Abstract
This study explores adaptation and farmer-led agricultural innovation strategies of smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe. Guided by explanatory sequential mixed methods design, 201 smallholder farmers were selected through multistage probability sampling technique and 18 participants were purposively selected. The instruments for the study included questionnaire and interview, which were analysed through basic descriptive and thematic analysis, respectively. The results show that smallholder farmers have adapted to climate change through multiple strategies including planting improved and drought resistant crops, cultivating fewer plots, mixed cropping, keeping more livestock, applying agrochemicals and local ecological knowledge as well as livelihood diversification, which are influenced by gender, education and farm size of respondents. The respondents have diversified their livelihood by engaging in brick moulding, sales of livestock, petty trade and dependence on remittance and social safety net as well as reduction in size and number of diets. The study identified financial, technological, social, institutional and information barriers to farmers’ adaptation. Farmer-led innovations identified by this study included planting Kanongo open pollinated variety of maize, pen fattening, over mulching, cassava cultivation and staggered planting. The implications of the results are teased out and policy recommendations are suggested.
In Africa, the African common position on climate change specifically prioritises adaptation as an important response to climate change (Vanheukelom 2016), to alleviate climate change impact on agriculture, which is the backbone of African economies. Agriculture is the major contributor to gross domestic products and foreign exchange in Africa as well as an important source of employment (AGRA 2014). Governments across the continent have therefore, formulated national adaptation policies (NAPs) to address the challenges exerted by climate change on socioeconomic development. While NAPs provide a comprehensive framework for climate change response in Africa (Vanheukelom 2016), agriculture is particularly emphasised as the hardest hit sector, which requires urgent, sustainable and innovative response to ameliorate livelihood and food security, especially among smallholder farmers, who constitute about 80% of the agricultural labour force in Africa (FAO 2012), and are equally highly vulnerable to climate change (AGRA 2018).
Smallholder farmers adapt to climate change by modifying or adjusting their livelihood systems and strategies, to reduce the adverse impact of current and future climate change and exploit opportunities (Fleurbaey et al. 2014; IPCC 2007). Previous studies show that smallholder farmers in Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia and other African countries apply agrochemicals, in addition to changing planting dates, application of improved crop varieties, and use of drought resistant and early maturing crops, to reduce the adverse impact of rising temperature, erratic rainfall and the associated shocks on agriculture, thereby increasing crop yields and income (Aniah, Kaunza-Nu-Dem, and Ayembilla 2019; Asare-Nuamah, Botchway, and Onumah 2019; Tessema, Joerin, and Patt 2018; Bryan et al. 2013). These strategies are consistent with farmers’ adaptation to climate change in India, Nepal and Pakistan (Abid et al. 2015; Ali and Erenstein 2017; Khanal et al. 2018; Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad 2016). Smallholder farmers in Africa, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions practice irrigation farming as response to changing climate (Sultan and Gaetani 2016; Udmale et al. 2014).
Climate change impact on household food security and livelihood has also triggered short-term coping strategies among African smallholder farm households. For instance, smallholder farmers in Mali and Ghana diversify their livelihood by engaging in alternative sources of income such a petty trade, sales of processed and unprocessed forest products including fuelwood (Acquah, Nunoo, and Darfor 2015; Kumasi, Antwi-Agyei, and Obiri-Danso 2019; Sanogo, Sanogo, and Ba 2016). Sale of livestock, agricultural labour and migration have been documented in the literature as livelihood diversification strategies among African rural households (Ellis 2000; Ellis and Freeman 2005; Scoones 2009). The literature further shows that many poor and subsistence households reduce the number and size of meals as well as change staple food consumption, due to climate change impact on household food security (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018; Juana, Kahaka, and Okurut 2013). Reliance on communal support and social network, especially in rural communities, has been reported to help smallholder farmers to reduce the adverse climate change impact on household income, food security and livelihood in the short term (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018).
Indeed socioeconomic characteristics of smallholder farmers and the policy environment within which they find themselves influence their response to climate change. For instance, education, household size, gender, access to climate change information and income positively shape smallholder farmers’ adaptation (Kumasi, Antwi-Agyei, and Obiri-Danso 2019; Phuong et al. 2018; Tessema, Joerin, and Patt 2018). Existing studies have also documented the role of ecological and indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation in African and elsewhere (Asare-Nuamah 2020; Hirons et al. 2018; Ahmed, Hu, and Kumar 2016). Nevertheless, farmers’ adaptation to climate change is constrained by technological, informational, financial, sociocultural and institutional challenges (Antwi-Agyei, Dougill, and Stringer 2014).
Besides climate change adaptation, Critchley (2007) argues that smallholder farmers, have, for a very long time, being experimenting new ideas and practices, to enhance agricultural production and reduce environmental shocks and stresses that affect their agricultural activities. Implicitly, farmers’ local knowledge of the environment, including norms and values, play a dominant role in their attempt to innovate their agricultural system and adapt to climate change, by prompting self-induced and biocultural adaptation strategies (Gyampoh et al. 2009; Hirons et al. 2018). Without doubt, smallholder farmers are in constant search for new innovations to tackle their environmental challenges, and hence play a critical role in championing climate change adaptation and local innovation system (IPCC 2014). Nevertheless, farmers’ innovation and adaptation strategies to climate change are also triggered by external actors and institutions such as agriculture extension agents, governments and non-governmental organisation, among others (Asare-Nuamah, Botchway, and Onumah 2019; Christoplos et al. 2009; Yaro, Teye, and Bawakyillenuo 2014). This corroborates the notion by Rogers (2003) that opinion leaders and agents of change contribute immensely to the spread of innovation in a society. According to Rogers (2003) and Scerri (2016), the literature on innovation has focused extensively on technological innovations, with less attention on non-technological innovations, particularly, those of smallholder farmers, which this study seeks to examine, using Mbire District of Zimbabwe as the case study.
Adaptation and Agricultural Innovation Efforts in Zimbabwe
Like many parts of Africa, erratic rainfall, prolong and persistent droughts, floods, pests and diseases pose serious risk to agricultural activities of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe (Fisher and Carr 2015; Masih et al. 2014). According to Masih et al. (2014), Zimbabwe has recorded more than six drought episodes between 1900 and 2013, leading to a significant reduction in crop yields, especially maize (Fisher et al. 2015), which highlights the extent of exposure and sensitivity of Zimbabwe’s agriculture system to climate change. This is problematic, as agriculture contributes over 19% and 40% to GDP and foreign earnings, respectively, in Zimbabwe, an economy with over 67% rural-based population, who predominantly practice smallholder agriculture (FAO 2020). Implicitly, climate change has a great tendency to disrupt and hamper economic growth and development in Zimbabwe, while crippling rural livelihood and worsening poverty and food insecurity. Consequently, climate change has triggered the adoption of climate smart agricultural adaptation and innovation strategies among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018; Masih et al. 2014).
Guided by the NAPs in Zimbabwe, state support for climate change adaptation seeks to promote cleaner and sustainable agricultural practices and production, with a spillover in yields, income and food security. Nevertheless, in consonance with Sarpong and Anyidoho (2012), national policies more often than not, do not align with local realities. For instance, poverty among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe constrain the adoption of sustainable and climate smart agricultural practices. In addition, national adaptation strategies and policies do not prioritise the different ecological context of smallholder farmers (Simelton et al. 2013). Chazovachii, Chigwenya, and Mushuku (2012) particularly noted that maize crop commercialisation in Zimbabwe compelled smallholder farmers in the Munyaradzi communal area in the Gutu District to engage in maize farming, even though their ecological conditions are unfavourable for maize, thereby reducing yields and increasing household food shortage. Similarly, Matarira, Makadho, and Mukahanana-Sangarwe (2004) lament that despite the government’s commercialisation of maize, the Masvingo Province, a popular maize growing area in Zimbabwe, is likely to become unfavourable to maize crop, due to climate change. However, Nyahunda and Tirivangasi (2019) posit that sorghum and millet, which are drought tolerant and hence good alternative to maize crop, have not received the needed government attention and funding for commercial production.
It is, however, important to note that despite the financial burden that comes with the adoption of climate smart agricultural innovation among poor households (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018), it enables smallholder farmers to increase crop yields and conserve the environment (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018; Turner et al. 2017). As argued by Fisher et al. (2015) and Makate et al. (2017), drought tolerant maize adoption has improved agricultural production and enhanced food security and income in Zimbabwe. To corroborate this, a study by Lunduka et al. (2017) shows that drought tolerant maize adoption among smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe, increases their income from maize by US$240, for every hectare of land.
Besides the adoption of drought tolerant maize innovation in Zimbabwe, conservation agricultural innovation has also gained the attention of smallholder farmers (Makate, Makate, and Mango 2017; Makate et al. 2017). Characterised by crop rotations and minimal soil disturbance as well as the protection of soil surface as a soil cover, conservation agriculture has been reported to be beneficial to agricultural households and the environment (Mango, Siziba, and Makate 2017). For instance, conservation agriculture contributes essentially to increasing agricultural production, food security, income generation and improving climate resilience of smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe (Fisher et al. 2015; Makate et al. 2017; Mango, Siziba, and Makate 2017).
Recognising the growing body of literature on innovative strategies employed by farmers to counter climate shocks and stressors in Zimbabwe (Makate et al. 2017; Mango, Siziba, and Makate 2017), majority of the studies have focused extensively on externally driven innovations, without exploring farmer-led innovations emerging from smallholder farmers. For instance, the adoption of drought tolerant maize in Zimbabwe was implemented by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (Lybbert and Carter 2015). This study therefore examines the adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe, and explores farmer-led agricultural innovation to climate change. To this end, the study answers the research question: which adaptation and farmer-led innovation strategies are employed by smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe?
Methods
Study Design and Setting
The study adopted explanatory sequential mixed method design, which allowed the initial collection of quantitative data, followed by qualitative data collection. The choice of explanatory sequential mixed method design was guided by the assumption that quantitative data will provide an initial or general idea of the adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers, which will serve as the basis for an in-depth qualitative data collection on farmer-led innovations. According to Creswell (2014) the explanatory sequential mixed method design is useful and appropriate when the researcher wants to have in-depth information or explanation from the initial quantitative data. The selected approach therefore guided the type of question to be asked and the respondents to be selected, based on the results from the quantitative data.
The study was conducted in the rural Mbire District of Zimbabwe. Mbire is located in Mashonaland Central region in the lower Zambezi valley area of Zimbabwe and shares border with Zambia and Mozambique to the North and East of Zimbabwe, respectively (see Figure 1). The district is situated in the arid region and the III and IV agro-ecological zones 1 and hence receives a mean rainfall of 450–650mm per annum, which is far below the national average of 550–900 mm per annum. Mbire also experiences very high temperatures with winter and summer temperature averaging 15oC and over 30oC, respectively (World Food Programme 2016). In addition to low rainfall and extreme temperature, the district observes floods, partly due to its location in the Zambezi valley.
Map of Zimbabwe (top left) Demarcating Mashonaland Central Region (top right) and Mbire District.
Crop production in the district is fairly low, due to unfavourable climatic conditions (Bola et al. 2014). Cotton production in addition to maize, forms an integral part of the agricultural system in the district. Livestock production, particularly goat, is also well adaptable to the region because of the sweetveld, although there are several diseases due to the presence of wildlife in the district. Unlike other districts in Zimbabwe, where farmers practice both commercial and subsistence farming, communal or subsistence farming is the most dominant farming system in Mbire District. It is indicative that Mbire District is highly vulnerable to climate change, and hence a good case study to examine adaptation and farmer-led innovations to climate change.
Sample and Sampling Procedure
The respondents for the study comprised 201 smallholder farmers, selected from a farmer household population of 420, and guided by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) statistical table for sample size selection. The farmer household population was obtained from the registers of ward extension officers, which served as the sampling frame. For agricultural extension purposes, farming communities in Zimbabwe are divided into wards, and Mbire has 17 wards. The selection of farmer households was guided by the definition of household given by ZimVAC (2017) as a ‘family cooking and staying together for a period of three months or more whilst their main livelihood activity is farming’. On the basis of this definition and with the assistance of ward extension officers, 420 farmer households were identified and 201 households were selected.
A multistage sampling technique that included simple random and systematic sampling techniques, was employed in the selection of respondents for the quantitative phase of the study. Four wards were randomly selected. Except one ward where 51 farmer households were selected, 50 farmer households were selected from each of the wards. The selection of farmer households in all the wards was guided by systematic sampling technique, where the researchers randomly chose the third household as a starting point, from the household register. From the starting point, the next second household was selected. This process was repeated until a sampling size of 50 households were selected from each ward.
As an explanatory sequential mixed methods study, the results from the quantitative data served as the basis for the selection of participants for the qualitative phases. Results from quantitative data revealed that 42 (20.9%) households apply farmer-led innovations as response to climate change. The study used Critchley’s farmer innovator checklist (see Critchley 2007) and identified five farmer-led innovations. Farmers who have been using these innovations over the past five years were purposively selected for in-depth interviews. This resulted in the selection of 18 farmers. Farmer-led innovation was defined as ‘the development of systems that are new in local terms, by farmers using their own creativity’ (Critchley 2007, 13). It also involves the transfer and/or exchange of new practices within local communities through farmer-to-farmer interactions.
Instruments and Data Collection Procedure
The study used questionnaire survey, which was developed after an extensive review of literature. The questionnaire was divided in four sections. Except the first section, which constituted multiple choice questions, all other sections were made up of binary response (Yes/No) questions. Section A collected information on respondent’s demographic profile. The choice of the variables in the section was guided by previous studies which reported that smallholder farmers’ demographic profile influenced their adaptation decisions (see Kumasi, Antwi-Agyei, and Obiri-Danso 2019; Tessema, Joerin, and Patt 2018). Sections B, C and D collected information on adaptation strategies, coping responses and barriers to adaptation, respectively, which were profiled based on the literature (see Aniah, Kaunza-Nu-Dem, and Ayembilla 2019; Bryan et al. 2009, 2013; Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad 2016). In addition to questionnaire survey, the study used semi-structured interview guide to garner in-depth information on farmer-led innovations. Prior to field data collection, which started from May to September 2018, eight extension officers from the selected wards were recruited and trained to administer questionnaire. The instrument was piloted with 10 smallholder farmers who were excluded from the study. This helped to identify and correct ambiguous questions. The instrument was also perused by two experts, which enhanced its content and face validity.
Face-to-face questionnaire administration was conducted in the homes of respondents. Similarly, face-to-face interviews were also conducted in homes and farms, based on the preference of the participants. All interviews were conducted in the local language and lasted for about 45 min to 1 h. The interviews were tapped recorded, upon consent of the participants. Through transect walks and farm visits, the researchers observed how some of the participants practiced farmer-led innovation. Field notes were also taken to complement the interviews. In addition, a focus group discussion that involved 12 participants and lasted for an hour, was conducted to understand the suitability of the innovations, using Critchley’s indicators, which included technical effectiveness, economic validity, environmental friendliness and social acceptability. The study adhered to ethical principles including informed consent and voluntary participation.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data were analysed through basic descriptive statistics. Cronbach’s alpha test was computed to examine the internal consistency of the data. The computation resulted in Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.79. Pallant (2016) posits that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient >0.7 demonstrates high internal consistency (reliability) of data. To examine the influence of respondent’s demography on adaptation to climate change, chi-square test of independence was computed. The dependent variable in the analysis was whether a respondent has adapted to climate change, while the independent variables included gender, education, marital status and average farm size.
In the case of qualitative data, the researchers listened to the recorded interviews and then transcribed them from the local language to English. The transcripts were shared with the participants to validate their views (Creswell 2014). Afterwards, the transcripts were perused consistently to identify emerging themes and patterns. The study followed Braun and Clarke's (2014) four stages of thematic (manual) analysis, which included: coding, theme identification and organisation as well as interpretation. The researchers paid attention to frequency, differences and similarity of views expressed by the participants in theme identification and organisation. The participant’s views are expressed in verbatim quotes.
Findings
Respondents’ Characteristics
Respondent’s Demography.
Adaptation and Coping Strategies
Adaptation Strategies.
Coping Strategies.
Barriers to Adaptation.
Farmer-led Innovations
This section presents the farmer-led innovations adopted by smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe.
Kanongo Open-pollinated Variety of maize
The use of open pollinated variety (OPV) maize as shown in Figure 2, according to the participants, is new to farmers and began around 2011. A farmer (F4) intimated that, ‘OPV practice is common among farmers in neighboring Mozambique and might have been transferred to Mibire, due to its proximity and farmer-to-farmer exchange’. Another farmer (F17) noted that ‘OPV is not popular among farmers here because the National Marketing Board is reluctant to buy, as it is considered an impure variety of maize’. Consequently, majority of farmers do not engage in planting OPV maize. Nevertheless, farmers who plant OPV maize presume it to be resilient to climate change. According to F6, which was also confirmed by majority of the participants during the focus group discussion, ‘Kanongo, being OPV mixed variety, is resilient to seasonal change in climate’. It emerged during the focus group discussion that Kanongo OPV gives better yields under drought conditions compared to hybrid maize varieties. This confirms the views of F1 that ‘I use both OPV and hybrid such as SC513, Pan 53 and M7, but OPV performs better during drought and when planted along riverbanks compared to the hybrid varieties’. Being a drought tolerant maize variety, OPV promotes food security of farmer households.
Kanongo OPV Maize.
The focus group discussion revealed that OPV is technically effective, as it requires less effort after planting. According to a farmer, ‘OPV is drought tolerant and requires less effort, unlike hybrids that have to be irrigated’ (F18). Kanongo OPV, according to the participants, is economically viable, as it increases yields and enhances household food security. In the case of environmental friendliness of OPV, the participants asserted that though it does not degrade or destroy the environment in anyhow, however, the ability of OPV to contaminate hybrid seeds through cross pollination, was a major concern among the farmers. The participants were ambivalent regarding the social acceptability of Kanongo OPV maize. While some farmers believe that OPV is gradually gaining acceptance among farmers in the district due to its ability to withstand the drought condition, others opine that the reluctance of the National Marketing Board to trade in OPV and its contamination of hybrids, make the innovation unpopular among majority of farmers.
Over Mulching
Over mulching (see Figure 3), as a farmer-led innovation strategy has been with the farmers since 2009. Its origin is traced to the use of basins in combination with the application of improved compost, under the Foundations for Farming training, which ended in 2008. A farmer hinted that:
I was among the farmers who received training under the Foundation for Farming training project. After the project ended in 2008, majority of the trained farmers abandoned the use of basins and compost as they regarded the practice to be labour intensive. However, few of us continued the practice. Based on the knowledge from the use of basins and compost, we began to experiment over mulching on our farms. (F4)
Farmers Show 100% Mulch Cover in Madziwa Communal Lands.
The focus group discussion also revealed that over mulching has cultural or traditional backing. For instance, the farmers indicated that those who practice over mulching are motivated by the belief that mulch is gumbeze raMwari, which means mulch is ‘God’s blanket’ to cover the soil, and conserve moisture in the face of climate change. Although extension officers recommend mulching of up to 30% to farmers, it was revealed that farmers who practice over mulching experiment up to 100% mulch cover, which far exceeds the normal practice recommended. A participant explained that ‘we apply about 100% mulch cover to increase crop’s resilience to moisture stress’ (F7). Another participant intimated that ‘over mulching is essential as crops temporarily wilt during severe dry spells whilst conventional field plots are permanently wilting’ (F16).
The focus group discussion revealed that upon the application of mulch with a height of up to 30 cm, crops became resilient to moisture stress. The majority of the participants noted that over mulching requires the transfer of mulch from grasslands by tractors, which increases their agricultural expenditure. Lack of access to tractors make the practice technically ineffective to farmers. Nevertheless, others reported that they substitute the use of tractors with hired and family labour. In addition, over mulching makes it difficult to locate the exact spot of planting basin during land preparation. Economically, over mulching has proven to be viable as it increases crop yields, resulting in an increase in household income from agriculture. For instance, a farmer (F10) hinted that ‘l harvested 3 tonnes of maize on half a hectare because I over mulched’.
Although mulch serves as a soil cover, which promotes soil conservation and reduces erosion, the collection of mulch from grassland increases environmental degradation and soil erosion in grassland areas. The participants were ambivalent with respect to social acceptability of over mulching. A participant hinted that
over mulching is socially acceptable compared to other conservation agricultural practice where farmers fence their farms, thereby restricting the free movement of livestock in the community. This practice creates tension between crop and livestock farmers and hence affects social stability, as conservation agricultural farmers are perceived by the community to be selfish. However, over mulching is practiced on open fields and hence does not restrict livestock movement nor create social tension. (F11)
Nevertheless, another farmer reacted that ‘over mulching affects livestock keeping, as it reduces the availability of grass for livestock, particularly in grassland regions’ (F3).
Pen Fattening
Livestock farmers in Mbire, have since 2014 been experimenting organic pen fattening, to reduce the adverse impact of climate change, particularly drought, on livestock keeping activities. Changing climate such as drought and the accompanying reduction in forage, water and increasing pests and diseases triggered the need for farmers to innovate their livestock keeping practices. Although pen fattening is not completely new to livestock farmers, they have modified the manner in which it is practiced. Unlike conventional pen fattening that involves the use of inorganic supplementary feed purchased in shops, respondents in this study use homemade pen fattening from organic crop residue. A farmer (F16) noted that ‘we do not have enough money to buy inorganic supplementary feeds, which are always expensive. Hence, we now use organic crop residue in pen fattening of livestock such as cattle and goat’. Residues from leguminous crops such as groundnuts, soya beans, cow pea and sorghum, in addition to wild grass, are mostly used by the participants. The focus group discussion revealed that farmers are convinced to use these crops as they perceive them to be rich in nutrient needed by livestock. Pen fattening, according to the participants, contributes immensely to accelerate the rate of growth and the quality of livestock, which increases their market value.
A farmer hinted that ‘you can only get good price for your livestock if they look healthy and attractive. Organic pen fattening therefore helps farmers to gain high market value for their livestock’ (F1). Pen fattening requires less technical skills in the gathering and preparation of residue, hence the participants feel the innovation is technically effectiveness. While the innovation has the potential to increase productivity in livestock and yet less costly compared to inorganic supplements, it requires extra labour and commitment to gather enough crop residues to feed the livestock in the cattle pens. The environmental friendliness of pen fattening was questioned, as some participants revealed during the focus group discussion that the continuous collection of residue exposes the soil, which increases run off and erosion during the raining season. In effect, the participants agreed that the collection of residues will in the long run affect soil fertility and reduce crop yields. This consequently affects the social acceptability of the innovation. In addition, a participant expressed that ‘many livestock farmers prefer open range livestock farming to pen fattening, which requires the animals to be confined’ (F8).
Cassava Cultivation
Mbire District is noted for its arid characteristics and hence deter farmers from engaging in cassava cultivation. Nevertheless, the reduction in staple crops particularly maize, due to erratic rainfall and high temperature, prompted some farmers to experiment cassava cultivation. A farmer who has been cultivating cassava for the past six years noted that
‘we started experimenting cassava cultivation in 2013. At that time, we were told by community members that cassava is a high water requirement crop and as such unsuitable for a dry region like Mbire, but we were determined to try it in our backyard garden’. (F5)
Another participant stated that
I heard of cassava cultivation in 2015 from a farmer friend. I was initially skeptical to cultivate cassava but I tried it. I later realized that the notion among many farmers that cassava cannot thrive well in this region was untrue, as cassava crop has proven to be drought tolerant’ (F7)
According to F13, cassava crop came in handy in alleviating hunger and food insecurity in a district characterised by successive droughts due to erratic rainfall. It was observed that women farmers are more engaged in cassava cultivation. F5 intimated that ‘I am in a group of 5 women who engage in backyard cassava gardening’. The multipurpose nature of cassava makes it a good alternative to combat hunger and increase household food security, particularly among people living in poverty. The focus group discussion highlighted that cassava has multiple functions, as it can be processed into pounded powder, porridge powder and bread, as well as it can be dried for future use. Notwithstanding, cassava cultivation is not practiced by majority of farmers in the district, as many farmers are skeptical of the suitability of the climatic conditions of the district for cassava.
Staggered Planting
A section of the participants practice staggered planting, due to the change in rainfall season (onset and cessation). Explaining the reason for adopting staggered planting of crops, a farmer reported that ‘I was motivated by years of being chronically food insecure and increased poverty exacerbated by climate change’ (F2). Describing how farmers practice staggered planting, F9 hinted that ‘we plant crops particularly maize, in three tiers. The first planting is done on 20 November, the second on 1 December and the third tier on 25 December’. The practice enables smallholder farmers to minimise the adverse impact of climate change on their agricultural activities. For instance, according to F15:
since we cannot predict the rainfall season, we cannot plant our crops at once. What if there is no rain and the crops wither? As such, we plant in tiers, while increasing the size of land gradually. In this case, if the first tier does not get rainfall, the second and/or the third will certainly meet the raining season, thereby minimizing the impact of poor rainfall on crop yields.
Since the practice is still in its experimental phase, the farmers expressed that it is technically challenging as it is difficult to decide which planting phase to commit more planting area due to the risk of crop failure. Consequently, the survival of the first tier planted crop is by chance, since it is dry planted, without rainfall.
In addition, the practice requires record keeping and a systematic observation of the most ideal planting dates over time. The practice may not necessarily increase crop yield but it offers farmers the potential to reduce the adverse impact of poor rainfall on agricultural activities and hence their livelihood and food security. The farmers practice staggered planting using conventional farming, characterised by maximum soil disturbance, which increases run off and soil erosion during rainfall. Staggered planting has not gained popularity among farmers in the district as there is the belief that the practice somehow goes against the cultural principle that prohibits planting too early before the traditional ritual of requesting rains from the ancestors. In addition, the selection of staggered planting dates mostly falls on a Friday, which is traditionally a field abstinence day, known locally as Chisi. Hence, staggered planting is believed to violate traditional beliefs and practices.
Discussion
This study adopted explanatory sequential mixed method design to investigate adaptation strategies and farmer-led agricultural innovations to climate change among smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe. The results from the study show that respondents combine both on- and off-farm adaptation strategies to reduce the adverse impact of climate change on livelihood and food security of their households. On-farm adaptation strategies employed by the farmers include planting improved maize variety and drought resistant crops, mixed cropping and application of agrochemicals such as fertiliser, weedicides and pesticides. Others include cultivating fewer plots, planting crops other than maize and beans, keeping more livestock and applying agro-ecological knowledge in their agricultural activities. Existing studies, particularly in developing economies, reported that smallholder farmers have adjusted their agricultural activities due to climate change, by planting improved and drought resistant crop varieties as well as applying agrochemicals and ecological knowledge (Abid et al. 2015; Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018; Sultan and Gaetani 2016). In Zimbabwe, Makate, Makate, and Mango (2017) noted that smallholder farmers have adopted climate smart agricultural practices such as planting improved and drought-resistant maize varieties to minimise the impact of climate change. Previous studies show that the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices increases crop yields and reduces loss of income (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018; Turner et al. 2017). According to Fisher et al. (2015), cultivating drought-resistant maize has minimised food insecurity in households in Zimbabwe.
Contrary to the findings of Mango, Siziba, and Makate (2017), that conservation agriculture such as irrigation farming is highly practiced by smallholder farmers in Zimbabwe, this study show that less than one-fifth of the respondents practice irrigation farming. This is very surprising due to the arid condition of Mbire, which demands irrigation farming system to increase crop yields and income of farmers, thereby contributing to food security of households (Mango, Siziba, and Makate 2017). Nevertheless, high cost of irrigation facilities (Lopez-Ridaura et al. 2018) coupled with low technical knowledge deter farmers from practicing irrigation farming. Farmers in Mbire also apply off-farm or livelihood diversification strategies such as brick moulding and petty trade to increase their income and enhance their capacity to adapt to climate change, which is consistent with existing studies. For instance, in Ghana, Antwi-Agyei et al. (2018) reported that smallholder farmers diversify their livelihood by fetching and selling fuelwood and charcoal, as well as engaging in petty trade. However, Brown (2011) noted that such short-term coping strategies affect adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to respond to future climate change, as they exert pressure on households.
The results further show that smallholder farmers in Mbire rely on social safety net from government and donors, and remittances, as short-term coping strategies to counter the adverse impact of climate change. Others include diet-based strategies such as reduction in size and number of diets. These findings are consistence with studies in Ghana (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018; Aniah, Kaunza-Nu-Dem, and Ayembilla 2019), India (Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad 2016) and Uganda (Okonya, Syndikus, and Kroschel 2013), where smallholder farmers depend on social network and change in diet to cope with climate change. Studies have also reported health and nutrition related implications of diet based adaptation strategies such as reduction in number and size of diets, particularly among poor households (Antwi-Agyei et al. 2018; FAO et al. 2017). The results also show that majority of farmers engage in sales of livestock as coping mechanism to reduce climate change impact. Keeping livestock such as goats and sheep in Mbire is influenced by the presence of sweetveld. Farmers in Mbire are noted for rearing mainly goat and cattle. However, high market demand for sheep compared to goat, has increased farmers’ engagement in keeping sheep. For instance, a matured sheep is sold at an average of $60 while a goat is sold at $20. According to Wilson (2014), sales of livestock creates lock-in effects by reducing stock of farmers, which affects their potential to adapt to future changes in climate.
The results also point to the influence of gender, education and farm size on smallholder farmers’ adaptation decisions, which is consistent with the literature. For instance, Asare-Nuamah (2020) and Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad (2016) found that the adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers in Ghana and India, respectively, are differentiated by gender, due to higher access to resources among males than females in rural communities. Male farmers in the study control household resources and make essential socioeconomic decisions and therefore, in a better position to adapt to climate change than female farmers. Zamasiya, Nyikahadzoi, and Mukamuri (2017) reported a positive influence of education on climate-change adaptation in Zimbabwe. Intuitively, education corresponds with a better knowledge of climate change and emerging adaptation strategies. In addition, farm size, which is also closely related to land ownership and economic status of farmers in rural communities, considerably positively influences adaptive capacity to respond to climate change (Mehar, Mittal, and Prasad 2016). Smallholder farmers in Mbire are constrained by financial, technological, information, social and institutional challenges that affect their capacity to respond to climate change, which are consistent with previous studies (Antwi-Agyei, Dougill, and Stringer 2014; Dang et al. 2014; Jones and Boyd 2011; Pasquini, Cowling, and Ziervogel 2011). For instance, low income and poor access to financial assistance reduce farmer’s capacity to tackle climate change. Similarly, migration of youth as a social barrier reduces human labour for agricultural activities, which exposes aging farmers to the adverse impact of climate change. In addition, top-town adaptation strategies neglect the experiences and local knowledge of smallholder farmers, thereby excluding farmers from institutional policies, which affects effective implementation of adaptation strategies among farmers. Beckford and Barker (2007) therefore recommend the need to mainstream local knowledge into climate change and adaptation policies, as a means to promote sustainable and effective response to current and future changes in climate. Furthermore, poor education on climate change and adaptation mechanisms as well as poor access to reliable climate information serve as barriers to farmer’s response to climate change. Hirons et al. (2018) and Chepkoech et al. (2018) noted that smallholder farmers in Ghana and Kenya, respectively, face challenges in accessing reliable climate information. Moreover, high incidence of human diseases, such as malaria and HIV, also hinder sustainable adaptation by reducing labour productivity (UNECA 2011). This finding is unique to this study as existing study have not emphasised human diseases as a barrier to climate change adaptation.
In consonance with Critchley (2007), smallholder farmers are constantly experimenting local knowledge and innovating their agricultural activities to counter environmental shocks and stressors. The results from the study show that farmer-led agricultural innovation strategies to climate change include planting Kanongo OPV of maize, over mulching, pen fattening, cassava cultivation and staggered planting. These practices are based on local knowledge and experiences of smallholder farmers, which confirms Critchley's (2007) assertion that local knowledge plays a significant role in driving local innovation system. Nevertheless, community acceptance and adoption of farmer-led innovation strategies is dependent on technical effectiveness, economic validity, environmental friendliness and social acceptability (Critchley 2007). In addition, farmer-to-farmer extension service also helps in diffusion of local innovation among smallholder farmers (Asare-Nuamah, Botchway, and Onumah 2019; Rogers 2003), thereby demonstrating the critical role of social network in climate change adaptation and local innovation (Dapilah, Nielsen, and Friis 2019). High tolerance of cassava and OPV maize variety to harsh climatic conditions may explain their adoption among smallholder farmers. Studies have reported that cassava, for instance, possesses high potential to address food security and hunger challenges, particularly in developing economies, due to its climate resistant ability (Jarvis et al. 2012) and high calorie content (see FAO cited in Boansi 2017), as well as mass consumption by about 800 million people across the world (Burns et al. 2010).
Conclusion
This study has shed light on adaptation and farmer-led innovation strategies of smallholder farmers in Mbire District of Zimbabwe. The results confirm that smallholder farmers, particularly in developing economies, are responding to climate change. Farmers in Mbire District employ both on- and off-farm adaptation and coping strategies to reduce the impact of flood, drought, rising temperature and erratic rainfall, on their livelihood and food security. Common adaptation strategies of smallholder farmers included planting improved and drought-resistant crops, cultivating fewer plots, mixed cropping, keeping more livestock, applying agrochemicals and local ecological knowledge as well as livelihood diversification, which are influenced by farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics. The farmers have diversified their livelihood by engaging in brick moulding, sales of livestock, petty trade and dependence on remittance and social safety net as well as reduction in size and number of diets. Famers’ adaptation to climate change is hindered by low financial capacity, poor climate change education, inaccessibility to reliable climate information, spread of pests and diseases, and rise in human diseases as well as exclusion of farmers from climate change and adaptation policies. Nevertheless, smallholder farmers have experimented farmer-led innovations based on their local knowledge and experiences, to reduce the adverse impact of climate change and increase yields from agriculture. Farmer-led innovations include planting Kanongo OPV of maize, pen fattening, over mulching, cassava cultivation and staggered planting.
On the basis of these findings, the study recommends the need to involve smallholder farmers and mainstream local knowledge into climate change and adaptation policies, to increase their effectiveness in local communities where vulnerability to climate change is high. In addition, social intervention programmes that increase access to socioeconomic resources must be strengthened to improve adaptive capacity of local farmers. The study also recommends that mass climate change education must be promoted particularly in rural communities to boost climate change knowledge of local farmers, which is necessary for effective and sustainable adaptation. There is the need for central government support for local innovation systems, to enhance their effectiveness and scalability. Further studies should examine social, economic and environmental outcomes of local innovations and how they can be scaled up.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the African Union Commission through the Pan African University Research Grant.
