1) Conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe was largely introduced through NGO programs that provided inputs and technical support, but adoption has declined with the reduction in free inputs. 2) Survey results show that conservation agriculture can provide higher maize yields compared to non-conservation agriculture methods. However, labor requirements are higher for conservation agriculture. 3) Barriers to adoption include labor needs, lack of continued support after NGOs leave, lack of fenced plots, and high weed pressure. Addressing these challenges is key to promoting wider adoption of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe.

1. Conservation Agriculture Adoption
Challenges in Zimbabwe
Kizito Mazvimavi, Putso Nyathi and Conrad Murendo
ICRISAT
Presentation to the WCCA ,26 September 2011

2. Conservation Agriculture in Zimbabwe
 Largely introduced through relief programs
 NGOs provided inputs and technical support
Basins technique
Targeted the vulnerable

3. ICRISAT CA Panel Surveys, 2007 - 2011
Study Sample:
• 15 Districts
• 450 Households
• Soil sample analysis

4. Maize Yield for CA and Non-CA in
2010/11 Cropping Season
CA yield NON CA yield
3000
2500
Maize Yield in Kg/Ha
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Nyanga
Murehwa
Bindura
Makonde
Chivi
Chirumhanzu
Binga
Hwange
Chipinge
Hurungwe
Masvingo
Guruve
Nkayi
Insiza
Mangwe
Zaka
Seke
Kadoma
Gokwe South
Mt Darwin
•CA remains a promising technology that enables smallholder
farmers to get better yields  improve food security

5. Components of CA techniques being
Practiced, 2006 - 2011 (%)
2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
Winter weeding 87 76 71 63 46 13.8
Application of Mulch 75 69 70 56 30 19.8
Digging Planting Basin 99 99 97 89 86 70.6
Application of manure 88 89 87 80 68 63.0
Application of basal fertilizer 75 74 66 38 42 41.3
Application of top dressing 92 92 88 70 60 55.1
fertilizer
Timely weeding 98 99 96 85 54 55.4
Crop rotation 13 13 18 19 30 35.8
•Winter weeding – in 2010/11 enumerators made visual assessment of CA plots in May/June:
Only 14% had weed free plots

6. Changes in area under CA
End of most free seed
8000
and fertilizer support
7000
6000
5000
sq. meters
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11
NR II NR III NR IV NR V

7. Reason for not practicing CA
45
40
35
30
% of respondents
25
20
15
10
5
0
Labor intensive NGO left To rotate crops Plot not fenced Water logging High weed
pressure

8. Influence of NGO support on CA plot area
No access Access to NGO support
6000
5000
CA Plot Area m2
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11

9. Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CT)
(Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)
30
25
CF Plot Non-CF Plot
20
Days/Ha
15
10
5
0
Digging Basins Planting First Weeding Second Weeding Third (+) Manure Basal Fertilizer Top dressing Harvesting
Weeding Application Application

10. Labor Requirements for CA and Non-CA Plots (CD Tillage)
(Mean Area; CA=0. 4ha, Non-CA=0. 3ha)
30
Mechanize
(Rippers, Jab- Apply Herbicides
planters)? (Training and Costs?)
25
CF Plot Non-CF Plot
20
Days/Ha
15
10
5
0
Digging Basins Planting First Weeding Second Weeding Third (+) Manure Basal Fertilizer Top dressing Harvesting
Weeding Application Application

11. Targeting farmers in CA promotion
• Is CA the best option for women famers, the
elderly and households affected by HIV/AIDS
• Can vulnerable farmers (Poorer and HIV/AIDS)
maximize input and technology support provided
to CA beneficiaries?
– NGO targeting of vulnerable households impact
negatively on labor availability for CA practices
– Need to include better resourced farmers as
technology innovators,
• These are able to take a risk with new technology

12. % of respondents
10
20
30
40
50
0
Left in field for
livestock
Stored for
livestock feed
Kraal manure
Mulching
Construction
Left in plot
- Crop Residue Uses
Mulching Challenges:
- the need to meet multiple uses
Compost
Others (e.g.
Thatching)

13. Dealing with Crop-Livestock Interactions
• Communal grazing by-laws
commonly demand the use of
crop residues as livestock feed,
• CA plots are usually unfenced
• Difficult for CA farmers to reserve
residues for mulching purposes.
• Identification of fodder alternatives for livestock feed
• Use of non-crop residue materials as mulching material
• Ammend community by-laws to keep livestock away from fields

14. Harmonized Approaches to CA Promotion
• CA promoters have different approaches to entice
potential technology adopters
• CA promotion need full participation of national
extension agencies
Basin Size % Soil Cover

15. The role of markets
Rather than direct distribution of free seed and fertilizer to CA
farmers, use market friendly mechanisms
•Promote platforms for farmers to sell their produce
•Accumulate income to purchase inputs (Herbicides, mechanization implements)

16. Conclusion
• Farmers still appreciate the benefits of CA
technology
• There is potential to increase CA plot sizes (area)
through mechanization
• Consistent extension support/training is critical
for farmers to continue with the CA practice.
―Close participation of AGRITEX, to ensure
sustainability
• Address the issue of Mechanized CA Equipment
Access (availability in market).
• The government to now play a more leading role
in CA technology transfer