Climate change is a major threat to the livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Southern Africa, who depend largely on rainfed agriculture for food and income. The region is experiencing more frequent and severe droughts, floods, heat waves, and variable rainfall patterns, which affect the productivity and profitability of crops and livestock. To cope with these challenges, farmers need to adopt climate-smart agriculture (CSA) innovations that can enhance their resilience and adaptation capacity.
CSA innovations are practices and technologies that aim to achieve three objectives: increase agricultural productivity and income; reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase carbon sequestration; and improve the ability of farmers to adapt to climate variability and change. Some examples of CSA innovations are conservation agriculture (CA), drought tolerant maize (DTM), improved legume varieties (ILV), agroforestry, irrigation, crop diversification, soil and water conservation, and index-based insurance.
However, adopting one CSA innovation may not be enough to achieve the desired outcomes, especially in the face of multiple and interacting stressors. Therefore, farmers may benefit more from adopting multiple CSA innovations that can complement each other and provide synergies. For instance, combining CA with DTM and ILV can improve soil health, water retention, crop yield, nitrogen fixation, pest and disease resistance, and income diversification.
A recent study by Makate et al. (2019) investigated the factors influencing individual and multiple adoptions of CSA innovations and their impacts on productivity and income among smallholder farmers in Malawi and Zimbabwe¹. The study used data from 1172 households that participated in a survey conducted by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in 2016. The study employed multinomial logistic regression to analyze the determinants of adoption and regression adjustment with inverse probability weighting to estimate the impacts of adoption.
Factors influencing individual and multiple adoptions of CSA innovations
The study found that access to key resources such as credit, income, and information was positively associated with multiple adoptions of CSA innovations. Farmers who had access to credit were more likely to adopt CA, DTM, and ILV together than those who did not have access to credit. Similarly, farmers who had higher income levels were more likely to adopt CA and DTM together than those who had lower income levels. Farmers who had access to information through extension services or radio were more likely to adopt CA and ILV together than those who did not have access to information.
The study also found that education level and land size were positively associated with multiple adoptions of CSA innovations. Farmers who had higher education levels were more likely to adopt CA, DTM, and ILV together than those who had lower education levels. Farmers who owned larger land sizes were more likely to adopt CA and DTM together than those who owned smaller land sizes.
The study further found that gender and geographic location were important factors influencing individual and multiple adoptions of CSA innovations. Female-headed households were less likely to adopt CA alone or in combination with other innovations than male-headed households. This could be due to gender disparities in access to resources, information, decision-making power, and labor availability. Households located in Malawi were more likely to adopt CA alone or in combination with other innovations than households located in Zimbabwe. This could be due to the differences in policy support, institutional arrangements, and agro-ecological conditions between the two countries.
Impacts of individual and multiple adoptions of CSA innovations on productivity and income
The study found that multiple adoptions of CSA innovations had greater impacts on productivity and income than individual adoption. Specifically, the study found that:
- Adopting CA alone increased maize yield by 0.5 t/ha and maize income by US$ 100/ha compared to non-adoption.
- Adopting DTM alone increased maize yield by 0.7 t/ha and maize income by US$ 140/ha compared to non-adoption.
- Adopting ILV alone increased legume yield by 0.3 t/ha and legume income by US$ 60/ha compared to non-adoption.
- Adopting CA and DTM together increased maize yield by 1 t/ha and maize income by US$ 200/ha compared to non-adoption.
- Adopting CA and ILV together increased legume yield by 0.6 t/ha and legume income by US$ 120/ha compared to non-adoption.
- Adopting CA, DTM and ILV together increased maize yield by 1.5 t/ha and maize income by US$ 300/ha compared to non-adoption.
The study also found that there were disparities in the impacts of multiple adoptions of CSA innovations by gender and geographic location. Female-headed households benefited more from adopting CA alone or in combination with other innovations than male-headed households. This could be due to the higher labor intensity of CA practices such as mulching, weeding, and intercropping, which could favor female farmers who have less access to mechanization and hired labor. Households located in Malawi benefited more from adopting CA alone or in combination with other innovations than households located in Zimbabwe. This could be due to the higher rainfall variability and drought frequency in Zimbabwe, which could reduce the effectiveness of CA practices such as minimum tillage, crop rotation, and residue retention.
The study also found that there were disparities in the impacts of multiple adoptions of CSA innovations by gender and geographic location. Female-headed households benefited more from adopting CA alone or in combination with other innovations than male-headed households. This could be due to the higher labor intensity of CA practices such as mulching, weeding, and intercropping, which could favor female farmers who have less access to mechanization and hired labor.
Households located in Malawi benefited more from adopting CA alone or in combination with other innovations than households located in Zimbabwe. This could be due to the higher rainfall variability and drought frequency in Zimbabwe, which could reduce the effectiveness of CA practices such as minimum tillage, crop rotation, and residue retention.
Conclusion
The study by Makate et al. (2019) provides valuable insights into the factors influencing individual and multiple adoptions of CSA innovations and their impacts on productivity and income among smallholder farmers in Southern Africa. The study shows that multiple adoptions of proven CSA innovations such as CA, DTM, and ILV can increase the resilience of farmers to climate change and improve their livelihoods. However, there are still barriers and challenges that hinder the widespread adoption of these innovations, such as lack of access to resources, information, markets, inputs, policies, and institutions.
Therefore, there is a need for concerted efforts from various stakeholders, such as governments, researchers, extension agents, NGOs, the private sector, and farmers themselves, to overcome these barriers and promote the scaling up and scaling out of these innovations.
