ila/III)
Mumbwa (Ila) Chipata (Ila)
Kapiri Mposhi (IIa /III) Katete (Ila)
Chongwe 5(I/IIa) Lundazi (Ila)
Mambwe (I/IIa)
Nyimba (I/IIa)
Petauke (IIa)

Choma (Ila)
Gwembe (Ulla)
Kalomo (Ila)
Kalomo (Ila)
Livingstone (I/IIa)
Kazungula (I/IIa)
Mazabuka (Ila)

Monze (Ila)

 

 

4 Chongwe District and Gwembe District were incorporated in 1997
Chongwe is the only district from Lusaka Province

25

CHAPTER 3
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 Behavioral Model of Adoption

Adoption of agricultural practices is one of the subject areas that have been
heavily researched globally. However, as Ervin and Ervin (1982) and F eder et a1. (1985)
note, most of the studies related to adoption of conservation practices have simply used
farm and farmer characteristics without providing the rationale for their inclusion based
on theory. Some studies such as Swinton and Quiroz (2003 a; 2003 b), Marra (2001),
McConnell (1983), Ellison and Fundenberg (1993) and Norris and Batie (1987) have
attempted to highlight the economic theory underlying farmer behavior in decision-
making over conservation practices. McConnell (1983) used production theory where a
farmer has an objective to maximize profit; Ellison and Fundenberg (1993) employed a
version of innovation diffusion whereas studies such as Swinton and Quiroz (2003 a;
2003 b) Marra et al. (2001), and Norris and Batie (1987) used household model based on
utility maximization.

In order to adequately determine factors that influence farmers to adopt soil and
water conservation technologies, the focus of the adoption analysis needs to go beyond
the characteristics of farmers and plots of land (CIMMYT 1993). A farmer should be
regarded as both a producer and a consumer (Sadoulet and de J anvry 1995). This implies
that a farmer takes into consideration “current consumption and production ends”
(Reardon and Vosti 1997a; Clay et a1. 2002), and also policy and physical effects
(CIMMYT 1993; FAO 2001 a). The consumption needs are satisfied through own

production though at times they are met through food purchases. Farmers make purchases

26

using cash from crop sales or off-farm earnings. The need for cash is not only for food
but also for other household requirements such as health and education.

A farmer may react in a number of ways towards declining production or/and
variability in production that undermine consumption needs. Existing practices may be
modified or new ones may altogether be adopted (FAO 2001 b). A farmer may here
depend on information diffusion from external parties to learn about a new technology
(Shaw 1985; Ellison and Fudenberg 1993; Knox et al. 1998; Marra et al. 2001). Before
investing in a soil / water conservation practice brought to a farmer’s attention, he/she
looks at the monetary incentives, whether the capacity is there to implement the practice,
and what constraints he/she is facing (Ervin and Ervin 1982; Reardon and Vosti 1995;
Clay et al. 2002).

One of the major concerns of a farmer is how long he/she has to wait before
getting the benefits of soil and water conservation investment (Reardon and Vosti 1997 a;
Field 2001). Soil and water conservation practices have different wait periods hence the
perceived returns may be slower than the immediate impact of inputs like fertilizer
(Barlowe 1978; Reardon and Vosti 1997 a). Most farmers in developing countries have
high preference rates whereby today’s consumption of resources is more valuable than
the future’s consumption (Field 2001). As the challenge for developing countries
concerns farmers’ potential for mining out the soil vitality to attain shortAterm gains
(Field 2001), farmers in Zambia are likely to have great preference for conservation
practices that yield benefits in the shortest time possible. This desire for short term

benefits also implies that land use rights that do not give a sense of permanency may

27

promote conservation practices that yield benefits in short term (Shiferaw and Holden
2000; Gebremedhin and Swinton 2003).

More still, farmers tend to be conscious about uncertainties that may arise from
both the physical environment and a new technology (Knox et al. 1998). Farmers in such
a situation may feel more comfortable to continue with current practices despite noticing
a decline in soil productivity (Reardon and Vosti 1997 b; Siachinji-Musiwa 1999). They
regard such behavior as risk reduction strategies.

In view of the above discussion, the study’s approach about the decision-making
behavior of Zambian farmers in adoption of practices under consideration are made based
on the following assumptions:

0 The farmer’s primary objective is to be food secure;

The farmer wants to generate farm revenues to meet household cash obligations;

o The farmers are risk averse hence farmers living in geographical areas with erratic
rains want to reduce risk as much as possible and thus those soil and water
conservation practices that have a quick effect on productivity and reduce yield
variability are more appealing to them;

0 The farmers are discouraged to engage in land management practices due to input and
output price variations, poor accessibility to output and input market, and poor flow
of information (e. g. on technologies, markets and cropping practices) brought about
by poor infrastructure;

0 The farmers face constrained resources in land, labor, management skills and capital

hence activities and practices that ameliorate the pressure on these resources are more

appealing to farmers. It is specifically assumed that the most critical resource

28

constraints among Zambian farmers are management skills and capital.

This study considers farmer behavior in the adoption of conservation farming or
any piece of the technology package within the analytical framework discussed above
and the incentive and capacity paradigm employed by Clay et al. (2002), and Reardon
and Vosti (1997 a). A farmer is regarded as a consumer and an investor hence an
investment model that yields utility over time to a farm household is employed. The
conceptual model for investment in conservation farming or any piece of the technology
package highlights that the farmer pursues consumption and production ends conditional
on expected investment returns and other conditioning variables and thus the model is

specified as:

_ T 1 _ .
Max E0 [Jam] - E,[ (Ex—l H), 7r,],® ................................................. (1)

Yr = f(Xr;Zr)
Where E0 = Expectation at time 0;

Pte = Expected output price at a future time t;

X = a vector variable of inputs;

w = price of inputs;

F C = fixed costs;

i = investment efforts in soil and water conservation;
r = time preference rate for investment;

6 = farmer risk perceptions about technology;

29

f (X , ;Z ,) = production function of crop output, which is conditional on soil quality

among others. The quality of soil is itself affected by investment efforts in soil
conservation; and

Z = a vector of conditioning variables.

Re af(X[;Zt)_

The first order condition, FOC:
6X,

w,=0

The factor demand function reflecting the financial and physical incentives and other

capacity factors could generally be stated as:

X =X’(P,e,w,;z,) ......................................................................... (ii)

The demand for a factor of production is dependent on the expected price, the price of
inputs and the conditioning variables.

Going by the same logic depicted in equation (ii) to derive the demand function
for a factor of production, and bearing in mind the time horizon for investment, the
decision rule guiding the conservation investment effort a farmer would undertake is

described by the following function:

1': «19,9,an , ..... I’,+mw,;Z,) ............................................................ (iii)

The function states that farmer decision to invest in a given set of soil and water
conservation practices is dependent on the future expected output prices at time t, t+1, t+2,
....,t+n, input prices and conditioning variables (e.g. physical constraints, and capacity

factors).

30

3.2 Factors Included in the Model and Expected Effects

In order to explain the factors included in the conceptual model and particularly
the expected effects on the outcome, guidance from literature was sought. According to
available literature the decision to adopt pot holing as a conservation tillage practice in
Zambia was positively associated with the distributor that practiced pot holing
(Haggblade and Tembo 2003 b). Empirical studies of conservation tillage in other areas
have indicated mixed results with some showing a positive correlation between farm size
and conservation tillage while others have shown a negative correlation (F A0 2001 b).

Although there is no known study that has been conducted to explain the adoption
behavior of farmers regarding the practice of intercropping in Zambia, the empirical
studies elsewhere were used to predict the likely behavior of farmers with respect to this
practice. The works of Reardon and Vosti (1997 b), Jalloh (2001) and also Knox et al.
(1998) state that the practice of intercropping is likely to be followed by those who are
risk averse. Moreover, according to the study of Rajasekharan and Veeraputhran (2002)
in Kerala, India, the decision-making behavior of farmers in adoption of this practice was
significantly and positively influenced by the availability of family labor and the
perception of the profitability of intercropping.

In the case of conservation farming or pieces of this technology package, there
seems to be very little known about their use in Zambia. The light shed elsewhere on
these practices by Sayre et al. (2001) indicate lack of information on the practices, and
demand for crop residue as fodder are cited as greatly influencing the joint adoption of
tillage, crop rotation and crop residue management among farmers of Altiplano of

Central Mexico.

31

The specific broad categories of factors used in this study are explained below
based on other experiences other than Zambia.

Incentives
The factors associated with monetary incentives are output prices, input prices,

and access to markets (Reardon and Vosti 1997 a; Malla 1999; Sanders and Cahill 1999;
Bekele 2003). The literature review of Shiferaw and Holden (2000) indicates that the
impact of the increase or decrease in commodity prices is unclear. This study however
anticipates increase in output prices would enhance the practice of monocropping due to
farmers’ desire for short-term gains (Table 3). Output prices are expected to positively
influence farmer’s use of pot holing, as a conservation tillage practice, in line with
Bekele’s (2003) findings among farmers in Ethiopia. It is here assumed that a farmer
would only make an effort to go for all the practices if the package is anticipated to
“increase the profitability of farming through higher prices” (Shiferaw and Holden 2000).

Increase in input prices such as fertilizer would positively influence farmers to use
intercropping it being a fertility enhancement technology. Increase in fertilizer prices is
also expected to negatively influence farmer’s choice for pot holing or conservation
farming in line with Shiferaw and Holden (2000) findings.

Easy access to the market creates an enabling environment for timely acquisition
of inputs, and reduced market transactions. Price effects arising from reduced market
transaction costs are expected to negatively affect intercropping. In the case of pot holing
and conservation farming practices easy access to market is expected to have a positive
influence on the farmer’s choice of the practice (Sayre et al. 2001).

Physical Constraints

The factors associated with physical constraints are physiographical factors of the

32

farm parcel, and climatic factors such as rainfall (Ervin and Ervin 1982; FAO 2001 a;
Clay et al. 2002). The physical constraints are expected to have varying effect on
conservation practices being studied. Pot holing is expected to be positively associated
with low rainfall during the previous season and locations that generally experience low
rainfall (Haggblade and Tembo 2003 b; Mulenga 2003). Along the same logic indicated
by Reardon and Vosti (1997 b), this study considers intercropping as a risk reduction
strategy and as such low rainfall the previous season is expected to positively influence
farmer’s choice of intercropping. Similarly, all locations associated with low rainfall are
expected to have a positive impact on farmers’ choice of intercropping. In the case of
conservation farming, low rainfall in the previous season is expected to have a positive
influence whereas those zones with low rainfall are expected to have either positive or
negative influence on farmer’s choice of the practices. The effect may be negative if the
farmer places a high opportunity cost on crop residue as fodder (Sayre et al. 2001).
Capacity Factors

The conditioning variables that give a farmer the capacity to act are assets related
to human, natural and cultural capitals (Bebbington 1999), which are simply referred to
as household resources and management ability in this study. Management ability
improves with experience, level of education and farmer training (Manyong et al. 1999;
FAO 2001 b; Clay et al. 2002; Place et al. 2002; Haggblade and Tembo 2003 b). Farmer
experience is expected to have a positive relationship with intercropping being a
traditional practice but a negative relationship with pot holing or minimum tillage or
conservation farming, which are non traditional practices (Clearfield and Osgood 1986).

Farmer training and increase in farmer education are expected to improve farmer

33

adoption of conservation farming. On the other hand, more educated farmers are less
likely to adopt intercropping since the practice had in the recent past been less preferred

for pure crop stands by crop researchers (J alloh 2001).

Household resources such as labor inputs are negatively associated with reduced
tillage (F A0 2001 b; MACO and ORGUT 2003). Nevertheless, the dynamics of the
practice of pot holing with respect to labor is a bit complex. The labor requirements
during the establishment stage of pot holing could be double the labor requirements
during later stages on the same piece of land (Haggblade and Tembo 2003 b). This being
the case, the relationship between the practice of pot holing and labor is expected to be
positive or negative depending on the stage of establishment (Table 4). The same
relationship is expected with conservation farming as pot holing or reduced tillage is one
of the elements of the technology package.

The household resources pertaining to land ownership, farm size, off-farm income
and livestock or farm implements have varying capacity effect on farmers. A sense of
temporal use rights is expected to be positively associated with the use of pot holing
which is considered as a fast track technology. Large farm size gives a farmer the
capacity to use land intensive conservation practices (elements) such as improved fallow
and crop rotation (Thangata et a1. 2002) hence the farm size may be positively associated
with conservation farming (Table 4). It may also be positively associated with the use of
intercropping at household level as farmers may simply engage marginal land to maintain
the initial plant population before engaging into intercropping.

The expected average effects of adopting intercropping, pot holing or
conservation farming compared with pre-adoption levels on input needs and output levels
are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. The effect of intercropping on labor
would be positive or negative depending on type of crops that are intercropped. If one of
the crops is a cover crop, the growth of weeds may be restricted resulting in decreased

labor requirements during weeding. In some other cases crops may have different

34

maturity periods. This may demand household labor at different periods of time, which
may sometimes be cumbersome. The effect on land is likely to be positive assuming that

the farmer’s desire is to maintain the plant population equivalent to pre-adoption level.

Table 3: Effects Expected From Switch to Intercropping Practice

 

 

Item Expected Effect ’
Inputs:

0 Labor -/+

0 Land +

o Fertilizer use -

o Tillage equipment use 0
Output Production (Total)6:

o Maize -

o Other crop -

 

a/ + = Increase; 0 = no change; - = decrease

The effect on fertilizer use is negative since intercropping is considered as one of
the fertility enhancing practices. This implies that if the price of fertilizer goes up,
farmers may likely implement intercropping. Maize output or any other crop would go
down because of reduced plant population (Table 3). This implies that if maize price goes
up, a farmer may be inclined to implement monocropping, which increases plant
population.

The expected effect on land may be either positive or negative depending on size
of the farm. With use of pot holing, it may be possible to cultivate big land area but the

adverse effect of weeding may make it laborious to implement the practice. So more land

 

6 It is assumed that land area is fixed before and alter adoption of the practice

35

is expected to be demanded depending on stage of implementation. The expected effect

on labor as presented in Table 4 has already been discussed.

Table 4: Effects Expected From Switch to Pot holing or Conservation Farming

 

 

Item Expected Effect ’
Inputs:

0 Labor -/+

0 Land -/+

o Fertilizer use -

Output Production (Total)7:
o Maize +

o Other crop +

 

a/ + = Increase; 0 = no change; - = decrease
Hypotheses

Based on key questions raised in the first chapter of this study, the assumptions
made about adoption behavior of smallholding farmers and the discussion made in this
section, the following hypotheses are made:
1. Farmers living in more arid areas are more likely to use intercropping and potholing

as risk reduction strategies than farmers living in higher rainfall areas;

2. Fast track soil and water conservation practices such as pot holing are more attractive

to farmers who do not own land;

 

7 It is assumed that land area is fixed before and after adoption of the practice

36

3. Increased prices of maize output act as an incentive to farmers to use conservation
farming practices (except intercropping) so that they could continue to reap the
benefits of farming;

4. The closer the farmer is to district town the more likely the farmer implements soil
and water conservation practices due to anticipated cash benefits, and easy contact
with agricultural development activities including credit and extension dissemination
programs;

3.3 Behavioral Model of Technology Disadoption

It is a common experience that at times farmers try some conservation practices
and abandon them to try others or simply revert to old practices (CIMMYT 1993;
Femandez-Comejo et al. 2002; Haggblade and Tembo 2003 b; Kwesiga et al. 2003).
There are also cases where farmers modify the practices, which in a sense may be
abandonment (CIMMYT 1993; Mulenga 2003). For now, there appears to be little
literature that covers the study of disadoption of soil and water conservation practices to
guide on the underlying behavior of farmers. Highlights from Marra et.al (2001) on
disadoption of Bt cotton based on farmer practices in one season and the farmer’s
planned practices in the coming season seem to suggest production losses or financial
losses, may lead into abandonment of a given practice.

In spite of the paucity of studies that pinpoint specific factors that lead farmers to
abandon soil and water conservation technologies, suggested key factors affecting
retention of conservation practices are withdrawal of subsidies designed to support
conservation efforts (Pagiola 1999), forcing unwanted technologies on farmers, tying

incentives such as credit services to technologies farmers have previously not adopted

37

and creating an environment where farmer contribution to a conservation technology is
insignificant (Kerr et al. 1999). Other literature has pointed out that good land
management practices are likely to last only in places where incentives created are
accompanied by good general conditions such as improved marketing opportunities and
increased non-agricultural employment opportunities (Nibbering 1999).

This study considers that farmers may experiment with a new practice on a small
scale while still carrying on with the old practice on a larger scale (CIMMYT 1993;
Haggblade and Tembo 2003 b; Kwesiga et al. 2003) form the basis for comparison
between the old and new technology. When the farmer perceives that utility derived
from the new practice denoted as Un is lower than the old practice, denoted as Uc, the
farmer abandons the new practice (F emandez-Comejo et a1. 2002). Since utility is
unobservable to the analyst due to unobserved alternative attributes, unobserved
individual attributes, measurement errors and proxy variables, the utility associated with
alternative n, for individual i is modeled as a random variable:

Um- = Vm- + em- ............................................................................ (iv)
where V,“- is the deterministic component and cm is the random component of
utility U n ,- .
Given two alternatives c and n, the probability that alternative 11 is abandoned is:
Prob (n = 1) = Prob[Un S Uc]
= Prob[Vm- + em- 5 Vci + eci]
= PTObIVni - Vci ‘- eci — eni]
The observer simply sees whether a farmer continues a given practice or not. In this study

it is assumed that the error terms follow a logistic distribution.

38

The estimator models employed to understand factors influencing the adoption of
conservation farming practices and related pieces, and disadoption of technologies in

Zambia are discussed in the chapter that follows.

39

CHAPTER 4
EMPIRICAL METHODS AND DATA
4.1 Data

The data were obtained through countrywide household post harvest surveys
(PHS) in Zambia during the years 1998/1999”, and 1999/2000. In addition, the data from
1999/2000 Supplemental Survey (SS), which followed up all the respondents, who had
been interviewed during the 1999 /00 PHS, have been used. The 1998/99 PHS and
1999/2000 were conducted as cross-section surveys between August and September in
1999 and 2000, respectively conducted by the Central Statistical Office (C80) in
conjunction with the then Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (now called
MACO). The 1999/2000 Supplemental survey was conducted by CS0 in collaboration
with Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, and Food Security Research Project of the
Agricultural Economics Department, Michigan State University in 2001 between June
and August.

To select the households, a sample of 407 Standard Enumeration Areas (SEAS)
was drawn using probability proportional to size sampling scheme. The number of
households located within each SEA determined the measure of size of the SEAs. The
area-sampling frame employed was as per the 1990 Census of Population, Housing and
Agriculture. Each sampled SEA had a list of households from where farming holdings

were selected. The selection of farming holdings took into consideration categories of

 

8 . .
This dataset was only used to extract the crop output price

40

farmers based on land area and livestock. The surveys’ sample sizes with their respective

response rates are indicated in the Table 5.

Table 5: Sample size of Household Surveyed

 

 

Year Sample Size Response Response rate
99/00 7859 7699 98%
SS 99/00 7700 6922 90%

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

For the purpose of this study, Chipata, Katete, Lundazi, Petauke, Chadiza,
Mabwe, Nyimba, Chama (all from Eastern Province), Chongwe (Lusaka Province),
Choma, Gwembe, Mazabuka, Monze, Kalomo, Livingstone/Kazungula (all from
Southern Province), Kabwe, Kapiri Mposhi, Mumbwa and Chibombo (all from Central
Province) just as also indicated in Table 2, were used to analyze the conservation
practices ZNFU and MACO have been promoting. The sample size and response rate

from the districts this study focused on are as shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Sample size of Household Surveyed in Selected Districts

 

 

Year Sample Size Response Response rate
99/00 2844 2825 99%
SS 99/00 2826 2581 91%

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000
The effective sample size that this study finally worked with after dropping out some
cases that had incomplete responses to some variables of key interest was 2524

households of which 2,068 were small farms and 456 were medium farms.

41

The questionnaires were used as instruments to collect data, with a single visit.
Farmers were asked whether they practiced a given soil / water conservation practice to
which a yes or no answer was given. The questions soliciting farmer practices about soil
and water conservation practices were closed as there was no room for farmers to say
anything more than the prescribed yes/no answers. The soil and water conservation
practices covered during the 1999/2000 supplemental survey (SS) were mixing of crops
in one field; improved fallow; pot holing / planting holes; crop rotation; leaving crop
residues; and other minimum tillage. The main focus for this survey was on conservation
farming practices.

With the return visit in 2001, the supplemental survey attempted to determine soil
and water conservation practices followed by each individual farmer in 1999/2000 and in
2000/2001. This was a single survey in which each farmer was asked if a given practice
was used in 1999/2000, and if the farmer used the same practice in 2000/2001. This
dataset is considered as a form of panel data and thus useful to track the changes that

occurred in the use of the soil and water conservation practices between two years.
4.1.1 Operational definitions of Variables

The empirical variables employed under each of the broad categories discussed in

the previous chapter were quantified from the survey instruments as follows:
Management ability

Age of the household head was measured in years. The level of education was quantified
as the number of years of schooling of the household head while farmer contact with
agricultural support programs was used as a dummy variable to measure if a farmer had
any contact with agricultural developmental programs. The variable was one if a farmer
had contact or received any agricultural related service from the following: Soil
Conservation and Fertility (SCAF E) Project, Lonhro/Dunavant, Clark Cotton, Amaka,
other outgrower schemes, Cooperative League of the United States of America (CLUSA)

42

group, ZNF U, Care International, World Vision, Economic Expansion Outlying Areas
(EEOA) Project and other Non Governmental Organizations (N GOs).

Household resources
Household labor was quantified based on the number of household members

above twelve years. In Zambia, household members with at least twelve years of age are
actively involved in farming activities. As for tenure status, it was captured as a dummy
variable with one indicating that a farmer had land of his/her own either with title deeds
or on bequest. Those who indicated that they were using borrowed or rented land were
considered as not owning land.

Farm size was quantified in the survey instrument as a continuous variable based
on total hectares of fields used by a farmer. Land area cultivated was used as a proxy
measurement of farm size for cases where farm size was not declared. The supplemental
survey instrument was used to quantify all the above-mentioned variables.

Number of Ploughs and number of harrows were quantified as discrete continuous
variables using the 1999/2000 PHS. Using the same survey instrument, number of
livestock owned was determined based on big animals such as cattle, goats, sheep, and
pigs. This quantification determined implements and livestock owned by the household
as at October 1999, respectively.

Source of off farm income was quantified as a dummy variable based on the
1999/2000 PHS instrument. The variable was one if a farmer indicated that s(he) had a
source of off-farm income. This was a proxy variable to measure the farmer’s alternative
income sources. This variable could not adequately measure the level of off farm income
but it was incorporated as a way of taking note which farmer had other alternative

sources of income.

43

Incentives

The study uses the premise that farmers in Zambia plan for production based on
current prices. They do not have access to skilled forecasting services (Sadoulet and de
Janvry 1995). Maize price was, therefore, estimated from the 1998/99-survey instrument
where households that sold maize grain in 1999 marketing season declared the selling
price. The prices were aggregated at district level to represent even those households that
did not manage to sell the commodity. The prices were quantified based on a Kg unit.
There was no household in the sample that had sold maize in Chama district at the time
of the survey. To fill up this gap an annual average price was computed based on the
monthly prices for Chama district reported by C80. The computed price was not
expected to introduce noise in the dataset as the C80 prices were comparable to those
prices reported by farmers in other districts from the survey instrument.

Fertilizer price was quantified on a per Kg basis using the 1999/2000 PHS survey
instrument in which farmers reported the price at which they bought fertilizer during the
1999/2000 agricultural season. The prices were aggregated at district level to represent
even those farmers who did not report any price. Kazungula and Nyimba districts did not
have information on prices for fertilizer. To fill up the gaps the prices for the nearest
towns were used. For Nyimba, Petauke district was used whilst for Kazungula,
Livingstone prices were used. Not much noise is expected as a result of this because
generally the people who live in Kazungula do most of their shopping from Livingstone.
In fact, it used to be part of Livingstone but it was turned into another political district.

The little noise may arise from the Nyimba / Petauke price data but this is also not

44

supposed to affect the results as the prices of fertilizer in Zambia do not vary very much
from their neighboring districts.

The market access variables related to distance to main road, distance to the
feeder road in kilometer, distance to the town center, all in kilometers (Km) were
measured from the SEA center. These variables were used in aggregate terms hence there
could have been some households that were closer than the computed values. Distance
here simply looks at the physical dimension without any due attention to the quality
aspects of the road.

Physical constraints

The rainfall variable was used to measure the amount of water experienced by a
farmer the previous season. The rainfall data were from the Meteorological Department
of Zambia. The amount of rainfall measured in millimeters was collected at the district
centers during the 1998/99 agricultural season hence it is just a proxy of the amount of
water received by farmers in the district.

To quantify the physiographical factors for the household farms, agroecological
zones were used as proxy variables. Consequently, some noise in the data is expected as
the farm physiographical factors can vary within a short distance. The criteria employed
by the Ministry of Agriculture to classify agro ecological zones were used. Zone 1 was a
dummy variable to represent all areas that fall within agro ecological zone 1 while Zone 2
was used as dummy variable to represent all areas that fall within agro ecological Zone 2.
Similarly Zone3 was a dummy variable representing all areas falling within agro
ecological zone 3. In order to distinguish physiographical factors prevailing in one

province from another, provinces were used as geographical dummy variables. The use of

45

this variable is expected to introduce some bit of noise as it may collect along with it
other factors such as culture that vary from province to province.
Statistical Summary of Empirical Variables

The characteristics of farmers in the study area together with their associated
conditioning variables are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. The average age of farmers was
45 years of age and had an average land area of 3.21 hectares. The factors associated with
the farm characteristics indicate that 12% percent of the farm holdings fell in the least
rainfall zone (zone 1).
4.1.2 Limitations of the Data

The data collected on the practice of soil and water conservation practices are at
household level rather than plot level; hence it is not feasible to know the area over which
conservation was practiced and it is not possible to know which crop lands household
particularly used the conservation practices. The data collected did not cover the
biophysical factors of household farms related to soil texture and slope of land. The other
limitation regarding the conservation practices was that they were farmer declared, and
not observed by an enumerator hence it is not possible to establish if the farmers were

implementing the practices as per recommendation.

No information about agronomic recommendations relating to tilling land before
onset of rain and whether a household planted in permanent grids was collected. Hence it
was not possible to determine who was using conservation farming according to the
specifications of promoters such as ZNF U. Moreover, lack of information pertaining to
costs of soil and water conservation operations and the accompanying returns posed a

challenge in ordering the conservation practices.

46

The lack of different observations about households corresponding to each of the
two years makes it difficult to undertake an expanded econometric analysis about
disadoption. It is basically not appropriate to use the values that influenced the adoption
of a given technology in the earlier year to analyze the disadoption the following period.
Understanding the dynamic nature of practices such as pot holing requires data
observations over a number of years so as to understand or the number of years a farmer
has been using the practice; this information was not available and worse still the
inconsistence in the conservation practices measured across data sets would not allow

construction of a form panel data.

4.1.3 General Environment

It is important here to highlight some climatic and general conditions prevailing in
the years preceding the two surveys. As noted in Chapter two, the amount of rainfall
received in 1998/99 was inadequate. The drought experienced dtuing this year created
some anxiety in the nation because of the looming critical food shortages. In late 1999
MACO officially adopted the conservation and land management practices as relevant for
promotions among farmers. The year that followed was characterized by calls from the
farming community for government’s intervention in agricultural marketing and
particularly the need to establish agricultural cooperatives in strategic areas of the
districts e.g. poling stations. These were to be particularly used for fertilizer distribution.
This could have influenced the use of fertilizer among some farmers thereby affecting the

adoption of fertility enhancing conservation practices.

47

wag com wnmfi u co. EmD use 32 com coin MEN n co; mm:

885% 3&5 Essaaasm e5 8333 3&5 aces: sea ”85m

 

odes is: 3% 22 33 ass .353 so: Ease
Q a: do 8 em 95: Re cocoa s 328 <3 as 8:35
EN 22 Z a: man 30¢ 5,9 aces assoc s 538 $5 a Basso
a: an: o Nd. «A c5: 82 use assoc a 538 £5 .8 Basso
o 3 o to S meageocfiasz
o 3 o as 2 E83 .8 .3832
o 32 o m: we fisszcofisaz
cs 3: o 3 mm 3532.8 ac est ceases co as:
an cam 3 2 em 38% Ba as...» Q 2358 Essa 8%. 333
25 2mm 28 m. _ m 32 3.... 3 V95 5 8E as:
ES 35» 3% man 4. as an .2 MES BE Saga
3 moan 3 3 mm aessé 0% Sam
on. 98 3: a: a? Amuse 0?
5?: gees: 8:552 83% 2.3qu as: 0335»

 

232:— maosncnou "notatofiaaaau Each van .3553..— ue mafia-3m Ewan—am "b 035—.

48

Table 8: Summary Statistics of Farmer and Farm Characteristics: Dichotomous
Factors

 

 

Variable Proportion
Farm holdings with program contact .20
Off-farm income source indicated .42
Farmers that own land (Tenure status) .95
Agro ecological Zone 1 .42
Agro ecological Zone 2 .50
Agro ecological Zone 3 .08
Central Province .19
Eastern Province .52
Lusaka Province .04
Southern Province .25

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000
4.2 Empirical Methods
4.2.1 Adoption Estimation Model for Intercropping and Pot holing

To understand adoption behavior logit and probit models are commonly employed
as two related multifactorial analytical practices. The two models can take on one or two
values — adopt or don’t adopt (CIMMY T 1993). This study employed logit model to
understand the binary choices for intercropping and pot holing.
4.2.1.1 Logit Model and Analysis
The logit model is based on the logit regression, which may be specified as
L=Xfi+£
Under a logistic distribution, the cumulative distribution function of the random variable
X is Pr(X S x) = G(x) = exp(x)/[1+ exp(x)] = l/(l + exp(-x))

The logit has a general form of:

49

Pr(Yi = 1) = Gum) = 1/[1+ exp(X'fi)

Where;

,Bs are coefficients to be estimated; and

X are predictors.

The coefficients in logit analysis are estimated using maximum likelihood. The
interpretation of the coefficients is not as straight forward as in ordinary least square
regression analysis. The coefficients on their own do not tell much but the coefficients
can be used to compute the marginal effects, which are useful in interpreting the effect of
predictors on the change of probability. Also the signs of the coefficients can be used to
indicate the direction of the change of the predicted probability arising from a change in
the predictor.

Marginal Effects

The main interest for any analyst is to know what the effect of a change in a given

predictor would be on the outcome. The marginal effect on the probability for an average

individual due to a small change in variable X, under a logistic distribution is

6pr(Y,. = 1) _ l 1_ 1
6X, 1 + exp(XjB) 1 + exp(X 36)

 

 

 

.31.

The above expression cannot be used to evaluate the incremental effects of a dummy
variable. The effect of a dummy variable has to be analyzed by comparing the effect of
the variable when the value is one to when the value is zero. The difference of the effects
on the probabilities between the two values, holding other variables constant, is the

incremental effect for a dummy variable. As much as the marginal effects can be

50

computed on an individual case by case, the general practice is to compute the marginal
effects at the sample’s mean values.
Odds Ratio

The odds ratio is a statistical measure defined as the ratio of the odds of an event
occurring in one group to an event occurring in another group; for instance, a
dichotomous classification. It is a summary measure of the relationship between two
variables or dichotomous classification and it tells us how better the odds are for the
occurrence of a certain event. The odds ratios are particularly useful when dealing with
dummy variables to answer some policy questions such as how likely is it for a farmer
owning land to practice a given soil and water conservation practice compared to a
farmer who does not own land? Or how likely would it be for a farmer living in a more
arid area to use pot holing or intercropping as a risk reduction strategy?

Mathematically the odds ratio may be expressed as follows:

Assume the odds for group one = oddsl = l—p— and the odds for group two = odd32
— P
=I—q—; where p and q are probabilities for group one and two, respectively.
" q

 

Odds ratio = oddsl / odd32, but considering that 1n [1:] = logit ( p) and ln[1 q ] =
" P " q

logit (q), it follows that the log odds ratio = logit ( p) - logit (q). Therefore, the odds
ratio may be taken as the antilogarithm of [logit ( p) - logit (q )] or alternatively as the

antilogarithm of the slope of the logit regression, one unit apart of two different values of

the predictor (Mukherjee et al. 1998).

51

Goodness of fit

The likelihood ratio test is used to see if the model including regressors provides
extra explanatory power over the model with only an intercept. The likelihood ratio
statistic is computed based on the premise that there are two models. Assuming that the
unrestricted model has the log-likelihood function denoted as L; and the restricted model
has the log-likelihood function denoted as L2, the likelihood ratio test of the hypothesis of
dropping all regressors is defined as 2(L1 — L2). The degree of freedom is equal to the
number of the estimated coefficients less one (i.e. the intercept is excluded). The
computed likelihood ratio statistic has an asymptotic chi-square distribution. Therefore,
the computed statistic is compared with the critical value in the chi-square table. If the
estimated statistic is greater than the table chi-square value, then the variables in the
estimated model jointly explain the response effect. It means the hypothesis to drop all
variables apart from the constant term is rejected by data.

Like the likelihood ratio test, the pseudo R-Squared is based on comparing a
model with regressors to a model with only a constant intercept. It can be used to
determine the goodness of fit in a limited sense. A pseudo R-Squared of one indicates a
perfect fit whilst zero means that all the coefficients are zero hence regressors do not
contribute to any variation of the dependent variable. The values of pseudo R-Squared
between zero and one do not have any natural interpretation (Mukherj ee et al. 1998).
4.2.1.2 Regression Specification for Intercropping

The model to estimate the practice of intercropping is specified as follows:
hsoilf = f(management ability, household resources, incentives, physical constraints)

Where hsoilf = 1 if farmer practiced intercropping in 1999/2000, 0 otherwise.

52

To avoid the problem of collinearity in the zone and province dummy variables,
zone3 and provl were respectively, dropped from the model. This implies that each
parameter estimate will have to be compared to the dummy variable dropped out as the
base. For instance, the parameter for zone 1 indicates the differential effect above Zone 3
arising from Zone 1.
4.2.1.3 Regression Specification for Pot holing

The model used to estimate the practice of intercropping was modified to suit pot
holing by dropping out the variables that are directly related to tillage such as harrows
and ploughs. To eliminate the tillage effect of livestock on the practice but yet capture its
importance as part of wealth, livestock variable has been adjusted by dropping out draft
animals. Thus the model is specified as follows:
hsoilp = f(management ability, household resources Less tillage implements and oxen,
incentives, physical constraints).

Where hsoilp = 1 if farmer practiced pot holing in 1999/2000, 0 otherwise.
4.2.2 Econometric Specification for Conservation Farming Practice and Other

Sets of Practices

In this study ordered logit model is employed to allow for multiple outcomes and
scaling of multiple responses (Borooah 2001; Wooldridge 2001; Greene 2003). In
estimating the adoption of conservation farming practices, it was felt that the multiple
selections that the farm household faced are inherently ordered (MACO and ORGUT
2003). For this reason count models or any non-ordered model such as poisson regression

and multinomial logit, respectively cannot adequately estimate the adoption of many

53

choices as the information conveyed by the ordered nature is ignored resulting in loss of

efficiency (Borooah 2001).
4.2.2.1 Ordered Logit Model

The ordered logit is built around the latent regression:
Y ' = X16 + a ; where Y ° is unobservable. We only see
Y = o if 1" s o

= 1 if0 < Y‘ s a.

=21”.l < Y‘: 62

= j if 6)-; 5 1”
Under a logistic distribution, the cumulative distribution function of the random variable
X is Pr(X s x) = G(x) = exp(x)/[1+ exp(x)] = 1/(1 + exp(—x))
The ordered logit has a general form of:

Pr(Yi =1) = 0((5l — X16) = 1/[1+ exp(X'fl — 5,)

Pr(Y. = 2) = 0(6. — X'fl) - 0(6. - X16)

Pr(Y. = j) =1-G(5,--1 -XIB)
Where,
fls are coefficients to be estimated;

X are predictors;

54

(is are cutoff points, where applicable;

The estimates ,6, , 6, ,62...,51_, are obtained by maximizing the likelihood function using

the logistic distribution function G(-).

Before specifying the equation to estimate conservation farming practices, the
approach used to order the practices is first discussed. Ordering practices requires care
because “failure to impose a legitimate ranking on outcomes can introduce bias in
estimates. This problem of biased estimates is more severe than treating categories as
nonordered since the latter may simply result in the loss of efficiency” (Borooah 2001).
There are two possible ways to rank soil and water conservation categories dealt with in
this study; namely (1) on the basis of difficulty of use or (2) on the basis of impact on
crop output or net returns. The former approach, as much as it may be relatively easier to
implement, is not appropriate in the context of this study as the objective is not to
measure difficulty of use of a specific practice.

The basis of net return would be more appropriate for ordering practices in this
study but unfortunately there is no information on benefits and costs for the practices
under study. Therefore, in this study practices have been grouped as shown in Table 9
below and a version of the promoters’ expectations of the impact of the practices have
been used to rank the categories of practices. The desire of the promoters is for individual
farmers to use all the practices — see Haggblade and Tembo (2003a), and MACO and
ORGUT (2003). This level of practice without question makes the greatest impact on
productivity. The use of all practices can, in this respect, be ranked highest, i.e. a

combination of practices (1), (2) and (3).

55

Table 9: General Grouping of Technologies

 

 

Rotation (FM) Soil Cover with Residue (FM) Reduced Soil Inversion (F)
(1) (2) (3)
1. General crop rotation 1. Leave crop residue 1. Pot holing / Plant basins
2. Improved fallow 2. Other minimum tillage

3. Intercropping

 

F = Fast track in yielding returns FM = Fast to medium in yielding returns

At the extreme end we have a farmer that does not use any soil and water
conservation practice. This level of practice could be ranked zero. The practice of any
fertility enhancement conservation practice was given the rank of one i.e. using any
practice from (1) or practice (2). Moreover, farmers in Zambia experience very high
variability in yields when there is inadequate rainfall. For this reason, reduced tillage
practices (which have water conservation benefits), were not placed on the same level as
(l) or (2). It was strongly felt that the deleterious effect of water forgone by not using
practices like pot holing can not be compared to fertility benefits that a farmer may forgo
from any practice in (1) or practice (2). It is true that crop residue could serve as mulch to
reduce evaporation from soil but the water-gathering role played by practices like pot
holing and planting basins are still incomparable. Crop residues when left in the field
after harvest at times decompose and as such they do not effectively serve as mulch.

Yet still, even if practices are grouped as tillage practices and fertility practices,
they indirectly have interrelated effects. Each practice has an effect on fertility and
tillage. It is just the weight of the effect associated with a given practice that varies. For
instance, pot holing is grouped as a tillage practice; yet the practice of not loosening soil

on all the farm area reduces erosion of good soil and allows targeting of nutrients. It

56

therefore provides benefits associated with fertility practices. Consider also soil cover
with crop residue left in the field. It facilitates infiltration of moisture in the soil and sets
a barrier to erosion. This practice again also provides benefits associated with tillage
practices as well as erosion control practices. The above discussion simply shows that it
may not be out of order to put reduced tillage (3) on an equivalent level with a
combination of (1) and (2). In view of this, reduced tillage or a combination of one or
more from rotation group of practices and soil cover was ranked two.

Finally, a combination of reduced tillage and soil cover practice or a combination
of reduced tillage and one or more of the rotation practices was given rank three. Such a
grouping approach was felt safer compared to the approach of dealing with each
individual practice. Unless one is meticulously effective in comparing effects of each
single practice, it can easily become a source of illegitimate ordering. Illegitimate
ordering imposes a ranking on outcomes that they do not possess and invokes the
assumption of parallel slopes.

The ranking of the practices9 is summarized as follows:
Y,- = 0 if an individual did not practice any soil / water conservation practice
Y,- = 1 if an individual practiced any from (1) or (2);
Y,- = 2 if an individual practiced [(1) and (2)] or (3);

Y1.

3 if an individual practiced [(1) and (3)] or [(2) and (3)];

Y, = 4 ifan individual practiced (1), (2) and (3).

 

9 All the practices are based on the 1999/2000 agricultural season

57

4.2.2.2 Regression Specification for Conservation Farming and other Sets of
Practices

The model to estimate conservation-farming practices is specified exactly as for
pot holing. Tillage implements and oxen have been dropped down because conservation
farming has a component of tillage practices such as pot holing:
consf = f(management ability, household resources Less tillage implements, Less oxen,
incentives, physical constraints)

Where,

consf = Y,- empirically ordered and defined above and the right hand side (RHS)

variables have the same definition as indicated before in the model for estimating
intercropping. The only modification in this model is that conservation-farming practices
have a component of tillage practices for which tillage implements or livestock resources
may not be predetermined.
Interpretation of results of the ordered logit,

The interpretation of results is more or less the same as in binary choices.
However, one has to be careful with the interpretation of the signs of the marginal effects

for as Woodridge (2001) indicates, the direction of the effect for the middle ranked
categories (i.e. Y,- = 1, Y,- = 2, and Y,- = 3) cannot be predicted. The direction of the
change in probability can be either way.

4.2.3 Procedure to Analyze Disadoption of Practices

To track the utilization of practices among respondents over the two years, the

study was guided by the following questions:

58

1. Did farmers use certain practices in 1999/ 2000 agricultural season but shift out of
them in 2000/2001 agricultural season?

2. What farmer and farm characteristics differences exist between those who abandoned
the practices the following season and those who continued, and between those who
did not implement the practices in the two agricultural seasons and those who
possibly used them the following season only?

To answer part of the questions raised above, percentages of farmers that
abandoned individual practices were computed as follows: (Total number of individuals
that ceased to follow practice k in 2000/2001 + Total number of individuals that
implemented practice It in 1999/2000). For more details and illustration of how exactly
the computations were made, refer to Appendix Part 2.

To answer the question related to differences between farm and farmer
characteristics between the groups of interest, each practice, except other minimum
tillage, was individually analyzed. Under each practice, farmers were divided into those
that used the practice in 1999/2000 (Yes) and those that did not (No). Then each of these
categories was further divided into those that used the practice in 2000/2001 and those
that did not use the practice in 2000/2001. Due to data limitation, analysis was based on t-
test of mean differences within the Yes / No adoption categories. This study particularly
focused on farm and farmer characteristics guided by the following hypotheses:

1. The older the farmer is the more likely the farmer would be consistent in using the
practices, more especially those practices that could be considered as part of

traditional cropping systems; for instance, intercropping;

59

2. The lower the level of education the more likely the farmer would be inconsistent in
following practices other than intercropping and leaving crop residue due to
difficulties in conceptualizing the logic behind the practices;

3. Households with low amount of labor abandon the practice of improved fallow; and

4. Access to support programs and land ownership may result in consistent use of
practices.

The hypotheses were tested using the t-test of mean differences under the
assumption that the variances were equal. The Levene’s test (SPSS Statistical Package,
Version 11) was used to ascertain this assumption and where the assumption could not
hold, the t-tests based on unequal variance were employed.

A binary logit analysis of determinants of the decision whether to continue or not
the practices were attempted with intercropping and improved fallow, which appeared to

have a workable data but meaningful results could not be obtained.

60

CHAPTER 5
DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS
5.1 Adoption of Soil and Water Conservation Practices - Descriptive Analysis
Results

The farmer profile of farmers and households in Table 10 shows that 81% of the
survey participants were males. In addition, 82% of participants in the sample were
married, and the average number of male and female adults was just about the same, two
per each household. On average, the land area cultivated was 1.44 hectares though farms
ranged from 0.6 to 15 hectares. Approximately, 93% of households headed by women
were small-scale as compared to 79% of households headed by men. This reveals that
only very small proportion of women farmers (7%) are medium-scale compared to male
farmers (21%).

The most common soil/water conservation practice used by farmers was crop
rotation followed by leaving crop residue in fields after harvest (See Table 11). Improved
fallow and pot holing were used less frequently than the other practices. Based on the
findings of the survey, a large majority of farmers stated that they learned about the
practices as a traditional practice; the other key informants on the varied practices were
the Ministry of Agriculture Extension Staff, neighbors of fellow farmers, and CLUSA
Zambia (See Table 12). Table 13, indicating the source of information for specific
practices, shows that most of the farmers learned intercropping and leaving crop residues
as traditional practices. The indication of farmers that they learned practices through
traditional sources (i.e. as traditional practices) probably means that the practices are

different from what researchers know them to be. For instance, about 37% learned

61

improved fallow as a traditional practice but considering the observations of Gladwin et

al. (2002), and Place et al. (2002) that improved fallow is an information intensive

practice requiring extension agents to teach farmers, it is quite surprising here to find that

the traditional source should dominate even for this practice.

Table 10: Summary Statistics of Farmer and Farm Household Profile

 

Demographics and Others

Minimum Maximum Mean

 

Gender of household head (1=male)

Number of male adults in household

Number of female adults in household

Marital status (1=married)

Farm sizel category of female headed households

Farm sizel category of male headed households

Land area cultivated (ha)

0 l

O 12

0 12

0 l

0 1

0 1
.06 15.00

.81

1.85

1.90

.82

.93

.79

1.14

 

Total number of observations = 2524

 

TThe farm size: 0 = medium scale, 1= small scale

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

62

Table 11: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation

 

 

Type Of Practice % of households
Mixing of two or more crops in one field 21.1
Improved fallow 8.8
Pot holing / planting holes 8.2
Crop rotation 66.7
Leaving crop residues (except for cotton & tobacco) 51.5
Other minimum tillage practices 16.2

 

Total number of observations = 2524

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

Note: Other minimum tillage practices were not detailed in the survey

The other farmer organizations, CLUSA and other agricultural support programs
have a relatively small percentage of farmers that learned the practices through them.
There could be varied reasons for such a state of affairs, one of which could be sampling
reasons. Projects work in highly defined areas that may not have been included in
sampling. The other possible reason is that if organizations trained MACO extension
agents or worked with them farmers might identify MACO rather than organizations as
the source of information.

The percentage of farmers specifying that they learned a given practice
traditionally differed across the levels of education. As shown by Table 14, on the whole
the implementing farmers who did not go to school are in the majority of stating that the
practices (with an exception of pot holing) were learned traditionally. Pot holing recorded

other levels of education as being in the majority. These results appear to suggest some

63

gaps in knowledge or potential misunderstanding about certain practices may exist

among farmers.

Table 12: Source Where Farmers Learned about Any of the Conservation Practices’

 

 

 

Source Frequency Percentage Cumulative (%)
Traditional practice 2292 49.8 49.8
MACO Extension agent 1093 23.7 73.5
Neighbor/Other farmer 520 11.3 84.8
CLUSA Group 277 6.0 90.8
Other farmer organization 102 2.2 93.0
Other NGOs 83 1.8 97.0
Radio/TV 43 .9 97.9
Clark Cotton 37 .8 98.7
DAPP 30 .7 99.3
Lonrho/Dunavant 22 .5 99.8
Omnia 8 .2 100.0
Others 97 2.1 95.2
Total number of valid multiple cases 4604 100

 

I Each household was able to select the same source more than once for other practices.

Only households that used a practice answered this section.
Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

The source of information for the practices should be interpreted with reservations

due to some difficulties with the survey questions. For instance, the questions did not

make a provision for the possibility of joint execution of activities by promoters. In such

a case, a farmer was left with no alternative other than choosing one from others.

64

Table 13: Source of Information for a Practice, for Those Who Used It

 

Soil and Water Conservation PracticeI

 

 

 

 

MC IF PH CR LC OM

Source/Practice % of households

Traditional Practice 67.1 36.9 39.1 42.5 58.7 51.7
MACO Extension Agent 17.9 31.1 22.2 28.3 18.6 21.5
Neighbor/Other farmer 5.6 8.6 16.9 13.2 11.2 9.3
CLUSA Group 2.3 4.5 5.3 6.4 5.5 10.5
Other farmer organization 1.9 6.8 3.4 2.4 1.1 2.0
Other 5.3 12.2 13.0 7.2 4.9 5.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

lMC=Mixed cropping, IF=Improved fallow, PH=Pot holing or basins, CR=Crop rotation,
LC=Leaving crop residue, and OM=other minimum tillage

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

A further examination of the level of soil and water conservation practices by
farm size category revealed that a higher proportion of medium scale farmers practiced
all the given practices with the exception of other minimum tillage practices compared to
small-scale farmers. The pattern of the prevalence of the practices used, however, was the
same between the two groups; crop rotation was the most prevalent followed by leaving

crop residues in the fields (Table 15).

65

Table 14: Farmers that learned practices through traditional sources by level of
Education

 

Soil and Water Conservation PracticeI

 

MC IF PH CR LC OM

 

 

Level of Education % of respondents

None 78.0 50.0 44.8 52.9 68.4 57.6
Primary education 64.1 33.3 33.1 41.1 55.9 52.5
Junior secondary education 68.3 41.4 48.3 39.8 58.5 43.9
Senior secondary education 64.3 39.3 47.8 37.2 54.3 45.7
At least college education 50.0 40.0 50.0 28.9 60.0 0.0

 

IMC=Mixed cropping, IF =Improved fallow, PH=Pot holing or basins, CR=Crop rotation,

LC=Leaving crop residue, and OM=other minimum tillage
The Percentage totals do not add up to 100 as they have been calculated within cells
Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

Table 15: Farmers Implementing Soil / Water Conservation, by Farm Size Category

 

 

 

 

Farm Size Category/ Small Scale ~ Medium Scale
Soil / Water Conservation Practice Percentage of farmers
Intercropping 20.3 24.6
Improved fallow 7.9 12.7

Pot holing / planting holes 7.9 9.6

Crop rotation 64.0 78.9
Leaving crop residues 50.1 57.9
Other minimum tillage practices 16.5 15.1
Number of cases 2068 456

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

66

Shifting the analysis to the level of farm size in relationship to gender and practice
used, the results in Table 16 indicate some differences between the female medium scale
farmers and their male counterparts on the practice of improved fallow, crop rotation and
leaving crop residues in the field. The female farmers practiced more of improved fallow
while the male farmers practiced more of crop rotation and leaving crop residue in the
field after harvest. A comparison between the female small scale farmers and their male
counterparts showed that the former registered a consistently lower level of participation

in all the soil and water conservation practices except for minimum tillage.

Table 16: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation by Gender from the
Given Total Number (N) within Each Farm Size Category

 

 

 

 

 

 

Female Male

Small Medium Small Medium
Soil / Water Conservation Practice % of households
Mixing of two or more crops in a field 19 25 21 25
Improved fallow 5 19 9 12
Pot holing / planting holes 6 8 8 10
Crop rotation 56 67 66 80
Leaving crop residues 43 50 52 59
Other minimum tillage practices 17 17 16 15
Number of cases (N) 456 36 1612 420

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000
One of the study’s interests was to find out if the prevalence of the practices was
the same across the rainfall zones. The prior expectation was that leaving crop residues

would be most prevalent in Zone 3 because of low opportunity costs related to fodder.

67

However, the findings according to Table 17 show that leaving crop residues in the field
after harvest was most common in the least rainfall zone (Zone 1) compared to the other
two zones. The farmers in the intermediate rainfall zone (Zone 2) had preeminence in
using crop rotation. Despite the unstable biophysics in the higher rainfall (Zone 3) and
least rainfall zones, a considerable percentage of farmers appear to have focused on
monocropping. These results seem to be consistent with the finding of Knepper (2002)
that farmers in higher rainfall and the least rainfall zones still concentrated on growing

maize in monocropped fields.

Table 17: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation Among all farmers
by Rainfall Zone

 

 

 

 

Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

Soil /Water Conservation Practice % of households within the zone
Mixing two or more crops in a field 20.1 22.3 18.9
Improved fallow 9.6 9.2 1.9
Pot holing / planting holes 10.8 . 6.2 7.1
Crop rotation 57.6 77.8 46.7
Leaving crop residues 58.7 49.9 25.5
Other minimum tillage practices 6.6 26.7 2.4
Number of cases 1057 1255 212

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

To analyze the practices according to labor available at the household level,
farmers were broken into quartiles (Refer to Table A13 in Appendix for labor summary
statistics for each quartile). Table 18 shows that within the quartiles, less than 13% of the

households practiced improved fallow and pot holing. Moreover, there was not any

68

specific practice per se on which the second labor quartile placed more emphasis than the
third labor quartile. It appears that there may be not much difference between a
household with four personal labor units and one with only three. When however, a direct
comparison of the first labor quartile to the fourth labor quartile is made, the results show
that the former had a higher percentage of farmers that used other minimum tillage
practices than the latter. The results here seem to match with the generally held notion
that reduced tillage practices do not demand much household labor (Chelemu and Nindi
1999; MACO and ORGUT 2003; Mulenga 2003). More importantly, other minimum
tillage practices were common in the bottom three quartiles whereas the practice of

intercropping was common in the top three quartiles.

Table 18: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation within Each Adult
Labor Quartile (Percentages)

 

 

 

Soil and Water Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4
Conservation Practice 1-2 adults 3 adults 4 adults 5 or more
Intercropping 17.0 22.2 25.1 23.6
Improved fallow 6.3 8.6 8.4 12.6
Pot holing / planting holes 6.6 7.7 10.4 9.5
Crop rotation 63.0 65.6 67.3 72.2
Leaving crop residues 47.1 50.5 53.3 57.1
Other minimum tillage 17.8 17.6 17.0 12.9
Number of cases 957 465 394 708

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000
The fourth labor quartile had higher levels of farmer participation in mixing of

two or more crops, improved fallow, crop rotation and leaving crop residue. Since the

69

latter two practices are not considered as labor intensive, we would not expect a very big
difference in the prevalence of the two practices between households with few personal
labor units compared to those with many labor units.

Similarly, breaking land area cultivated into quartiles (See Table A1 .4 in the
appendix for summary statistics) revealed some differences to the effect that those with
very small cultivated land areas tended not to practice crop rotation and leaving crop
residues compared to those farmers that cultivated large land areas (See Table 19). This
possibly may be an indication of the flexibility those with large farm-size have to engage
additional land under cultivation without necessarily affecting the main crops. The reason

why large farm size may be associated with leaving crop residue is not very clear.

Table 19: Farmers Implementing Soil and Water Conservation within Each
Quartile of Land Area Cultivated

 

 

 

 

Soil and Water Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4
Conservation Practice 0. O6 - 0.4 0.41 - 0.76 0.77 - 1.27 1.28 - 15
Hectares Hectares Hectares Hectares
% of households implementing

Intercropping 18.9 22.0 21 .2 22.2
Improved fallow 6.7 9.0 7.1 12.4
Pot holing / planting holes 9.5 7.4 7.6 8.2
Crop rotation 53.1 69.9 69.1 74.8
Leaving crop residues 45.5 49.0 51.3 60.2
Other minimum tillage 16.5 17.6 17.1 13.8
Number of cases 631 631 631 631

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

70

One of the major interests of this study is to look at uses of multiple soil and
water conservation practices. As noted by MACO and ORGUT (2003), the main interest
of promoters is to get a lot of farmers using multiple practices instead of single practices.
The effectiveness of practices on productivity increases with number of complementary
practices used by farmers. Table 20 shows that about 15% did not implement any
conservation practice, 34% used at least one practice from the rotation group, 30% used
what was classified as the third level of conservation practices, 8% followed the fourth
level of conservation practices while about 12% implemented all practices (all groupings)
or at least three elements with each grouping represented. The level of utilization of all
the three different components of conservation farming according to three groupings of

soil and water conservation indicated in Table 9 is still low among farmers.

71

Table 20: Combination of Practices Used Among Farmers

 

 

 

Practices Frequency Percentage
Crop rotation & residue 461 18.3
Crop rotation only 421 16.7
Did not practice conservation practice 376 14.9
Left crop residue only 220 8.7
Pot holing, crop rotation & residue 163 6.5
Mixed cropping & crop rotation 127 5.0
Mixed cropping, crop rotation & residue 125 5.0
Pot holing & crop rotation 113 4.5
Mixed cropping, pot holing, rotation & residue 62 2.5
Pot holing & residue 55 2.2
Fallow, crop rotation & residue 52 2.1
Pot holing only 45 1.8
Mixed cropping, pot holing & residue 35 1.4
Mixed cropping & residue 34 1.3
Mixed cropping only 31 1.2
Mixed cropping, pot holing & rotation 30 1.2
Mixed cropping, fallow, pot holing, rotation & residue 28 1.1
Improved fallow & crop rotation 27 1.1
Fallow, pot holing, crop rotation & residue 20 .8
Mixed cropping , fallow, crop rotation & residue 19 .8
Fallow, mixed cropping & crop rotation 17 .7
Fallow & residue 16 .6
Fallow, pot holing & crop rotation 10 .4
Mixed cropping, fallow, pot holing & rotation 9 .4
Improved fallow only 8 .3
Mixed cropping & fallow 5 .2
Mixed cropping & pot holing 4 .2
Mixed cropping, fallow & residue 4 .2
Fallow, pot holing & residue 4 .2
Mixed cropping, fallow, pot holing & residue 2 .1
Fallow & pot holing l .0
Total 2524 100.0

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

5.2 Adoption of Technologies — Econometric Analysis Results

The previous section has dealt with the descriptive analysis of the practices of

farm households. In this section the focus shifts to presentation of results for the factors

that influenced the use of practices in the multivariate context. The results for individual

72

soil conservation practices are first presented, after which the results for conservation
farming and other sets of conservation practices are presented.
5.2.3 Regression Results for Intercropping and Potholing

A binary logit analysis was undertaken to determine quantitatively how the
relevant factors interact to influence farmers in their choice of pot holing or
intercropping, respectively. The regression results in Table 21 below show that the
likelihood ratios are considerably high and significant at 1%, thus the model in general
explained factors associated with the practices of intercropping and pot holing. The
likelihood of using intercropping, on the whole, was high but modest for pot holing. The
predicted probabilities at mean values were 19% and 6%, respectively. Thus, for
example, the likelihood of an average farmer using intercropping is 19%. According to
Table l 1, about 21% used intercropping whereas 8% implemented pot holing. The model
compares well to what was actually obtaining on the ground as may be noted from the
predicted probabilities. The results further indicate that a number of factors significantly
influenced a farmer to choose intercropping and pot holing as noted by the asterisks. In
this chapter and elsewhere the presentation and discussion of the marginal effects are
made under the assumption that all other factors are held constant, and unless where
specified they were computed at the means of the parameters.

It was earlier hypothesized that intercropping and pot holing practices are likely to
be more appealing to households living in areas where inadequate rainfall occurs. The
coefficients for zones are used to test this hypothesis. The coefficient for rainfall
(1998/99), on the other hand, is used to determine if inadequate rainfall received the

previous season influenced farmers to use risk options aimed at minimizing crop failure

73

the following planting season. Farmers may safeguard against occurrences of crop failure
by implementing crop diversification (e.g. intercropping) and/or engaging in water
conserving technologies such as pot holing. Therefore, the zone variable is capturing the
typical climatic condition of a given place whereas the rainfall variable is capturing the
short-term risk. A place may generally be known to be receiving adequate rainfall and
thus be placed in Zone 3 yet there may be occasional bad years.

The coefficient for Zone 1 (Table 21) where rainfall is lowest of the three zones is
significant at 1% level for intercropping practice where as the coefficient for Zone 2, a
relatively low rainfall zone as well, is significant at 10% level. The marginal effects
(dy/dx) indicate that, all else constant, if a farmer is in Zone 1, the probability of using
intercropping increases by 19% over a farmer in Zone 3. As for a farmer in Zone 2,
he/she has an increased probability of 7% of using intercropping over a fellow farmer in
Zone 3. This is also evident from the odds ratio result presented in Table 23, which
shows that the probability of a farmer living in Zone 1 using intercropping is 3.2 times
more than a farmer in Zone 3; whereas a farmer in Zone 2 is 1.5 times more likely to use
intercropping than a farmer in Zone 3. This simply means that intercropping could indeed
be a risk management strategy for farmers in the lower rainfall zones.

The results for pot holing indicate that there was no significant difference between
a farmer living in Zone 1 or Zone 2 and a farmer living in Zone 3. The non-significance
of the coefficients for Zonel and Zone 2 under pot holing is some how surprising
considering that this technology is being promoted as a water conservation technology,

useful in regions with erratic rainfall.

74

The results (Table 21) specifically show that the effect of amount of rainfall
received the previous season on the farmer’s choice to use either practices was not as
expected. The prior expectation was that decreased amount of rainfall received the
previous season would influence a farmer to use pot holing or intercropping as a risk
management strategy. The results, however, appear to be suggesting that the more rainfall
experienced the previous season the greater the possibility of a farmer using
intercropping or pot holing. This could be suggesting that a good season the previous
year reflect results in some asset accumulation, which increases farmer capacity at start of
the season.

Regarding geographical factors, the results in Table 21 show that a farmer in
Eastern Province or in Lusaka Province or in Southern Province faces a reduced
probability of using intercropping compared to a farmer in Central Province in the order
of 10%, 9% and 15%, respectively. As also may be noticed in Table 22, the odds ratio are
less than one, implying that the event of using intercropping in any of these provinces is
less likely to take place compared to Central Province. In the case of pot holing, only
Lusaka and Southern provinces had positive significant coefficients, signifying increased
likelihood of a farmer living in either province to use this practice over a farmer in

Central Province.

75

Table 21: Econometric Analysis of Factors Affecting the Use of Selected Individual
Practices (Logit Regression) '

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Intercropping Pot holing

Coef. dy/dx Z Coef. dy/dx Z
Age 0.01 0.001 1.91 * 0.00 0.0002 0.54
Education level 0.02 0.003 1.17 0.03 0.0014 1.28
Program contact 0.34 0.055 2.47 ** 0.48 0.0285 2.03 *
Farm size -0.00 -0.001 -0.41 -0.01 -0.0005 -0.57
Adult labor 0.04 0.007 1.73 * 0.03 0.0017 0.94
Off-farm income -0.12 -0.018 -1.08 0.12 0.0061 0.72
No. livestock 0.00 0.000 0.08 -0.02 -0.0010 -2.22 **
No. of ploughs -0.08 -0.013 -1.10 - - -
No. of harrows 0.04 0.007 0.28 - - -
Tenure status 0.69 0.087 3.00 *** 0.19 0.0092 0.65
Fertilizer price -0.01 -0.001 -3.49 *** -0.01 -0.0004 -3.36 ***
Maize price 0.00 0.000 0.16 0.02 0.0010 3.13 ***
Dist. main road 0.02 0.003 6.90 *** 0.01 0.0007 4.00 ***
Dist. to town -0.02 -0.004 -6.92 *** -0.02 -0.0009 -3.30 ***
Dist. Feeder road 0.02 0.002 0.51 -0.07 -0.0036 -1.61
Average rainfall 0.01 0.001 4.95 *** 0.00 0.0002 2.73 ***
Zone 1 1.18 0.192 3.81 *** -0.66 -0.0332 -1.10
Zone 2 0.44 0.067 1.73 * -0.14 -0.0074 -0.38
Eastern Prov. -0.63 -0.097 -1.96 * -0.06 -0.0034 -0.15
Lusaka Prov. -0.75 -0.092 -2.99 *** 1.77 0.1914 1.85
Southern Prov. -l .20 -0.152 -5.18 *** 1.48 0.1130 1.83
Number of observations = 2524
LR chi2 165.78 163.17
P-value 0.000 0.000
% Correctly classified 78.96 91.80
Predicted prob. at mean 0.190 0.055

 

***, **, * denote variable significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.

/a. The estimation included a constant though it has not been included in the table.

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

76

Table 22: Odds Ratios for Selected Variables Affecting Individual Practices

 

 

 

Odds Ratio

Variable Mixed cropping Pot holing

Zone 1 3.242 *** 0.519
Zone 2 1.549 * 0.868
Eastern 0.534 ** 0.937
Lusaka 0.472 ** 5.863 ***
Southern 0.302 *** 4.404 **
Tenure status 1.997 ** 1.209
Program contact 1.401 "* 1.612 ‘1‘

 

***, **, * denote variable significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

The coefficient for tenure status was not significant for pot holing. It was
anticipated earlier that those without land were likely to use pot holing as a fast track
yielding technology due to its water gathering effect. This result, however, should not be
surprising because pot holing requires a major investment in labor during the
establishment stage, which most likely discourages farmers who do not own land and
hence lack tenure security. Even then, ownership of land does not either appear to be
associated with the practice of pot holing as a major investment in labor of which benefits
have to be reaped in a long run. In this respect, this study’s finding appears to be
inconsistent with Gebremedhin and Swinton’s (2003) work in Ethiopia on terracing and
bunding. Their study found stable land tenure very important for adoption of major

investments, especially terrace construction.

77

Pot holing has been promoted in Zambia as a labor saving technology since less
than one-third of the land is expected to be tilled. The results of this analysis indicate that
available household labor was not a significant factor. This does not match with prior
expectation of either positive or negative coefficient. The first year or second demands
more labor for establishment of potholes and weeding than latter years. The difference in
labor demands between first/second and later seasons could have had a canceling effect
resulting in insignificant results.

The effect of incentives on the use of either practice suggests that farmers are
more likely to implement intercropping or pot holing with decrease of fertilizer prices.
This is contrary to prior expectation. All held constant, higher fertilizer prices mean the
input has to be used efficiently, thus the increase in the use of pot holing whereas if
fertilizer prices go down farmers are expected to implement monocropping since they put
fertilizer mainly on maize. From the output point of view, the results suggest that farmers
are more likely to implement pot holing with increased maize price where as for
intercropping maize prices were insignificant. Shorter distance to town acted as an
incentive to implement either practice. These results show the importance of
accessibility to the market and locations where support services are coordinated other
than the main roadside market.

Regarding services aimed at building the capacity of a farmer to produce, results
in Table 21 show that program contact increased the chances of a farmer to use
intercropping by a response probability change of almost 6%. In the case of pot holing
the response probability change was 3%. The matching information of the odds ratio in

Table 22 indicates that a farmer with agricultural support program contact was 1.4 times

78

more likely to use intercropping and 1.6 times more likely to use pot holing than a farmer
without any contact with an agricultural support program. Related studies such as
Manyong et.al (1999) and Baidu-Fordson (1999) also found that farmer contact with
agricultural support agents had a positive effect on farmer’s choice to practice soil
conservation.

The capacity of a farmer to implement intercropping appear not to be enhanced by
household resources related to off-farm income sources, keeping livestock and farm
implements as they were not significant. Regarding pot holing, only household resources
related to keeping livestock not associated with draft power were significant.

5.2.4 Results for Ranked Practices (Ordered Logit)

This section now deals with the results from ordered logit analysis of conservation
farming and other sets of conservation practices. The specific procedure to order the
multiple practices is discussed in Chapter 6. There are five levels of soil conservation
practices. The first level deals with zero use of soil conservation practices and the
extreme end (highest level of practice) represents using all the three grouped practices
(Refer back to Table 9). The interpretation of the marginal effects for the first alternative
(lowest level of conservation practice) and the last alternative (highest level of soil
conservation practices) is straightforward. For the lowest level, a positive value for the
marginal effect means the probability of choosing the lowest level (retaining the status
quo) increases whereas a negative marginal effect means the probability of shifting out of
the lowest level into higher-level categories increases. Shifting out of the lowest level
does not necessarily mean moving into the next level but simply means a choice

probability shifts into higher categories (Borooah 2001). In the case of the highest level, a

79

positive marginal effect implies an increased probability for the farmer to use all
practices, whereas a negative marginal effect indicates increased probability for a farmer
to move into lower levels of the conservation practices.

The estimated regression has a high likelihood ratio and is significant at 1% level
(Table 23). This means the model has high explanatory power of the joint association of
factors influencing the adoption of multiple practices. According to the predicted
probability an average farmer had a probability of 12.9% not to practice any of the soil
conservation practices, a probability of 36.7% to practice either a rotation related practice
or soil cover with residue (second level), 31.3% probability of using a combination of
rotation practices and soil cover with crop residue or reduced tillage (third level). The
predicted probability to practice a combination of reduced tillage with crop residue or
reduced tillage with rotation had a modest value of 8.4% (fourth level). The highest
ranked practice (following all practices) had a predicted probability of 10.6%, which
could also be considered as modest. The model compares quite well with the actual
reported in Table 20 though it consistently overestimated.

A number of factors were found to be significant across the levels of practices
though the direction of their effects as denoted by the signs of the marginal effect values
on farmer’s choice were varied. According to Table 23, capacity enhancing factors due to
household resources such as access to off-farm income sources and livestock were not
significant. Equally true was the effect of incentives arising from maize prices. This
result was contrary to prior expectation that maize price would influence farmers to

follow certain of the conservation practices.

80

A related anticipation was made on fertilizer price that if it increased, the
likelihood of a farmer to follow conservation practices would also increase. This study,
based on the marginal effects associated with input price, shows that this was not the case
for the two obvious levels of conservation practices, namely the first and highest levels.
Table 23 indicates that a farmer who is currently not using any soil conservation
technology faces decreased likelihood of switching over to higher levels of conservation
practices following a unit increase in the price of fertilizer. The results obtained here
seem to contradict the premise of conservation and land management promoters whose
underlying argument state that improved agronomic techniques that utilize crop residues
and nitrogen fixation practices reduce fertilizer demands (MACO and ORGUT 2003).
Increased likelihood for a farmer to use higher levels of conservation practices due to
decreased input prices may be meaningful if conservation farming practices, especially
pot holing reduce yield risk and increase responsiveness of fertilizer such that there is
complementarity in uses. Alternatively it may be logical if agricultural support programs
provided a form of subsidized credit for inputs as they promoted the practices. This state
of affairs would be in line with other studies’ findings that subsidized inputs act as
incentives for the practice of soil conservation technologies (Huszar, 1999; Sanders and
Cahill, 1999).

As noted before, no specific observation is made on the middle ranked practices
(Second to fourth level practices). Just as Woodridge (2001) states, it is difficult to
predict the direction of the effects of the coefficients. It suffices, therefore, just to note
that the predicted probability response on the middle ranked practices due to a unit

change in fertilizer is minimal (ranging from 0.03% to 0.06%). However, since price

81

8882 8:8 358288 Be 8882 5:8 .85: 8d 858
.2688 deco EH 8388 awe—E 383% n =< 6382 no.5 u 85 28:83” n 3.5 ”owe—E pounced n :5. d3— é
8805.28 05 no 2832 05 “a @8388 one? floobo REESE 2:. NE
dove—Em 80:3 annexe 88% 38:3 8 can befifionB ._o>o_ $3 can gm xx; 3 cacao—mama 898“. a .1. .1... #3

 

 

 

 

8.8 :8 :8 2.8 338 sad 82235
88.8 n as: E. :m 1 8o 5
33 n 2232030 mo 53:52
8N 888 EN 888 88 £88 8.? 88.? t... 8.? $8.? sea 8088
Sm 828 NS 888 82 388......” 8.? 88.? t... 8.? 3.8.? sea was;
8.8 28.8 88 288 8.8 288 8.? 8.8.? 8.? 28.? sea 828m
m; 3.28 8.8 88.8 NS: 828 8.2- 82.? r... 8.? 22.? BEN
82 888 8+ 888 8.8 88.8 2.? 8:? t... 8.? 88.? ESN
8+ 888 43. 888 8.4 888 8.? 88.? r... 8.? 88.? 883 ”was;
8.? 88.? 8.4. 88.? at $8.? 8.... 288 1.... NS. 88.8 8888885
8.? .28.? 2.? 88.? 2.? 28.? new :88 r... 88 :88 daesaa
8..“ 88.8 88 888 88 888 8.? 88.? r... 8.? 88.? 828835
8.? 88.? 8.? 88.? 8.? 88.? $8 888 88 .888 SE as:
8.? 88.? 8.? 88.? 8.? 88.? 88 888 t... :8 888 88.0888
88 $88 :3. 88... EM 888 8N- 88.? r... 8.? 82.? 33888
8.? 88.? 8.? 88.? 8..- 88.? 8._ 888 8a 888 3.282: .oz
8.? 88.? 8.? 88.? 8.? 88.? Rd 888 88 888 0885:8880
Kc 888 Rs 88.8 :.._ 8888 En. 88.? . :4- 88.? 38283
EN 888 8N :88 EN 888 SN. 88.? r... 8.? 88.? SEE
$8 888 88 88.8 88 :88 8.? 88.? t... 2.? 88.? 83:8 882d
88 88.8 Em 88.8 88 R88 8.? 88.? r... 8.? $8.? 358883
8; 888 8; 88.8 8._ 888 8.? 88.? r. 8.? 88.? 8a.
N 53 N x38 N in N 5.5 N 58 288>
8.5 a. 5.500% \ 85 a. 0:23.— 2688 3388a \ a 833.5

=< 85 a. EH Bum mono .8 EH 80M coho .8 comaflom 8382028 oZ

 

338033— :wea— gouaov «3:22.— uE—Eah 53:30...an "Eouofifiam cogs—.55 2: a8 33mm 3593: "MN 933—.

Na\—a

82

changes are normally in thousands it seems, based on these marginal effects, that
fertilizer prices could have a substantial effect on the farmer’s choice of middle ranked
conservation practices. For instance, if the price for fertilizer initially at ZMK33,000.00
increased to ZMK34,000.00, which is a change of the magnitude of ZMK1000.00, a
farmer faces 30 to 60-percentage point increase or decrease in the marginal probability of
using the conservation practices over the previous price scenario.

The earlier expectation that a farmer who is close to the market is more likely to
follow conservation practices due to the anticipated cash benefits, and easy access to
agricultural development activities was tested using the marginal effects for distance to
town, distance to feeder road and distance to the main road. The efi‘ect arising from
distance to district town and distance to the feeder road had an expected sign of positive
for the lowest level of conservation practice; it indicates that as a farmer moves fmther
from the market and locations of support services, the probability not to implement
conservation practices increases. As for the highest ranked level of conservation
practices, the probability to implement them increases with close proximity to the market
and places where support services are found. For all levels of conservation practices, the
marginal effect of the respective distances on farmer’s choice seems to be minimal but
when large magnitude of the distances that may exist are taken into account proximity to
market may be quite important. For instance, the marginal effect of distance from town
on the choice of the highest level of conservation practices is 0.0012 (Table 23). All else
held constant, if one farmer is 20 Km from town while another is 50 Km away, the
former has a percentage point increase of (50-20)*0.0012 "‘ 100 = 3.6% in the marginal

probability of using the conservation farming practice over the latter.

83

The effect of the main road on the farmer’s choice of higher levels of
conservation practices from the level not implementing conservation practices did not
have the expected sign of positive, and a sign of negative on a farmer who was using all
the conservation practices. This may not be surprising as the results may simply be
suggesting that very few farmers after all have access to the main road as the network for
paved or well-maintained roads are limited in the country.

The factors that relate to improved management skills of farmers were significant
and had expected signs. For example the predicted response probability associated with
farmer contact with agricultural support programs shows that if a farmer who is currently
not following any soil conservation practice has contacts with agents of agricultural
development, the likelihood of that farmer following one of the conservation practices
increases by approximately 4% - though not a particularly large increase in probability.

In this study the covariates that appear to have noticeable effects on farmer’s
choice of the conservation practices are tenure status (ranging from 4 to 11% across the
various levels of soil conservation practices), geographical factors, for instance (8% to
19%) for Lusaka and physiographical factors associated with zones. The importance of
physiographical factors in adoption of conservation practices also emerge in studies for
Ervin and Ervin (1982), Gebremedhin and Swinton (2003) and Holden et.al. (1999).
Moreover, rainfall could have a potentially very large impact even though the marginal
probability coefficient is very small. As an example, the marginal probability on rainfall
for the highest level is 0.0003 thus looking small. However, holding everything else
constant, a household located in an area that received 1100 mm of rainfall the previous

season (as opposed to being in an area that received only 800 mm of rainfall) would be:

84

0.0003 * (1100-800) = 0.0003*300=0.09. This is a 9 percentage point increase in the
marginal probability of using the conservation farming practice. It here appears that if
sufficient rainfall is received the previous season, households are encouraged to
implement conservation practices.

Only household resources related to farm size and adult labor had a significant
impact on the farmer’s choice of the conservation farming practices. In both cases,
having more of these resources increase the farmer’s prospect to implement the

conservation farming practices.

85

CHAPTER 6
DYNAMICS OF CONTINUITY OF USE OF SOIL AND WATER
CONSERVATION PRACTICES

6.1 Descriptive Analysis of Abandonment of Practices

As indicated in Chapter 6, to track the use of practices among respondents over
the two years, the study was guided by the following questions:

1. Did farmers use certain practices in 1999/ 2000 agricultural season but shift out of
them in 2000/2001 agricultural season?

2. What differences exist in farmer and farm characteristics between those smallholders
who abandoned the practices the following season and those who continued, and
between those who did not use the practices in the two agricultural seasons and those
who possibly used them the following season only?

According to the findings of this study, a considerable number of farmers shifted
out of the previously used individual practices in the 2000/2001 agricultural season.
Table 24 below shows that 12.6% of farmers who used improved fallow during the
1999/2000 did not use this practice in the subsequent season whereas 9% of those that
mixed crops in the same field during the first agricultural season did not follow the

practice the following season.

86

Table 24: Abandonment of Practices by Farmers over the Period of 1999/2000 and
2000/2001 Agricultural Season

 

Number of

households using in % of households using

 

1999/2000 who in 1999/2000 who

Practice abandoned abandoned
Mixing two or more crops in one field 48 9.0
Improved fallow 28 12.6

Pot holing / planting holes 13 6.3

Crop rotation 67 4.0
Leaving crop residues 68 5.2

Other minimum tillage practices 16 3.9

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

The descriptive analysis in Table 25 tries to explain what happened at
geographical level. It was found that deciding not to use individual practices in the
second year varied from province to province. A large majority of farmers from Eastern
Province (21.9%) shifted out of the practice of improved fallow compared to the second
highest province that recorded 10.7%. In the case of leaving crop residue in the field,
10.5% of the respondents in Southern province shifted out of the practice in 2000/2001
compared to 4% in Central Province and 2.1% in Eastern Province. These figures on
discontinuation of leaving crop residues in Southern Province may be due to the
opportunity cost of crop residue for fodder in a region with livestock. In addition the
practice of free animal grazing in all fields by the community might have been a

disincentive to leave crop residues in fields.

87

Table 25: Farmers Abandoned Specific Practices in 2000/2001 (As a Percentage of

Those Who Used the Practice in 1999/2000) by Province “

 

 

 

 

Central Eastern Lusaka Southern
Type of Practice N % N % N % N %
Mixing crops in one field 13 10.5 23 7.6 5 21.7 7 8.3
Improved fallow 6 10.7 16 21.9 2 9.1 4 5.6
Pot holing 6 12.0 3 6.3 2 11.1 2 2.2
Crop Rotation 13 4.1 43 4.2 3 5.2 8 2.8
Leaving crop residue 11 4.0 12 2.1 4 5.3 41 10.5
Other minimum tillage 3 8.1 8 2.5 l 6.7 4 12 .5

 

/a. The percentage totals do not add up to 100 as they have been computed within cells
Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

Seeing that resource endowment may vary between male households and female

households, it was felt important to find out whether there was any noticeable difference

between female and male farmers. Comparisons between male and female and between

married and non-married farmers showed that a higher percentage of male farmers shifted

out of practices than female farmers concerned (Table 26). The most distinct abandoned

practice was improved fallow where 14% of the male farmers were recorded compared to

no female farmers. It should, however, be mentioned that the number of females that

actually implemented improved fallow in 1999/2000 were few compared to male farmers

(28 compared to 194). In the case of comparisons based on marital status, pot holing was

most affected among the married; 24% against 0% of the non-married farmers (inclusive

of the widowed) did not use the practice the following season. Moreover, 14.4% of

married farmers compared to 2.9% of non-married farmers shifted out of improved

88

fallow. The low level of non-married farmers shifiing out of pot holing and improved
fallow could be due to labor constraints.

This study’s finding that males surpassed the females in not continuing with the
recommended practices is somehow different from the finding of MACO and ORGUT
(2003) where it was indicated that the overall disadoption level of 2% could be attributed
to a drop in adoption of married female category. The MACO and ORGUT study
however, had a different time frame as it covered the two seasons of 2000/2001 and
2001/2002 and it did not specifically focus on individual soil conservation practices being

looked at in the current study.

Table 26: Farmers Who Disadopted Specific Practices in 2000/2001 (As a
Percentage of Those Who Use the Practice in 1999/2000) by Gender and by Marital
Status

 

 

 

Type of Practice Male Female Married Not Married
% of households % of households
Mixing crops in same field 99 5.2 9.5 6. 5
Improved fallow 14.4 0 14,4 2,9
Pot holing 6.8 3.3 24.0 0
Crop Rotation 4.0 3.9 3.9 4.5
Leaving crop residue 52 5.6 5.1 59
Other minimum tillage 4.3 2. 4 4.7 0

 

 

la. The percentage totals do not add up to 100 as they have been computed within cells
Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

The comparisons of disadoption based on farm size and land ownership did not
reveal many differences. The practice that would be worth noting is mixing of crops in

the same field. The disadoption rate among medium scale farmers was five percentage

89

points below the small scale farmers whereas those who did not own land were nine

percentage points below those who owned land (Table 27).

Table 27: Farmers Who Abandoned Specific Practices in 2000/2001 (As a
Percentage of Those Who Used the Practice in 1999/2000) by Farm Size Category
and by Tenure Status

 

 

 

Type of Practice Small Medium Own land Without land
% of households % of households

Mixing crops in the same field 10 5 9 0

Improved fallow 13 10 ll 13

Pot holing 6 7 6 7

Crop Rotation 5 2 4 0

Leaving crop residue 6 4 5 5

Other minimum tillage 5 0 4 0

 

 

/a. The percentage totals do not add up to 100 as they have been computed within cells
Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000
6.2 Statistical Comparisons Based on T-Tests of Mean Differences

This analysis looked at mean differences of farmer and farm characteristics that
existed between those who abandoned the practices the following season and those who
continued, and then between those who did not use the practices in the two agricultural
seasons and those farmers who assumed new practices the following season. Therefore,
the comparisons are made within the category of those who implemented a given practice
in 1999/2000 separately, and also, separately, within the category of those that did not

implement a given practice in 1999/2000 (See Table 28). Within each category means of

90

selected variables are compared between those who continued the practice in 2000/2001
and those that abandoned the practice in 2000/2001.

The results in Table 28 indicate that there were some significant differences at 1%
level between those who continued the practice of mixing of crops in the same field and
those who abandoned it the following season based on land area cultivated and tenure
status. Those with large cultivated areas continued the practice whilst a relatively high
proportion of those who owned land shifted out of the practice. The latter result is not
surprising because owning land does not necessarily lead into investment in land as
studies have found mixed results. In a related study Platteau (1996) indicated that in the
case of Malawi, investment in land was negatively related to land ownership or tenure
security whereas F eder and others (1988) cited a study which found that there was a
correlation between farm investment and index of tenure security in Costa Rica, but the
positive correlation was not significant.

At 5% significance level, those with high level of schooling did not continue the
practice. These results are as anticipated that increased education level is likely to bias a
farmer towards monocropping. The lack of significance of this variable may also mean
that those with increased level of education have access to other sources of income,
which reduces their dependence on intercropping as the only risk management strategy.
Furthermore, at 10% significance level, ownership of farm implements such as harrows
and ploughs could be associated with the capacity to continue the practice of mixing
crops in the same field (Table 28). This may suggest that implements may contribute in

relieving household labor pressure for the required agronomic care.

91

Table 28: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Use

 

 

 

 

Intercropping
Used the Practice in Did Not Use the Practice
1999/2000 in 1999/2000
Used the Practice in 2000/01 Yes No Yes No
No. of respondents [N = 484] [N = 48] [N = 78] [N = 1914]
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Variable Name (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev)
Age of household head 47.32 45.62 43.44 44.80
(14.81) (16.25) (13.96) (15.07)
Number of labor unit 3.95 3.94 3.47 3.72
(2.17) (2.04) (1.92) (2.33)
Level of schooling 1.16 1.48" .96 1.18”
(0.94) (1.07) (0.73) (0.95)
Area cultivated (Ha) 1.20 86"" .87 1.14"
(1.29) (0.72) (1.00) (1.25)
Owned farm equipment .32 .21 "‘ .18 .33***
(0.48) (0.41) (0.39) (0.47)
Support program contact .25 .23 .22 .19
(0.43) (0.42) (0.42) (0.39)
Land tenure status .97 1.00 "”""‘ .96 .94
(0.17) (0.00) (0.19) 0.23)

 

***, **, "' denote variable significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.
Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

Age, contrary to expectation, had no role in a farmer being consistent in using
practices such as intercropping. This, understandably, could be due to most farmers’
indication that they learned intercropping as a traditional practice. This may imply that
the practice has become a standard procedure among farmers.

A comparison between those who did not use intercropping in the first season but
attempted the following season and those that did not attempt at all in both seasons, the
results indicate that at 1% significance level a higher proportion of those who owned
farm equipment did not attempt at all in both seasons. It appears here that those who did
not own implements now decided to implement intercropping the following season. The

findings here seem to give mixed results where by implements appear to be associated

92

with adoption and disadoption. It leaves, in this case, the role of implements on farmer’s
continued use of this practice inconclusive. The results further show that at 5%
significance level, those farmers with higher level of schooling, tended not to use
intercropping at all (Table 28), as was the case with farmers that had draught power and
those that cultivated larger land areas. This could probably be suggesting that those with
higher schooling or have more wealth have other risk reduction options other than
intercropping. In addition, the past promotion of pure crop stands by crop researchers and
extension agents against mixed cropping (Jalloh 2001) could have gained much
acceptance amongst the more educated or wealthier farmers and continue to prevail to
date.

For the practice of improved fallow, those with a younger age did not continue
with the practice at the 1% significance level (Table 29). Generally, studies have found
age not to be associated with the practice of a given technology. For the practice of
improved fallow in eastern part of Zambia, Place et al. (2002) found only farm size to be
associated with the practice of this technology. Possibly the young aged farmers did not
continue due to opportunity cost associated with small farm size. A closely related
finding in this study could be the significant difference that existed in land area planted
between those that opted to use the practice in 2000/2001 (within the ‘did not use the
practice in 1999/2000 category’) and those that maintained the status of not using in
2000/2001.

The finding of this study with respect to agricultural support program is not as
anticipated. A larger proportion of farmers who had contact with agricultural support

programs did not continue using improved fallows when tested at 10% significance

93

levels. Also, with respect to labor, this study found that labor did not have any significant
impact between those who did not continue the practice and those that continued to use
the practice.

Within the category of those that did not use improved fallow in 1999/2000,
quantity of labor, area cultivated, ownership of farm equipment, and access to support
programs were significant at 1% to 10% level. Poor access to support services or low
resources could be associated with those who did not attempt the practice at all in both
years (See Table 29). It appears here that labor emerged as a constraint such that those
with less household labor units did not attempt the practice.

Those who stated that they followed the practice in both years were comparable in
number of personal labor units to those that decided to start the practice in 2000/2001.
This seems to suggest that labor may be important in using improved fallow, which could
be in line with the findings of studies such as Thangata et al. (2002). Their study in
Kisungu, Malawi, concluded that sufficient labor could lead a household to adopt
improved fallow. The finding of this study contradicts Kwesiga et al.(2003) who appears
to suggest that farmers in eastern Zambia could use improved fallow without any
additional requirement of labor as farmer’s main cropping strategy. The results are
probably not comparable due to the localization of the study and differences in method of
analysis.

In the case of pot holing, very few variables were significant (Table 30). Those
who did not have access to agricultural support program were more likely to use pot
holing in both years compared to those who abandoned the practice the following season.

Further indications are that those with labor constraints did not use pot holing in both

94

years. This may reflect the relatively high labor needed for establishment of the system.

Lower level of schooling or non-ownership of farm equipment could be associated with

those who are less likely to have used the practice in both years.

Table 29: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Implement

Improved Fallow

 

 

 

Used the Practice in Did Not Use the Practice
1999/2000 in 1 999/2000
Used the Practice in 2000/01 Yes No Yes No
No. of respondents [N = 194] [N = 28] [N = 50] [N = 2252]
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Variable Name (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev)
Age of household head 49.22 4050*" 44.78 44.98
(15.54) (10.12) (13.96) (15.02)
Number of labor unit 4.51 4.39 4.48 3.67 *
(2.76) (2.94) (2.87) (2.20)
Level of schooling 1.35 1.36 1 1.16
(0.90) (0.95) (0.90) (0.95)
Area cultivated (Ha) 1.38 1.31 1.54 1.11 **
(1.42) (1.41) (1.32) (1.22)
Owned farm equipment 0.43 0.39 0.54 0.30 ***
(0.50) (0.50) (0.50) (0.46)
Support program contact 0.25 0.43 * 0.34 0.19 **
(0.43) (0.50) (0.48) (0.40)
Land tenure status 0.96 0.96 0.98 0.95
(0.19) (0.19) (0.14) (0.22)

***, **, * denote variable significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

In the within category of those farmers that implemented crop rotation in

1999/2000 season, less labor, low level of schooling, and lack of farm equipment could

each be associated with those that disadopted this practice in the following season (Table

31). The results here are suggesting that education may play a part in enhancing the

capacity of farmer understanding of the practice. When ownership of farm equipment and

opportunities to grow cash crops are associated with capacities to generate and access

95

wealth, it is of little surprise to see those with none of these being under pressure to grow

a food crop every year on the same land.

Table 30: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Implement Pot

Holing

 

Used the Practice in

Did Not Use the Practice

 

 

 

1999/2000 in 1999/2000
Used the Practice in 2000/01 Yes No Yes No
No. of respondents [N = 194] [N = 13] [N = 50] [N = 2252]
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Variable Name (Std. Deg (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev)
Age of household head 45.52 46.08 46.12 45.22
(14.20) (12.24) (13.01) (15.15)
Number of labor unit 4.15 3.85 4.65 3.71 **
(2.62) (2.41) (2.14) (2.26)
Level of schooling 1.32 1.54 1.50 1.16 *
(0.98) (0.97) (1.13) (0.94)
Area cultivated (Ha) 0.99 0.78 1.55 1.15*
(0.85) (0.57) (1.15) (1.27)
Owned farm equipment 0.27 0.38 0.50 0.32 *"'
(0.45) (0.51) (0.51) (0.47)
Support program contact 0.19 0.62 *** 0.24 0.20
(0.39) (0.51) (0.43) (0.40)
Land tenure status 0.93 0.92 0.97 0.95
(0.25) (0.28) (0.17) (0.22)
Grew purely cash crop 0.18 0.38 0.38 0.23 *
(0.39) (0.51) (0.49) (0.42)

 

***, **, * denote variable significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

In the within category of those that did not implement crop rotation in 1999/2000,

household labor, level of schooling, owning farm equipment were each important for a

farmer attempting the practice in 2000/2001 (Table 31).

As for leaving crop residues in the field, age of household head, level of

schooling, area cultivated, ownership of farm equipment, contact with agricultural

support programs and growing cash crops were significant (See Table 32). All variables

96

were significant at 1% level except for level of schooling and area cultivated which were
significant at 5% and 10% levels, respectively. Farmers associated with larger cultivated
land areas or higher levels of schooling or those with farm equipment are more likely to
abandon the practice in the subsequent season. It appears that level of education does not
have an influence on continued use of leaving crop residues. This may simply be
confirming that the practice is not highly technical requiring high schooling.

Table 31: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Implement
Crop Rotation

 

 

 

Used the Practice in Did Not Use the Practice
1999/2000 in 1999/2000
Used the Practice in 2000/01 Yes No Yes No
No. of respondents [N = 1617] [N = 67] [N = 55] [N = 785]
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Variable Name (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev)
Age of household head 45.53 45.45 44.89 44.70
(14.72) (16.97) (15.25) (15.50)
Number of labor unit 3.92 3.27 *** 3.42 3.50
(2.35) (1.86) (1.88) (2.19)
Level of schooling 1.21 0.94 ** 1.18 1.13
(0.94) (0.90) (1 .00) (0.96)
Area cultivated (Ha) 1.20 1.06 0.82 1.06 *
(1.16) (1.11) (0.84) (1.41)
Support program contact 0.27 0.21 0.16 0.06
(0.45) (0.41) (0.37) (0.24)
Land tenure status 0.97 1.00 ** 0.96 0.91 ***
(0.18) (0.00) (0.19) (0.28)
Grew purely cash crop 0.30 0.10 *** 0.13 0.08 ***
(0.46) (0.31) (0.34) (0.28)

 

***, **, * denote variable significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

In the within category of farmers that did not implement the practice in 1999/2000

season, those that still did not leave crop residue in 2000/2001 could be associated with

farmers that did not own land, or those that had no contacts with agricultural support

97

programs or those that owned farm equipment than those that attempted the practice in

2000/2001 season (Table 32). Land tenure was significant at 1% level while the others

were significant at 10% level. What we see here is that a farmer could be influenced to

start covering soil with residue if s(he) has land or accesses program support services

that build human capital.

Table 32: Descriptive Statistics of Selected Variables by Decision to Leave Crop

Residue after Harvest

 

 

 

 

Used the Practice in Did Not Use the Practice
1999/2000 in 1999/2000
Used the Practice in 2000/01 Yes No Yes No
No. of respondents [N = 1232] [N = 68] [N = 25] [N = 1199]
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Variable Name (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev) (Std. Dev)
Age of household head 46.25 40.57 *** 42.32 44.56
(15.23) (12.25) (14.92) (14.90)
Number of labor unit 3.96 4.06 3.28 3.55
(2.41) (3.09) (1.51) (2.09)
Level of schooling 1.20 1.47 *"' 1.08 1.14
(0.95) (1.03) (0.76) (0.93)
Area cultivated (Ha) 1.22 1.65 * 0.88 1.04
(1.29) (1.95) (0.63) (1.13)
Owned farm equipment 0.37 0.59 *** 0.12 0.25 "'
(0.48) (0.50) (0.33) (0.43)
Support program contact 0.23 0.12 **"‘ 0.36 0.18 "'
(0.42) (32) (0.49) (0.38)
Land tenure status 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.94 *"‘*
(0.21) (0.21) (0.00) (0.23)
Grew purely cash crop 0.25 0.09 *** 0.24 0.21
(0@ (0.29) (0.44) (0.41)

 

***, *"', * denote variable significant at 1%, 5% and 10% level, respectively.

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

98

CHAPTER 7
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND IMPLICATIONS
7.1 Pot holing and Intercropping

The important factors for using intercropping were comparable to pot holing on
the aspect of accessibility to market and support services, based on proximity to district
town (Table 21). These practices need accompanying services for them to be used. For
example pot holing is a water conservation practice and the extension message for pot
holing indicates using fertilizer. Considering that fertilizer becomes more expensive as
the farmer gets further from the distribution point (which generally is the district town)
due to increased costs of service delivery, it may be of little surprise that farmer’s choice
for the practices is negatively influenced by input prices. The consistence of this view as
relates to cost of inputs or provision of services when distance from the hub of activities
increases is supported by the negative relationship of the distance to feeder road for the
practice of pot holing (Table 21).

Moreover, improved accessibility is equally important for reduced transaction
costs that could be reflected in improved maize prices, which seem to be incentives for
implementation of pot holing. The importance of output prices as incentives for adoption
of soil conservation practices have also been echoed in literature and studies by Sanders
and Cahill (1999), Reardon and Vosti (1997a) and Bekele (2003). This means that
creating an environment facilitating favorable prices to farmers, while at the same time
not creating disincentives to other sectors could increase the likelihood of farmers to
follow pot holing practices. The above discussion is not meant to give an impression that

the only things that matter for the farmer to follow conservation practices are incentives

99

such as improved market accessibility. Just as Malla (1999) tries to explain about market
accessibility being not a sufficient condition, this study notes that physiographical
constraints associated with Zone 1 and Zone 2 and then the geographical factors
associated with Central Province are equally important for the practice of intercropping.
In the case of pot holing, the physiographical factors associated with zones are not critical
but what matters most are the geographical factors associated with Southern Province.
There could be a number of reasons why pot holing is relevant to Southern Province. The
Province has been worst hit in terms of cattle mortalities and it has been experiencing a
declining trend in rainfall; the rain season appears to have been getting shorter and
shorter over the years. Thus, farmers could have used this practice as a risk reduction
option, which is closely related to the findings of Keyser and Mwanza (1996). Their
study found that farmers were using this practice not because of the desire to conserve
soil but because they considered themselves poor which again well agrees with this
study’s result for adjusted number of livestock (Table 21).

The two practices are not comparable on the aspect of farmer experience
conveyed by age of the household head. For intercropping, experience plays a role
though minimal while for pot holing experience did not seem to have any significant
impact on the farmer’s choice for the practice. Moreover, as should be expected, a farmer
who does not have the capacity afforded by livestock is more likely to use pot holing. A
firrther point of divergence is the capacity afforded by household resources related to
family labor and owning land. Both resources appear to be more relevant to the
implementation of intercropping than pot holing. The dynamic nature of pot holing

requires understanding the stage of establishment of this practice hence the results

100

obtained by this study could not be used to categorically state that labor is not an issue
regardless of the stage.
7.2 Individual Practices in General

The indication of the majority of farmers that they learned crop rotation as a
traditional practice may be a source of concern whether such farmers have their version
of the practice contrary to crop husbandry recommendations (Table 13). Indeed, adoption
literature has indicated that farmers adapt the technologies (CIMMYT 1993) and most
likely this may be the case here. The particular concern here is whether the practice is
being used such that farmers are achieving all the possible benefits.

The practice of leaving crop residues as a fertility enhancing technology still
needs to be evaluated. As with crop rotation, most farmers learned to leave crop residues
as a traditional practice (Table 13). Again here the issue of concern is whether the
practice is an adapted version of the practice that is promoted. In addition, the high
prevalence of this practice in Zone 1 (Table 17) where livestock rearing is still prominent
may call into question whether cattle graze the residues that are lefi in the fields.
According to Sanders and Cahill (1999) there are many incentives and disincentives. The
culture of cattle rearing in Southern Province is such that fields more or less become
common property after harvest to the effect that animals from any quarter are free to
wander in the fields, reducing the private incentive to leave residues in the field for soil
conservation purposes.

7.3 Ranked Conservation Practices
Ranked conservation practices (conservation farming and other sets of

conservation practices) revealed interesting results most of which are in line with theory.

101

The importance of tenure status and building management ability has emerged in this
study (Table 23). Moreover, farmers invest in conservation farming practices with due
consideration to physical constraints associated with physiographical factors and climatic
factors (e. g. rainfall) in line with the observations of Clay et al. (2002), Ervin and Ervin
(1982), Reardon and Vosti (1997a) and Gebremedhin and Swinton (2003). This implies
that identifying locations with similar physical constraints and targeting the necessary
support services and incentives could influence farmers to implement the conservation
practices.

The work of building human capital has a cost implication in terms of building
more schools, providing adequate health facilities so as to increase life expectancy at
birth. Closely linked to this aspect of health could be the need to watch for the
debilitating effects of the scourge of HIV-AIDS on human capital, which currently is
estimated to affect 20% of the population (Saasa 2003). The scourge may be a drain on
skilled and experienced household labor.

The facilitating role of the government is still cardinal in order to improve farmer
contact with program support activities. The services agricultural support agents provide
entail transport costs for instance, which are exacerbated by poor road conditions.
Therefore appropriate attention to roads would not only facilitate the provision of support
services but also would reduce market transaction costs from farmer’s point of view.

7.4 What key factors might hasten disadoption?

The importance of building human capital, and increasing household resources

related to labor for the continuation of rotation practices emerged. This may be plausible

for indeed lower education level may be associated with less efficient use of new

102

technologies and inadequate labor may result in small cultivated land areas. The capacity
to only cultivate small areas may be a constraint on a farmer to plant crops other than
those perceived by the farmer to be crucial to the household food security. The
importance of improved manageability through program support services is well in line
with observations by Gladwin et al. (2002) that practices such as improved fallow are
knowledge intensive whereas the study of Manyong et al. (1999) reveal the importance of
extension contact.

The abandonment of leaving crop residue after harvest by younger farmers makes
sense as they characterize a farmer that has reduced capacity to farm and use the practice.
Youth may be associated with lack of experience to adapt practices for best use on the
farms. As for pot holing, the discussion on what possible factors may hasten the
disadoption of this practice is approached with caution. The study’s finding that farmers
that had access to agricultural support programs were more likely to disadopt the practice
the following season may have two interpretations: (l) The support programs that farmers
accessed did not lay much emphasis on reduced inversion practices such that farmers did
not implement the practice in a way to achieve the benefits, or (2) the farmers were no
longer eligible to participate or they did not desire to participate in programs that required
use of specific practices. If farmers did not see the benefits of practices, removal of

program inducements could have resulted in discontinuing the practices.

103

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 Conclusion of this Study

This study embarked on understanding the factors that influenced the use of
conservation farming and other sets of conservation practices. The findings show that
addressing conditions that may inhibit financial incentives arising from reduced
production costs and accessibility to source of support services would positively
influence farmers to implement conservation farming and other sets of practices. In
addition, building management capability (human capital) through farmer training while
at the same time ensuring there is no drain on human capital due to mortalities would also
improve the adoption of conservation practices. Equally important is the revelation that
practices could be associated with certain physiographical conditions hence necessitating
the need to target support services such as extension services that build management
skills and that translate into financial incentives among farmers.

The study found that intercropping appears to have been used as a risk reduction
strategy in least rainfall areas. Contrary to expectation however, it is a farmer who is in
Central Province that is likely to follow the practice instead of a farmer in Southern
Province. Pot holing did not appear as a risk reduction option for zones with erratic
rainfall. The practice, however, is more likely to be used by a farmer in Southern
Province than a farmer in Central Province probably due to the decimation of cattle
stocks. Generally, there appears to be a lot of room for support programs to promote

reduced tillage among farmers since few of them indicated that they learned about it

104

through traditional sources. However, the impact of labor on the choice of pot holing for
now remains unclear due to the dynamic nature of the practice.

The study on farmer’s disadoption of practices found that intercropping or
improved fallow require sufficient labor and improved management ability. The probable
factors that may lead farmers to abandon rotation practices are those that undermine the
build-up of management ability (human capital), and deplete household resources related
to labor. In the case of the practice of soil cover with crop residue, drain on experienced
household heads play a big role in influencing a farmer to abandon this practice.
Moreover, the exact cause of its abandonment in Southern Province is not very clear. For
now one of the possible explanations is that the practice became expensive due to the
continued drop in level of rainfall or because animal fodder needs became an overriding
factor.

This study had some data limitations, which limit the generalization of the
findings. The nature of the questions in the instruments used to take the observations did
not allow further investigations on the technologies being practiced. For example, as
mentioned before, crop rotation was based on what the farmer declared and not on the
observation of an enumerator.

Moreover, the practice of intercropping still remains difficult to deal with. Many
people intercrop for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with conservation. This
requires well-tailored questions to solicit the farmer’s intent in using individual practices
related to soil conservation. For future studies it would be worthwhile to look at farmer
practices against the background that farmers do make adjustments to the recommended

practices and follow certain practices for various reasons. To have a general sense of

105

where farmers stand with regard to given practices studied, future research will have to

precisely measure what farmers are actually using. This approach will need also to clarify

what exactly these practices are which farmers indicated were learned as traditional
practices.

The current study only managed to track farmers’ practices over two years but did
not attempt to find out if the farmers did intend to use a given technology again in year
three. Even though intentions are not very reliable, the information could have assisted in
establishing whether the discontinuation was likely to be temporal or not. The study does
indicate that farmers are trying new things as well as dropping some practices. Thus
looking at both adoption and disadoption provides valuable information, but a longer
time frame would be valuable.

8.2 Recommendations from This Study

The specific recommendations this study envisages would enhance the practice of
soil conservation practices are:

1. The road infrastructure, more especially the feeder roads have consistently emerged
as an important factor in most of the practices. They should be developed to facilitate
market access and shorten the effective distance to town. This would increase the
likelihood of using the practices especially those that showed that they have a
negative relationship with the input prices, Furthermore, infrastructure enables
relatively easy flow of information that could improve the agronomic practices and
facilitate well informed production and marketing decisions.

2. Agricultural support programs should carefirlly evaluate what they are doing, their

incentive structures and so forth as they promote the soil and water conservation

106

practices among farmers. This course of action will reduce the costs incurred on
training farmers who in the process disadopt the practices.

. The dissemination of appropriate practices should be cognizant of farmers’ role in
conveying information to their fellow farmers. The indication by a moderate
proportion that they learned the practices through fellow farmers should be exploited.
The double pronged approach in trying to reach out to farmers will result in
rationalization of resources.

. The farmers’ know-how on practices related to soil conservation appears to be based
on what farmers learned from their predecessors. It is therefore, important to establish
if farmers are appropriating the intended benefits of the recommended practices. This
will facilitate well tailored intervention in promoting soil conservation practices
where appropriate.

. The factors cited as likely to affect farmers to abandon conservation practices (e. g.
lack of management ability (human capital), declining household resources such as
labor) should be well monitored and where need be appropriate recourse should be
designed.

This study has found that increasing maize prices could be an incentive to

smallholder farmers in Zambia to use pot holing. Nevertheless, conservation farming

practice as a package, and its pieces or sets of its elements appear not to be influenced by

maize price incentive. Increased maize price may not negatively affect farmer’s use of

intercropping possibly due to household’s desire to insure against crop failure and

unanticipated decline in market prices. On the input side, reduced fertilizer prices may act

as an incentive for smallholder’s adoption of conservation practices considered by this

107

study. The premise that raising fertilizer prices would increase the likelihood of farmers
to implement the fertility enhancing technologies has not been supported by the findings
of this study. Therefore, development of alternative technologies to inorganic fertilizer
still remains a challenge. Furthermore, intercropping is possibly a risk reducing strategy
for low rainfall areas of Central Province but for drier areas of Southern Provinces pot
holing appear to be more relevant as a risk reduction option.

Improved management ability, sufficient household resources related to labor and
stable tenure status, are factors that give a farmer the capacity to act and are important for
the implementation of most of the conservation practices. Therefore, policy directions
aimed at building human capital, while at the same time reducing mortalities as a way of
retaining skilled capital, is a way forward to promote the practices. This same step will
ensure a greater likelihood of farmer’s continued use of practices. The importance of
physiographical factors in this study underscores the need to streamline support and
intervention efforts to specific areas. The cost of service delivery could be minimized by
improved infrastructure, which at the same time could improve farmer accessibility to the

market and support services especially found in district towns.

108

APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Technology Adoption Tables

Table Al.1: Soil Conservation Practice by Level of Education for Farmers who
Traditionally Learned About the Practices

 

 

 

 

Did you use this
Level of Jractice? Total
education No Yes
None Count 22 503 525
% within Level of education 42 95.8 100.0
% within Did you use this
practice? 26.5 22.8 22.9
Primary Count 48 1197 1245
% within Level of education 3 9 96 1 100.0
% within Did you use this
practice? 57.8 54.2 54.3
Junior level Count
secondary 7 255 262
% within Level of education 2 7 97 3 100.0
% within Did you use this
practice? 8.4 1 1.5 1 1.4
Senior level Count 2 213 21 5
secondary
% within Level of education 9 99 1 100 0
% within Did you use this
practice? 2.4 9.6 9.4
Equivalent to Count 4 41 45
college level
% within Level of education 8 9 91 1 100 0
% within Did you use this
practice? 4.8 1.9 2.0
Total Count 83 2209 2292
% within Level of education 3 6 96 4 100 0
% within Did you use this
practice? 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

109

Table Al.2: Classification of Districts by Rainfall Level

 

Annual average rainfall level

Least Lower Higher
District Rainfall Rainfall Rainfall
Chibombo *
Kabwe Urban
Kapiri Mposhi
Mumbwa
Chadiza
Charna
Chipata
Katete
Lundazi
Mambwe
Nyimba
Petauke
Chongwe
Choma
Gwembe
Kalomo
Kazungula
Livingstone
Mazabuka
Monze

 

 

***********COOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO *OO *OO

oo**o*o*o**********

 

"‘ denotes rainfall zone of the respective districts. Some districts have area in more than
one rainfall zone. .
Source: Compilations based on Meteorological Department Data

Table Al.3: Summary Statistics for Quartiles of Labor

 

 

Quartiles of Labor Mean Range Maximum Minimum
1 1.88 1.00 2.00 1.00
2 3.00 .00 3.00 3.00
3 4.00 .00 4.00 4.00
4 6.66 18.00 23.00 5.00

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

110

Table A1.4: Summary Statistics for Quartiles of Land Area Cultivated

 

 

Quartiles of Land
Area Cultivated (Ha) Mean Range Maximum Minimum
1 .32 .34 .40 .06
2 .58 .35 .76 .40
3 .97 .51 1.27 .76
4 2.69 13.73 15.00 1.28

 

Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

Table Al.5: Quartiles of Land Area cultivated * Farm Equipment Crosstabulation

 

Farm equipment

 

 

 

Quartiles No Yes T0131

1 % Within quartiles of land area 88.6 11.4 1000
2 % Within quartiles of land area 79.1 20.9 100.0
3 % Within quartiles of land area 69.4 30.6 100.0
4 % Within quartiles of land area 35.8 64.2 1000
Total % Within quartiles of land area 68.2 31.8 100.0

 

x2 = 2766.88; P = 0.000
Source: Post Harvest Survey 1999/2000 and Supplemental Survey 1999/2000

Ill

Appendix 2: Abandonment of Practices
Procedure Used to Compute Abandonment of Practices

The computations for abandonment of practices were made as follows:

2 Pr act99ik — Z Pr actOOl.

Z Pr act99ik

k

 

Where,
Pr act99ik = 1 if individual i, used a specific practice in 1999/2000, otherwise 0

Pr act00ik = 1 if individual 1', again used a specific practice in 2000/2001, otherwise 0

k = specific type of practice used by an individual farmer.

The simplified meaning of the expression above is: (Total number of individuals that
only implemented practice, k in 1999/2000 + Total number of individuals that
implemented practice, k in 1999/2000).

The above expression gives a proportion of farmers that did not continue with the same
practice the following year. For instance mixing of two crops or more in one field is
calculated as:

532 - 484 = 48
532 532

=9%

 

Total number of individuals that used mixed cropping in 1999/2000 = 532
Total number of individuals that again used mixed cropping in 2000/2001 = 484

Number of individuals that abandoned the practice of mixed cropping the following year
= 532 — 484 = 48.

112

REFERENCES

Baidu-Forson, J. (1999). "Factors influencing adoption of land-enhancing technology in
the Sahel: lessons from a case study in Niger." Agriculturaficonomics 20: 231 -
239.

Banda, F. A. (2002). Zambia Agrometeorological Bulletin; Issue No. 09. Lusaka,
Zambia, Meterological Department.

Barlowe, R. (1978). Land Resource Economics, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bebbington, A. (1999). "Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant
Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty." World Development 27(12): 2021-
2044.

Bekele, W. (2003). Theory and Empirical Application to Subsistence
Farming in the Eastern Ethiopian Highlands. PhD dissertation, Department of
Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.

Borooah, V. K. (2001). Logit and Probit: Ordered and Multinomial Models. New Delhi,
Sara Miller McCune, SAGE Publications.

BOZ (2003). Zambia Agricultural Investment Promotion Conference. Lusaka, Bank of
Zambia, CDC Capital Partners.

Chelemu, K. and P. Nindi (1999). Conservation Tillage for Soil and Water Conservation
Using Draft Power in Zambia. Meeting the Challenges of Animal Traction. A
Resource Book of the Animal Taction Network for Easterflnd Southern Africa.
P. Starkey and P. Kaumbutho. London, Intermediate Technology Publications.

CIMMYT (1993). I_h(e Adoption of Agg'cultural Technology: A Guide for Survey
Desiga. Mexico, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.

Clay, D. C., V. Kelly, B. Mpyisi and T. Reardon (2002). Input Use and Soil Conservation
Investments among Farm Households in Rwanda: Patterns and Determinants.

Natural Resources Management in African Agriculture. C. B. Barrett, F. Place
and A. A. Aboud. New York, NY, CABI International.

Clearfield, F. and T. B. Osgood (1986). Socilogical Aspects of the Adoption of
Conservation Practices. Washington D C, Soil Conservation Service.

Ellison, G. and D. Fudenberg (1993). "The Rules of Thumb of Social Learning." Journal
of Political Economy 101(4): 612-643.

113

Ervin, C. A. and D. E. Ervin (1982). "F actors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation
Practices: Hypotheses, evidence and Policy Implications." Land Economics 58:
277-292.

FAO (2001). The Economics of Conservation Agriculture. Rome, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.

FAO (2001). Economics of Soil Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rome, Food and
Agriculutre Origanization of the United Nations.

Feder, G., R. E. Just and D. Zilberrnan (1985). "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in
Developing Countries: A Survey." Economic DevelopmeMnd Culttgal Change
33: 255-298.

Feder, G., T. Onchan, Y. Chalamwong and C. Hongladarom (1988). Land Policies and
F_ arm Productivity in Thailand. Baltimore, MD, Johns Hpopkins University Press.

Fernandez-Comejo, J., C. Alexander and R. E. Goodhue (2002). "Dynamic Diffusion
with Disadoption: The Case of Crop Biotechnology in the USA." Agricultural and
Resource Economics Review 31: 112-126.

Field, B. C. (2001). Natural Resource Economics - An Introduction. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.

Gebremedhin, B. and S. M. Swinton (2003). "The Role of Land Tenure Security and
Public Programs." Agricultugll Economics 29: 69-84.

Gladwin, C. H., J. S. Peterson, D. Phiri and R. Uttaro (2002). Agroforestry Adoption
Decisions, Adjustment and Gender in Zambia. Natural Resources Management in
Afiican Agriculture. C. B. Barrett, F. Place and A. A. Aboud. New York, NY,
CABI International.

Greene, H. W. (2003). Econometric Afllvsis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Haggblade, S. and G. Tembo (2003 a). Conservation Farming in Zambia. Lusaka, IFPRI
and FSRP - MSU.

Haggblade, S. and G. Tembo (2003 b). Development, Diffusion and Impact of
Conservation Farming in Zambia. Lusaka, IFPRI and FSRP - MSU.

Haggblade, S., G. Tembo and C. Donovan (2004). Household Level Financial Incentives
to Adoption of Conservation Agricultural Technologies in Africa. East Lansing,
Michigan State University (FSRP).

Holden, S. T. and B. Shiferaw (1999). Incentives for Sustainable Land Management in
Peasant Agriculture in Ethiopian Highlands. Incentives in Soil Conservation:

114

From Theory to Practice. D. W. Sanders, P. C. Huszar, S. Sombatpanit and T.
Enters. Enfield, New Hampshire, Science Publishers Inc.

Huszar, P. C. (1999). Justification for Using Soil Conservation Incentives. Incentives in
Soil Conseflation: From Theory to Practice. D. W. Sanders, P. C. Huszar, S.
Sombatpanit and T. Enters. Enfield, New Hampshire, Science Publishers Inc.

 

Jalloh, A. (2001). Promoting Appropriate Intercropping Technologies for Sustainable
Agricultural Production in Africa: a farmer centered approach. Freetown, Siera
Leone, Institute of Agricultural Research.

Kerr, J ., G. Pangare, L. V. Pangare and P. J. George (1999). Effect of Watershed Project
Subsidies on Soil and Water Conservation Investments in India's Semi-arid
Tropics. Incentives in Soil Conflgation: From Theory to Prgtice. D. W.
Sanders, P. C. Huszar, S. Sombatpanit and T. Enters. Enfield, New Hampshire,
Science Publishers Inc.

Keyser, J. and M. H. Mwanza (1996). Conservation Tillage. Lusaka, Zambia, The
Institute of Afiican Studies, University of Zambia.

Knepper, E. T. (2002). Factors Affecting the Use of Fertilizer by Small and Medium-
Sized Farming Households in Zambia, 1997 to 2000. Masters' Thesis, Department
of Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University: 109.

Knox, A., R. Meinzen-Dick and P. Hazell (1998). Property Rights, Collective Action and
Technologies For Natural Resource Management. Washington, DC, IFPRI.

Kwesiga, F ., S. Franzel, P. Mafongoya, O. Ajayi, D. K. Phiri, E. Rosa , K. kantashula, F.
Place and T. Chirwa (2003). Improved Fallows in Eastern Zambia: History,
Farmer Practice and Impacts. Pretoria, IFPRI, NEPAD, CTA.

MACO and ORGUT (2003). Land Management and Conservation Farming: 1999-2002
Completion Report. Lusaka, Zambia, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives,
Field Services Department.

Malesu, M. and K. Luputa (1999). Impact Assessment Study of SCAFE Activities in
Eastern Province. Lusaka, Zambia, Land Management and Conservation Farming
SCAFE Project.

Malla, Y. B. (1999). Tree Management and Household Strategies in a Changing Rural
Economy: Beyond the Use of Direct Incentives. Incentives in Soil Conservation:
From Theory to Practice. D. W. Sanders, P. C. Huszar, S. Sombatpanit and T.
Enters. Enfield, New Hampshire, Science Publishers Inc.

115

Manyong, V., V. Houndekon, P. Sanginga, P. Vissoh and A. Honlonkou (1999). Macuna
Fallow Diffusion in Southern Benin. Ibadan, International Institute of Tropical
Agiculture.

Marra, M. C., B. J. Hubbell and G. A. Carlson (2001). "Information Quality, Technology
Depreciation, and Bt Cotton Adoption in the South East." Journal of Agricultural
and Resource Economics 26(1): 158-175.

McConnell, K. E. (1983). "An Economic Model of Soil Conservation." American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 65(1): 83-89.

Mukherjee, C., H. White and M. Wuyts (1998). Econometricsfi and Data Analysis for
Developing Countries. London; New York, Routledge.

Mulenga, N. (2003). Conservation Farming in Zambia. Lusaka, Technical Services
Branch, MACO.

Nibbering, J. W. (1999). Land Use Change in Upland Java: Incentives and Opportunities.
Incentives in Soil Conservation: From Theory to Practice. D. W. Sanders, P. C.
Huszar, S. Sombatpanit and T. Enters. Enfield, New Hampshire, Science
Publishers Inc.

Norris, P. E. and S. E. Batie (1987). "Virginia F armers' Soil Conservation Decisions: An
Application of Tobit Analysis." Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics
19(1): 79-80.

Pagiola, S. (1999). Economic Analysis of Incentives of Soil Conservation. Incentives in
Soil Cwefiation: From Theory to Practice. D. W. Sanders, P. C. Huszar, S.
Sombatpanit and T. Enters. Enfield, New Hampshire, Science Publishers Inc.

Place, F ., S. Franzel, J. Dewolf, R. Rommelse, F. Kwesiga, A. Niang and b. Jama (2002).
Agroforestry for Soil Fertility Replenshment: Evidence on Adoption Processes in

Kenya and Zambia. Natural Resources Management in African Agg'culture. C. B.
Barrett, F. Place and A. A. Aboud. New York, NY, CABI International.

Platteau, J .-P. (1996). "The Evolutionary Theory of Land Rights: A Critical Assessment."
Development and Change 27 : 29-49, 72-77.

Rajasekharan, P. and S. Veeraputhran (2002). "Adoption of intercropping in rubber
smallholdings in Kerala, India: a tobit analysis." Agroforestry Systems 56(1): 1-
11.

Reardon, T. and S. A. Vosti (1995). "Links Between Rural Poverty and the Environment

in Developing Countries: Asset Categories and Investment Poverty." World
Development 23( 9): 1495-1506.

116

 

Reardon, T. and S. A. Vosti (1997 a). Policy Analysis of Conservation Investments:
Extension of Traditional Technology Adoption Research. Sustainability. Growth.
and Poverty Alleviation. T. Reardon and S. A. Vosti. Baltimore, The Johns
Hopkins University Press.

Reardon, T. and S. A. Vosti (1997 b). Poverty-Environment Links in Rural Areas of
Developing Countries. Sustainability. Growth. and Poverty Alleviation. T.
Reardon and S. A. Vosti. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Saasa, O. S. (2003). Macro Study - Agricultural Intensification in Zambia: The Role of
Policies and Policy Processes. Lusaka, Zambia, Institute of Economic and Social
Research, University of Zambia.

Sadoulet, E. and A. de Janvry (1995). Quantitative Development Policy Ahab/sis.
Baltimore, Maryland, The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Sanders, D. W. and D. Cahill (1999). Where Incentives Fit in Conservation Programs.
Incentives in Soil Conservation: From Theog to Practice. D. W. Sanders, P. C.
Huszar, S. Sombatpanit and T. Enters. Enfield, New Hampshire, Science
Publishers Inc.

Sayre, K. D., M. Mezzalarna and M. Martinez (2001). Tillage, Crop Rotation and Crop
Residue Management Effects on Maize and Wheat Production for Rainfed
Conditions in the Altiplano of Central Mexico. Mexico, CIMMYT.

Scherr, S. J. (2000). "A downward spiral? Research evidence on the relationship between
poverty and natural resource degradation." Food Policy 25 (200).

Shaw, A. B. (1985). "Constraints on Agricultural Innovation Adoption." Economic
Geoggaphy 61(1): 25-45.

Shiferaw, B. and S. T. Holden (2000). "Policy Instruments for Sustainable Land
Management: the case of highland smallholders in Ethiopia." Agg'cultural
Economics(22): 217-232.

Siachinji-Musiwa, J. M. (1999). Conservation Tillage in Zambia: Some technologies,
indigeneous methods and environmental issues. Meeting the Challenges of
Animal Traction. A Resource Book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern
and Southern Africa. P. Starkey and P. Kaumbutho. London, Intermediate
Technology Publications.

Swinton, S. M. and R. Quiroz (2003). "Is Poverty to Blame for Soil, Pasture and Forest
Degradation in the Peru's Altiplano." World Development 31(1 1): 1903-1919.

117

vainton, S. M. and R. Quiroz (2003). "Poverty and the Deterioration of Natural Soil

Capital in the Peruvian Altiplano." Environment, Development and Sustainabilig
5: 477-490.

Thangata, P. H., P. E. Hilderbrad and C. H. Gladwin (2002). Modelling Agroforestry
Adoption and Household Decision Making in Malawi, African Studies Quarterly -
The Online Journal for African Studies. 2004.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2001). Econometric AMIVSIS of Cross Section Data and Panel Data,
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

118

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

II[mu][[11111]]1116111