Misunderstood with No Desire to Be Understood: Socio-Cultural Dimension of Farming and Conservation Agriculture in Zimbabwe

Abstract

There is extensive literature on barriers and constraints of Conservation Agriculture (CA) adoption in Zimbabwe, but the impact of local socio-cultural factors on the adoption of this technology for rural farm households has largely been assumed. The research was designed to understand socio-cultural factors that led to dis-adoption and outright rejection of this seemingly appropriate intervention using empirical qualitative data from a case study in Nyanga District. The article found that there is a discernible and significant relationship between farming practise (farmers’ prior experiences, culture, Indigenous knowledge systems and values) arrangements and the abandonment and outright rejection of CA.

Keywords

Conservation agriculture food security household rural farmers smallholder farmers socio-cultural factors

Introduction

Ending poverty and hunger remain unaccomplished global goals and have become a pressing concern of national governments and international agencies (Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2022). In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), food and agricultural systems are under mounting pressure as much of the continent is drylands and predominantly rain-fed (Abegunde et al., 2020). All over the region, smallholders are grappling with the interconnected challenges of climate change and increasing climate variability, declining soil fertility and declining land availability. At the same time, rising and more volatile food prices, coupled with increased food demand resulting from population and per capita income growth, place increased pressure on domestic production systems (Laurance et al., 2014). This is a grim situation as the majority of households are sustained by smallholder agriculture (Brown et al., 2020). Under such conditions, it is critical that food is produced in ways that conserve and augment the natural resource base as well as the environment (Pittelkow et al., 2015a). Conservation Agriculture (CA) has emerged as an alternative farming practice designed to address problems of low-crop productivity, soil organic matter decline, water run-off and soil erosion, which are seen as factors limiting agricultural productivity (Rodríguez et al., 2022).

CA is based on (1) minimal mechanical soil disturbance, (2) permanent organic soil cover by crop residues and/or cover crops, and (3) diversified crop rotations or associations with legumes (FAO, 2020). Proponents of this agricultural technique advocate for this practice on the premise that it benefits smallholder farmers in three ways (Brown et al., 2018b). First, CA is reported to have physical resource benefits by increasing yields, improving soil fertility, reducing erosion, and increasing soil moisture retention. Second, CA is reported to have human resource benefits by reducing labour requirements; and third, CA is reported to have financial resource benefits by reducing the need for hired labour and draught animals, and increasing profits. Consequently, CA has been viewed as a panacea to agriculture failure and food insecurity within Zimbabwe’s small farm sector by both Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the government (Shaxson, 2006).

According to FAO (2020), agriculture is the backbone of Zimbabwe’s economy as Zimbabweans remain largely rural people who derive their livelihood from agriculture and other related rural economic activities. These agricultural activities provide employment and income to 60%–70% of the population, supplies 60% of the raw materials required by the industrial sector, and contribute 40% of total export earnings (Bafana, 2011). However, the World Bank (2020) mentioned that Zimbabwe has been characterised by a substantial decline in agriculture production and high food prices which increased food insecurity, with close to 50% of the population being food insecure in 2019. This is evident in the inconsistency of maize production levels, as the staple crop, estimated at 1.5 million tonnes during the 2022/2023 season, representing a significant decline from the bountiful harvest of 2.7 million tonnes in the 2020/2021 production season (Agribusiness, 2023). While the 1.5 million tonnes marks a modest improvement from the 1.4 million tonnes in the 2021/2022 season, it still falls 32% short of the annual maize requirement of 2.2 million tonnes (Agribusiness, 2023). Consequently, the country may need to import approximately half a million tonnes to meet the maize demands for the marketing year 2023/2024 (Agribusiness, 2023).

Clearly, the decline in food security in the country has varied from year to year. In light of this decline in food security, innovative interventions to promote food security have been adopted including CA on the premise that simultaneously it protects the soil and improves resilience in climatic unpredictable areas (Farnworth et al., 2015). Notwithstanding the benefits and great potential of the CA model, the reception by households has been lacklustre despite predictions that CA would transform small-farm agriculture in Zimbabwe (see Bouwman et al., 2021a; Brown et al., 2017b). Many studies with data from surveys, experiments, expert opinion, econometric modelling, and so on, have sought to understand why these smallholder farmers are not adopting CA (see Brown et al., 2017a, 2018a; Corbeels et al., 2014; Giller et al., 2009; Pittelkow et al., 2015b).

This study argues that most of these attempts to explain farmers’ behaviour towards technological innovations or models like CAs assume a simplistic technology versus choice relationship where farmers evaluate the technology and choose what to adopt and what not to adopt (see Giller et al., 2009). However, such explanations miss the fact that farming is a social activity in rural societies and occurs within a particular social context. Also, missing from these explanations is a critical factor in rural agricultural farming practises, the socio-cultural dynamics of farming. Very few have contemplated the possibility that the new technology may be anathema to certain socio-cultural practices guiding farming in rural societies – despite its recognised potential to overcome climate change and input cost constraints (Ghosh et al., 2010).

Thus, envisaging farmers’ behaviour as a question of an assessment of technology and compatibility is problematic for its neglect of certain endogenous factors within societies that guides farming and may pose limits to the adoption of new technology. This was aptly captured by Sumberg (2005), who highlighted how little consideration is given to ‘adoption constraints that are endogenous to the fit between the innovation and the target group’, or . . . whether . . . (CA) ‘actually fulfils a concrete need from the point of view of targeted smallholders’ (Lee and Gambiza, 2022).

Furthermore, the CA programme promoted in Zimbabwe made many universal recommendations and ignored local culture and existing beliefs, or so-called ‘mental models’, which led to its lacklustre adoption. The programme failed to acknowledge that farming is a societal process that does not happen in a vacuum. Farmers are citizens of their society and have a rich and complex history embedded in their societal values, prior experiences, and knowledge and farming systems, and to understand what rural farmers do, one must also understand the historical events and social and economic forces they have experienced over many years (FAO, 1985). The research aims to understand socio-cultural factors that act as barriers and limit CA uptake since the area is under-explored and what can be learned from this.

Understanding why farmers are so reluctant to adopt measures supposedly conceived in their best interests is as valid today as it was in the early-20th century (Beinart, 1984). For that reason, the main objective of this article is to identify social and cultural factors that act as pre-cursors to affect farmer decision-making which will be invaluable in developing a greater understanding of how rural farmers understand various agricultural practices and their views of introduced practises that researchers and development practitioners promote. Recognising these key factors will expose hidden assumptions and blind spots in ‘scientific’ approaches that the conventional top–down development approach overlooks (Halbrendt et al., 2014).

The paper is structured as follows: the first section of the article provides the diverse benefits and claims concerning CA, a background of farming challenges in Zimbabwe and the research problem. This is followed by a brief discussion on CA method and approach used when it was being implemented in Ward 30. The third section is the background of the case study. The methodology of the study is the fourth section. The fifth section discusses how farming is guided by the supernatural and taboos in Ward 30. This is followed by a section discussing Indigenous knowledge system and their role in farming. The seventh section details how herbicides are a threat to Indigenous/traditional leafy vegetables. The eighth section focuses on the social status of samatanga which is then followed by a section on why the hoe should be at the museum. The tenth section details the wasu tradition of farming followed by a discussion of the findings while the last section is the conclusion of the article.

CA method and approach used for its promotion in Ward 30

As the realisation that many smallholders were facing a food security crisis due to the failure of conventional tillage systems, Ward 30 was not left behind in promoting sustainable agricultural systems. CA was introduced during the 2008/2009 farming season by an NGO called Concern Worldwide. The method that was introduced is what is popularly known as the Zai holes (planting pits, a technology adopted from farmers in the Sahel; Wagstaff and Harty, 2010) on a 50 × 50 m plot. Seed is planted in these small holes/pits which are dug in an unploughed field using a hand hoe continuous soil cover using crop stover, crop rotation of legumes and maize, use of herbicides to control weeds. The maintenance of the planting basin entails well-timed weeding in summer and winter, manure and mineral basal and top dress fertiliser application, crop rotation and mulching with organic remains (Mazvimavi et al., 2008: iv). Although herbicides and inorganic fertilisers are not the main principles of CA, they are significant in reducing soil disturbance and improvement, respectively.

The methodology used by CA promoters was a combination of extension officers and a Master farmer system. An extension officer was asked to lead the promotion of CA because of their familiarity and knowledge of the communities gained through years of experience working with rural communities. The extension officer then trained Master farmers in the ward, and in turn, these farmers worked with farmer groups. Master farmers are selected each year by fellow farmers with the help of the extension officer as an acknowledgement of their outstanding crops. The inclusion of Master farmers was important because they play the role of extension workers in training other farmers in CA agronomic practices. Thus, they serve as experiential experts in shaping peoples’ norms and values and may play a significant role in legitimising or disapproving changes. The promoters started by working with Master farmers to demonstrate and test the technology.

After training Master farmers, the CA promoters negotiated with the chief to use a section of the field used for Zunde raMambo (chief’s granary is a pre-colonial traditional social security arrangement designed to address the contingency of drought or famine) as a demonstration site where Master farmers would conduct the farmer training. All the components of CA were implemented, and all inputs were provided, except labour. Zunde raMambo fields in the various villages within Ward 30 were selected due to their proximity to farmers to allow for easy accessibility to the demonstration plots.

Background of the case study

By 2012, an estimated 300,000 rural farming households in Zimbabwe were implementing components of CA covering an area of over 100,000 ha (Marongwe et al., 2012: xii). This study was confined to Ward 30 in Manicaland Province’s Nyanga District. The ward comprises communal areas and a resettlement scheme with a total population of 3062 (1429 males and 1633 females) and 748 households (ZimStat, 2012).

Rainfall in the district varies considerably, from highlands with mean annual rainfall above 1000 mm to the lowlands where mean annual rainfall can drop to an irregularly distributed 750 mm (Chirenje et al., 2013). Ward 30 is found in the lower-lying areas, where a distinct wet and dry season occurs, and the rainfall becomes more erratic and variable as the altitude decreases (Chirenje et al., 2013). Most soils are coarse sand, but the texture in the subsoil can range from coarse sand (<5% clay) to clay (up to 50% clay) (Soper, 2002). So the soil is dolerite soil. Therefore, the soils have been strongly weathered and leached, resulting in low-base saturation and an iron-rich clay fraction in which the only clay minerals are of the kaolinitic type (Soper, 2002). Such soils have low inherent fertility characteristics and belong to the ortho-ferrallitic group (Soper, 2002).

The economy is primarily based on subsistence farming with most people working as smallholder farmers cultivating various garden types that include rain-fed uplands and wetlands in the valleys (Soper, 2002). The major crops grown are made up of maize, groundnuts, sunflower, yams, sweet potatoes and beans. Three villages out of the 14 villages under the resettlement scheme were chosen using random sampling and these were villages chosen were villages 5, 9 and 14. The resettlement scheme comprises black smallholder farmers on land acquired by the state from former commercial farmland that historically fell under large-scale white settler ownership and operation or corporate control (Government of Zimbabwe, 1999).

Methodology

A single case study (Ward 30) using households from Nyajezi resettlement scheme that has 14 villages was chosen in which the ethnographic and qualitative methodologies were applied. Purposive, simple random sampling techniques were applied. Through this approach, the impact of socio-cultural factors on CA adoption were explored and identified. Primary data were collected from September 2018 to January 2020 using key informant interviews, participatory observations, non-participatory observations and life history. A desired sample size of 13 key informants was used for this study. It included three lead farmers (one per village) composed of two male and one female, one District Administrator, one ward extension officer, three village heads (one per village), two spirit mediums, three elders locally known as vakweguru (one per village). Purposive sampling for households who participated in the study was used. With regard to the farming households, 15 were selected for the study and divided into three categories. The first category consisted of those households that partially adopted the technology and were still using it (five households). The second were those households that had adopted the technology but had since abandoned it (five households). The last category consisted of households that rejected the technology outright (five households). Informal interviews were carried out with all the elders (men and women) and children (above 12 years of age) in every selected household.

Farming as guided by the supernatural and taboos

Households in Ward 30 have an oral tradition whereby the village elders play an important role in communicating local taboos to the households. Older adults interviewed during the study were asked where the beliefs were derived from, and the common response was that it has been passed down their families and reasons behind the beliefs and taboos were seldom known. In addition, taboos are often adhered to out of fear and people believe that violating taboos invites misfortune in the form of illness, crop failure or even death. The study found that some of these beliefs and taboos hindered the adoption of CA technology, as illustrated by the following case:

One of the taboos in village 14 is that people must not work in their fields during the offseason as it coincides with the time spiritual forces through the spirit mediums of the area will be replenishing soil nutrients in farming fields. In contrast, CA promoters encourage basin digging during off-season farming to do planting with first effective rains. Due to societal pressure to conform, fear of being a social outcast or being seen as someone in defiance, farmers in this village were forced to dig basins after the first rains and could not find enough mulch to cover the soil. By leaving the principle of basin digging late and trying to collect mulch after the summer season had started due to taboos led to an increase in farming labour, which led to the abandonment of CA innovation.

Another belief and taboo that affected the adoption of CA technology was that spirit mediums and village headmen (in certain villages) believe that herbicides in the fields anger spirit mediums because they destroy certain plants that are significant in the spiritual world. Due to these entrenched beliefs about herbicides, most households in the ward did not take them even though they were part of free inputs supplied by the project promoters. The research found that these households that did not use the herbicides experienced weed pressure more than those who applied it, and it affected CA uptake. Farming households who experienced weed pressure on their CA plots had negative comments about CA and ended up abandoning the innovation. Even though CA promoters felt CA technology would be suitable for smallholder farmers like the study area, this finding shows that local taboos contributed and had a huge part in the dreary reception of CA seen in Ward 30.

In Ward 30, households believe that spirit mediums (svikiro/mhondoro) are actively involved in crop production. Another function of spirit mediums is perceived as guardian angels who oversee communities in their day-to-day lives. Hence, it was found that when communities embark on any developmental projects such as CA, they consult spirit mediums first and they believe failure to do so leads to unsuccessful programmes. The belief among households is that these spirit mediums ensure that there is enough rain, the weather is suitable for crop growth and that pests and wildlife do not destroy the crops. The households acknowledge the positive agricultural role and contribution played by the spirit mediums through agricultural rituals. A popular ritual done on a rain-making shrine before the first rains in early October is known as maganzvo. The narratives of the elders (vakweguru) reveal that spirit mediums and spirituality play a very important role in climate-related issues vis-à-vis the agricultural development in Ward 30. The phenomenon of climate change and variability seems to be highly related to the existence of spirit mediums, and their anger is also highly connected to preceding weather-related calamities. In support of this finding, Jiri et al. (2015) assert that in Southern Africa, spiritual rain-making ceremonies are at the heart of many traditional societies such as Nyanga District. Moreover, Jiri et al. (2015) revealed that these rituals are performed by conducting prayers, using medicine portions, brewing and drinking traditional beer, and dancing under trees, among other activities to manipulate the falling of rain. The activities are considered effective in yielding positive results among African Indigenous people.

The research found tension between the CA innovation principle of early basin digging, Indigenous weather forecasting systems and knowledge shared by some local rain-making spirit mediums. For example, CA promoters encouraged the CA principle of basin digging to be carried out soon after harvesting, but in some villages in the ward, the process was deferred until the local rain-making spirit medium had predicted that the rains were imminent towards the end of October. The farmers shared that it did not make sense to dig basins soon after harvesting without confirmation of rains for the coming season from the rain-making spirit medium. They did not want to risk spending time in the fields digging basins only to find out the year would be a drought, like the devastating 1992 drought where they did not receive any rains in the area. The farmers have a greater trust and value in these Indigenous weather forecasting systems from these opinion leaders instead of Western meteorology. In all societies, some men and women make decisions on behalf of others or who are respected by others and therefore influence their attitudes and behaviour. Most farmers would rather opt for practises that have been proven over a long time and passed from generation to generation. Such a local belief system among households points to their role in the disappointing reception of the CA programme in Ward 30, even though promoters had high hopes that the technology would be successful in the area.

Among the households in the study area, funerals have a sacred character. If a death has robbed a family and community of one of its members, the whole community is obliged to mourn the deceased. The village headman ensures that all agricultural activities are suspended for 2 days. These days of mourning are known as mahakurimwi (no agricultural activities are done) and they play an important function in promoting social solidarity. Commonly, farmers have to leave their farming even at critical periods to go and attend funerals within or in neighbouring villages. Such a show of support for one’s kin and friends is expected to be reciprocated in the future when misfortune strikes one’s household, and these norms qualify as social arrangements. As the following case illustrates, these social arrangements affect how agriculture is practised and can disrupt the effectiveness of agricultural innovations such as CA.

In the second year of CA adoption in 2011, village 9 had three families with funerals in November. The village headman and other elder community members suggested that instead of the funerals happening concurrently, they had to be held one after the other to show solidarity to the deceased families. The village headman also ruled that people had to observe 2 days of mourning for each family, which meant 6 days were set aside for mahakurimwi. While households observed the mahakurimwi period, the first rains also came, and people could not go to their fields. Most households who had dug CA basins could not plant with the first effective rains as encouraged by promoters but ended up missing the crucial early planting window period, which affected their CA crops. This finding shows how an expert agricultural innovation such as CA was at odds and incompatible with socio-cultural living and farming in the area.

It was stated earlier that social expectations would determine the way others expect a person to behave, which become norms for that society. These norms are deeply ingrained in people’s attitudes and beliefs. They not only determine how other people think an individual should behave; they determine what behaviour the individual feels is correct. Therefore, the norm of mahakurimwi is a local farming value system that contributed to the lukewarm reception of the CA programme in Ward 30 even though proponents of the technology argue that it is the best farming remedy for these areas.

Territorial spirits are believed to be the guardians of the land and have to be honoured by having a special day of rest set aside for them (Bourdillon, 1987). Households in Ward 30 reported that the special day set aside in their area is called chisi, which is observed every Friday. The general concept of chisi in the community is that people are not allowed to do any agricultural activity or work the soil on a Friday. Farmers believe that non-observance of chisi spells disaster for the individual and the community, and usually, punishment comes in the form of insufficient rain, drought or pests. However, farmers also reported that chisi avails them time to rest, maintaining a healthy labour force that is vital for productivity.

The research found that chisi affects how agriculture is practised and even on the adoption of CA. Discussion with farmers revealed that farmers who fail to observe the day are viewed as outcasts and rebels, and sometimes as punishment, households do not allow them to join their labour sharing arrangements group. For example, in 2010, mai Chikondi, a widow, failed to observe chisi when out of desperation; she watered her tomato nursery in the garden, which had become very flaccid due to the simmering October heat. When word spread in the village that she had failed to observe chisi, she was viewed as rebellious, and people were afraid that her actions might result in the area receiving insufficient rain. When other households came together for gumwe labour sharing arrangements to dig CA basins and mulch collection, mai Chikondi was not included in the group. She could not practise CA that year as she did not have enough labour resources to dig CA basins and collect mulch and abandoned the technology. In another incident in a separate village, in the first year, CA was introduced and inputs were delivered on a Friday – chisi day. Households could not go to collect the inputs due to fear of breaking the law of chisi. All of the households in the village did not join the programme because the promoters assumed the farmers were not keen on CA. As alluded to earlier on mahakurimwi, this finding indicates incompatibility and tension between socio-cultural ways of farming in the area and western agricultural innovations that are introduced. Again, when faced with a choice of something foreign and local, people usually opt for something local no matter how good it might seem and follow their culture for fear of being a social outcast or being defiant. Even if the benefits of other methods are explained to them, their strongly held attitudes may make it difficult for them to change. Culture is not a random collection of customs and habits but has been evolved by the people to help them in their conduct of life. Each aspect of the culture of a society has a definite purpose and function and is related to all the other aspects of its culture. Therefore, the culture of following chisi was another local farming value system that played a part leading to the lacklustre reception of the CA programme in Ward 30.

Indigenous knowledge systems role and place

According to Agritex (2012), the Zimbabwean agricultural sector is largely characterised by small-scale farming and low productivity. This low productivity is partly due to low inputs - low output, climate sensitive rain-fed systems and limited use of hybrid maize varieties Government of Zimbabwe (2018). Even though hybrid maize has been proven to produce high yields, agriculture as a source of livelihood is under threat due to the high price of inputs, especially seeds. These rising input costs are also increasingly leaving farmers vulnerable to fast-changing climatic challenges. These pressures force them to continually search for new cost-efficient ideas and farming practices for agricultural production, help them cope with climatic risks, and farm in more environmentally friendly ways.

In response to all the challenges highlighted earlier, local farmer seed systems are becoming the dominant seed system and now constitute the backbone of agricultural production in Ward 30. More than 20% of Zimbabwean smallholder farmers use either retained or open-pollinated maize seed, and this figure is rising (World Bank, 2015). Indigenous seed systems and community seed banks help manage climate risk where increased climate variability is a reality. These seeds give farmers affordable access to a wide range of quality seeds improved through farmer selection over the years. In the Nyanga district, just like other parts of the country, the rainfall patterns have shifted. The growing period has shortened: whereas the season used to start in October and last until April, now it can start as late as December and end in February.

The local seed varieties provide an important safety net for cash-strapped farming households who cannot afford to purchase seeds every year. The farmers save money because of their seed systems, including farmer-saved seed and farmer-to-farmer exchange, especially during community activities such as gumwe. The use of hybrid seeds, as encouraged by experts, is a challenge for farmers because they need to be protected from weevils using pesticides, which is often unaffordable. They consider the expense unnecessary because local traditional maize seeds can be stored without pesticide use. At any rate, the local seed is a traditional way to save money. This open-pollinated seed has adapted to farming households’ soil over the years and represents considerable savings and perhaps a certain amount of security as some of their traits are high-yielding, drought-tolerant and early maturing. This also cushions farmers from climate-related risks such as long dry spells and droughts that are experienced frequently. The advantage and security of the local seed over hybrid was highlighted by one household, namely VaChikondo. In the 2015/2016 season, many households relied on free new hybrid maize seeds supplied and encouraged by the government, while discouraging local maize seed varieties during the command agriculture programme. At the same time, most hybrid maize harvests for the district were a complete write-off due to long dry spells experienced at the maize tussling stage. VaChikondo family, however, had used Indigenous seeds managed to harvest something.

The research found that farmers’ trust and reliance on Indigenous knowledge of traditional seeds locally known as njeke seed as opposed to the use of hybrid maize seeds, which promoters insisted for CA plots, created tension. This led to outright rejection by some farmers. There were costs involved with buying hybrid seeds, with many farmers lacking the financial resources. Therefore, farmers opted for their good quality and lower cost seed rather than adopt a hybrid seed. They were unsure how it would perform in their fields, especially after the area’s 2015/2016 new seed variety debacle. As demonstrated under demonstration plots in the ward, the potential yield was of little interest to farmers, especially if it meant increasing the danger of facing an even lower output than is normally achieved using proven local seeds for production. Farmers’ understanding of food security is based on what eventually gets into their storage system, which determines the nature of their farming practises. Farmers adapt knowledge to suit their livelihoods and are keen to avoid costs where necessary.

Herbicides as a threat to Indigenous/traditional leafy vegetables

Traditional leafy vegetables play an important function in society and promote social cohesion and order (Owuor and Olaimer-Anyara, 2007). Most Ward 30 farmers shared that these identified, edible, Indigenous plants have a social meaning and cultural value because they are prepared during ceremonial occasions held in the villages, as well as being an essential native, food source. For example, the locals believe that community members need to provide only locally produced food for a successful rain-making ceremony. Once ingredients from outside are served, then the ancestors or spirit medium will not intervene in the ceremony.

Herbicides had been promoted with CA to help control weeds (Bouwman et al., 2021b). However, herbicides became a misfit when farmers realised that traditional leafy vegetables were destroyed in the process, and this led to the abandonment of the technology. Many of these so-called weeds are actually Indigenous, edible vegetables that are highly cherished within the local communities. As part of their traditional dishes, farmers in the ward deliberately leave these Indigenous leafy plants in their fields with their crops. However, when they used non-selective herbicides such as the atrazine provided by promoters, many of these valued plants were destroyed. Therefore, the use of herbicides that destroy valuable wild vegetables like cleome gynandra was undesirable.

Traditional leafy vegetables are essential, especially when agriculture is facing climate change challenges. Most of these vegetables can withstand harsh climatic conditions and be harvested when there is total crop failure. Besides providing food and their socio-cultural meaning at a community level, traditional leafy vegetables contribute towards income generation and employment creation for households. Women and widows sell these vegetables to enhance their livelihoods, and the money is used for household needs (medical, school fees, etc.). As one elderly widow put it:

Eating traditional leafy vegetables is something that we learnt from our forefathers. I rarely visit the hospital even when I am sick with a disease such as malaria. It is because the soldiers (immune system) in my body are strong because of these plants I eat. I am convinced that one of the reasons why you people of today are always hospital guests is because you don’t like these traditional leafy vegetables because you think it’s backward. We decided to abandon CA because we saw that once we apply herbicides then we would not have traditional leafy vegetables the entire farming season. (Field interview, 12 June 2019)

In agreement on the importance of traditional leafy vegetables, Mbuya Chitepo who is one of the elders in Village 5 said,

Even in a bad year when you experience drought, our hope is usually on traditional leafy vegetables. I vividly remember in 1992 when there was a drought never seen in this area, I sold traditional leafy vegetables and I managed to keep my kids in school that year. I could not imagine sacrificing traditional leafy vegetables for CA. The choice between the two was very simple. I had to abandon CA because herbicides were cleaning up all our food culture and other forms of livelihood for my household. (Field interview, 12 June 2019)

Social status of samatanga

It is a cultural belief that a ‘real’ man should have a large herd of cattle and use them for farming in Ward 30. CA model implementation missed the role, values and cultural significance livestock, especially cattle, have in farming among households in Ward 30. Farming that does not involve the use of livestock means that traditional practice habits are undermined. Livestock informs how farming and crop production is done and organised for many farmers and goes beyond direct food production to include multipurpose uses such as hide, fibre, manure, and capital accumulation. Furthermore, livestock is closely linked to these farmers’ social and cultural lives, for whom animal ownership ensures varying degrees of sustainable farming and economic stability. Social prestige brought by livestock ownership influenced total rejection as households whose social status is built by cattle ownership were reluctant to implement the CA model of basin digging because of their social status.

Farmers with large herds of cattle locally known as samatanga are considered rich in the ward and prefer using cattle in all their farming activities. In addition, owning livestock, especially cattle and using them for farming is important for social reasons as it is viewed as a sign of wealth and gives one an elevated status in the community. In contrast, the CA model implemented by promoters compelled farmers not to use cattle at any stage of farming but dig basins to plant crops. In response, farmers with large herds of cattle totally rejected the CA programme when it was introduced, to preserve their high social status. They felt like they were being considered poor. For them, farming practice of using hand hoes to dig basins must target the ‘poor’ who do not have access to cattle for draught power.

Household testimonies suggest that the culture and value placed on cattle in the ward have gradually shaped the ward’s views and prejudice that any farmer not using cattle for tilling the land is from a poor social class. Apart from this, households without draught power are often viewed as disorganised.

Mai Ganda who is a widow for the past 20 years and sold all her cattle to help raise her kids after the death of her husband was even more clear on the value of cattle and how farming is practised in the area when she said,

Each time the rains start I feel condemned again because I am forced to go around the village grovelling before people who own draught power. People do not even see me as a normal person and I don’t blame them because I am as poor as a church mouse. If I had my own cattle people would not be looking down on me in this village. Most people who are rich rejected the CA programme because they did not want the shame associated with joining a programme with people like us who are looked down upon in this village. (Field interview, 11 April 2019)

Evidence from the above quotes shows the ward farming culture and meaning attached to the lack of cattle ownership; a misfit, especially for farmers viewed as rich. These farmers decided against CA uptake to show power and status to people in the area because not using cattle when farming meant adopting a farming practice meant for the ‘poor’. These findings also reveal a correlation between asset ownership or a higher social position and non-adoption. This is supported by studies in Zambia that found cattle ownership as negatively related to CA component uptake (Arslan et al., 2014; Nyanga, 2012).

The hoe must be at the museum

Before CA was introduced in the ward in 2006, farmers who did not have or could not afford to hire draught power dug basins to plant crops, though reluctantly. As discussed in the section earlier, this farming practice is viewed as an act of desperation and demeaned by households, especially those with large herds of cattle. Basin digging with hoes in the ward has negative social connotations and the practice is associated with poverty. A quick comparison of households who use hoes for planting and those who own the plough shows that people who use hoes are very poor and struggle to make ends meet. Farmers who own ploughs can work fast and on large pieces of land. This allows them to plant their crops on time and also do crop diversification, unlike farmers who use the hoe. These produce very little and sometimes not even enough for their own families whereas those with the plough have a surplus to sell and get income.

The research found that the life of extreme poverty experienced and lived by people who use hoes on their farms has influenced many people to look at the hoe as a symbol of poverty and also believe that using a hoe alone does not make for successful farming. This was corroborated by life history discussions with households that rely on ploughs to prepare their fields revealing that even though difficult, their children have always finished education and work formal jobs or run businesses because their parents could afford to pay for their fees. In contrast, households that traditionally practise hoe tilling today are still very poor because they cannot afford to pay fees for them so that they can get proper education. The difference is that farmers who own ploughs can farm large pieces of land and also on time when the first rains come. One farmer who rejected CA outright because of the social meaning attached to the use of the hoe for tilling and the correlation with achievements explained,

I did not join CA because it did not make sense to use the hoe which was used by our forefathers. In fact, the hoe must be sent to the museum. We have since passed that stage especially when you look at how the plough has made farming easy for us. I honestly think these NGOs misunderstand us and our farming and we no longer have the desire for them to understand us. In this ward, if you want people not to take you seriously, then you should go ahead and use the hoe for tilling. In fact, as your homework, while you are around, I would like you to go around and look at households that use hoes vis a vis those who use the plough. I will tell you in no uncertain terms that for us who have used the plough, we have achieved more. For example, I have taken all my children to school, I have built myself this four-bedroom house, I managed to buy myself a car even though it broke down, and I have bought livestock among many other things. The people who have been using hoes can only dream of these things and will never achieve this in their lifetime. So in all this, there is no way I could have gone to join a programme like CA and dug basins as farming practice when I have seen and have evidence of how farmers around here live because of using a hoe to till the land. (Field interview, 19 June 2019)

The wasu tradition of farming

The plough is an indispensable implement within farming communities and Ward 30 is no exception. Indeed, very few farmers do not own a plough; it has become a status symbol of farming. It is an affordable, sustainable technology; one that, given the ever-increasing cost of tractors, spare parts and diesel, is becoming more and more attractive. A farmer using draught animals with the plough can carry out all farming activities as effectively as with a tractor. It may take longer, but he can still do all the activities in time, and take advantage of the window of opportunity for planting at a cost that matches his or her pocket.

In discussing the importance and meaning of the plough for many smallholder farmers, Giller et al. (2009) argue that ‘the plough has become a symbol of agriculture such that many people involved including, farmers, extension agents, researchers, university professors and politicians find it difficult to believe that agriculture can be possible without tillage’. Furthermore, Andersson and D’Souza (2014) acknowledge the impact of using the plough as a tradition among smallholder farmers.

Similarly, the findings of this study are in tandem with the work of the authors above as household farmers in Ward 30 persist in ploughing as it is a deeply embedded practice, which has been used over many generations. The plough use is also considered what wasu (a word from the Manyika dialect of Shona which means roughly ‘bosom friend’) should ‘do’, which is the tribal identity and tradition of the households in the ward. It is conceptualised as including the use of oxen and mouldboard ploughing for tillage. The influence of the plough and wasu tradition of farming led to outright rejection of CA implementation among households in the ward. Households are always hesitant to try other forms of farming that exclude using the plough because they have always known one way of farming, as shared by the Sekuru Chiga, a 72-year-old pensioner who said,

I have been using the plough for the past 50 years. This farming implement is part of wasu identity. I bought my first plough using a loan from the Post Office Savings Bank in 1969 and managed to take all my children to school through farming using the plough. I cannot plant crops without ploughing my fields because I see the plough as an implement that define how I practice farming. Once I do not use the plough, then I will not be a proper wasu. (Field interview, 29 December 2018)

In a case of how the use of the plough is only viewed as the only way farming should be defined was a case that happened in village 3. In the third year of CA adoption, Mai Hondo who does not own draught power dug basins with the help of her gumwe partners on two acres. She also sacrificed the little resources that she had and hired other people in the village for maricho and mugwazo and dug basins on three more acres to make a total of 5 acres dedicated for CA. She followed all the principles of the technology as advised by the promoters and planted with the first effective rain. In the same village, VaMugoni, also had 5 acres which had maize that was planted under conventional practice and it was equally good because he had applied enough fertiliser, manure and herbicides and done timely weeding. As is the norm in Ward 30, farmers visit several households looking at crops to choose a field with outstanding crops so that a field day is held in honour of their outstanding work. This is really a big deal for farmers in the ward and the function is also something people look forward to as it also builds one’s social status. After farmers had visited all the outstanding fields, the competition was only between Mai Hondo and VaMugoni in the Ward but after deliberation people could not agree on who had the best crop between the two. One old farmer who is well respected and known to have wisdom stood up and said,

For all my life and how you know how farming is supposed to be done, using a plough must be at the heart of farming. As far as I am concerned and in our wasu tradition there is only one person who did proper farming and it is VaMugoni because he used the plough.

As he sat down, everyone in attendance smiled, and clapped while nodding their heads in agreement and that is how the impasse was solved and how Mai Hondo lost to VaMugoni in the competition of Master farmer that year.

For most farmers, growing crops without using the plough conflicted with conventional farming practices inherent in farmers in the ward. They wait until the first rains of the season have softened the soil before they can prepare or plough their land for sowing. The study found that not even the late onset of rainfall or increased risks involved in late planting is enough to change households from the culture of ploughing. For example, farmers in the area still plough as late as the end of January even though most of the crops planted that late in the season will not have enough time to reach maturity. The observed behaviour of these households is an indication that they viewed CA technology as not offering a comparative advantage over conventional practices, and also, it was incompatible (Rogers, 2003) with how farming is supposed to be done in the ward. The findings of this study are consistent with Derpsch in García-Torres et al. (2003), whose work asserted that to forsake the plough is very difficult for farmers, and this change of mind-set is probably the greatest challenge for CA adoption. CA came with changes to the farming culture of most households, and if changes in one aspect of culture are introduced, these are likely to have an unacceptable effect on other aspects, which led to CA abandonment. This illustrates the role culture plays in CA adoption in smallholder farms like Ward 30, which explains the unenthusiastic reception of CA in the area.

Discussion

Farm-level knowledge and decision-making are socially constructed and recognised in emergent science and technology literature (Glover et al., 2016). In the case of CA in Ward 30, we have seen how social dynamics shape farmers’ perceptions and experiences of innovation, including decisions about whether and at what points to engage with or disengage from a process of trialling new practices. Sentiments commonly expressed by households revealed that CA promoters failed to genuinely engage farmers in the technology transfer process, resulting in mismatched priorities between CA promoters and the social and cultural beliefs in the ward. For example, minimum soil disturbance was introduced in an area where the plough is strongly attached to the manyika cultural values. People generally make every effort to conform to cultural norms in their community, and the continuity of CA principles against their culture becomes uncertain once the project expires. This suggests that failure to fully and continuously engage farmers in their culture, when it is the backbone of how agriculture is done locally, undermines learning from Indigenous knowledge and experiences. Therefore, CA promoters in the area missed an essential step in localising and modifying CA leading to conflict with cultural farming values and preferences, thus weakening local commitment and ownership of the CA project.

The high level of social embeddedness of traditional farming systems can create among farmers a degree of resistance to externally promoted technologies and innovations that are perceived by putative beneficiaries to disrupt underlying social and moral infrastructures (Curry et al., 2021). This was evident as some farmers totally rejected CA because it did not fit how farming must be done according to the households’ and societal understanding or definition of farming. These proposed technologies and innovations and the way they are introduced and presented to target communities are often incompatible with Indigenous values, habits, socio-cultural institutions and ways of doing things that can make technology transfer challenging for farmers.

Lessons in many countries have shown that CA’s rapid adoption and spread call for a change in behaviour and commitment of all concerned stakeholders (Derpsch and Friedrich, 2009a, 2009b). For the farmers, a mechanism to experiment, learn and adapt is a prerequisite. Adopting technologies such as CA requires significant changes in practices and mind-set because it contradicts much of conventional farming knowledge and farming traditions such as the plough as tradition and identity of the farmer. This is mostly because of the long tradition of farming using conventional methods, which has become part of what constitutes good farming practices. Not all CA practices fall within the domain of good agronomic practices from some farmers’ perspectives. Many household farmers are accustomed to the plough as an essential part of their farming and find it difficult to overcome the idea that ploughing is not required for successful planting. Even though these farmers are experiencing challenges related to farming, such as droughts and long dry spells caused by climate change, it is particularly difficult to convince these farmers to adopt CA if they do not experience strong economic or environmental pressures to change. Conventional farming practices are also tightly woven into local culture and rituals, making such practices even more entrenched.

Conclusion

This study examined the role of socio-cultural factors in farming, particularly how farmers use and incorporate it within their everyday practises and wider agricultural programme uptake. It has demonstrated that the reality of the adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations in rural communities is a much more complex issue, but at the same time, it has improved the knowledge and understanding of contextual factors influencing the adoption and diffusion of CA in Africa, and especially Zimbabwe. Nevertheless, socio-cultural considerations play a major role in farmers’ decision-making processes and are still widely the reason for agricultural management practices in Ward 30, despite the promotion and dissemination of ‘modern’ farming practices such as CA. This indicates that socio-cultural factors have a robust and effective way of transferring from one generation to the next. The study has shown that it is important for farmers’ values, culture and local farming expertise to be considered because it ‘almost guarantees’ the success of programmes initiated by external experts.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Brian Mandipaza

Author biography

Brian Mandipaza works as a lecturer at Tshwane University of Technology in South Africa. He holds a PhD in Development Studies from the University of Pretoria.

References

Abegunde

Sibanda

Obi

(2020) Determinants of the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices by small-scale farming households in King Cetshwayo district municipality, South Africa. Sustainability 12(1): 195.

Agribusiness (2023) Zimbabwe’s maize imports could rise markedly in the 2023/24 marketing year. Available at: https://agricultureportal.co.za/index.php/all-agri-news/news-of-the-day/9541zimbabwe-s-maize-imports-could-rise-markedly-in-the-2023-24-marketing-year (accessed 12 December 2023).

Agritex (2012) Strategic Plan for the Department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) for the Period 2012–2015. Harare, Zimbabwe: MoAMID.

Agritex (2015) Annual Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: Agritex.

Andersson

D’souza

(2014) From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: a literature review of Conservation Agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187: 116–132.

Arslan

McCarthy

Lipper

, et al. (2014) Adoption and intensity of adoption of conservation farming practices in Zambia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187: 72–86.

Bafana

(2011) The new Agriculturist. Online. Available at: http://www.new-ag.info/en/country/profile.php?a=2073 (accessed 18 November 2023).

Beinart

(1984) Soil erosion, conservationism and ideas about development: a southern African exploration, 1900–1960. Journal of Southern African Studies 11: 52–83.

Bourdillon

(1987) The Shona Peoples. 3rd ed., reprinted 1998 edition. Gweru: Mambo Press.

10.

Bouwman

Andersson

Giller

(2021a) Adapting yet not adopting? Conservation agriculture in Central Malawi. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 307: 107224.

11.

Bouwman

Andersson

Giller

(2021b) Herbicide induced hunger? Conservation agriculture, Ganyu labour and rural poverty in Central Malawi. The Journal of Development Studies 57(2): 244–263.

12.

Brown

Nuberg

Llewellyn

(2017a) Negative evaluation of conservation agriculture: perspectives from African smallholder farmers. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 15(4): 467–481.

13.

Brown

Nuberg

Llewellyn

(2017b) Stepwise frameworks for understanding the utilisation of conservation agriculture in Africa. Agricultural Systems 153: 11–22.

14.

Brown

Nuberg

Llewellyn

(2018a) Further participatory adaptation is required for community leaders to champion conservation agriculture in Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 16: 286–296.

15.

Brown

Nuberg

Llewellyn

(2018b) Research capacity for local innovation: the case of conservation agriculture in Ethiopia, Malawi and Mozambique. Agricultural Education and Extension 24(3): 249–262.

16.

Brown

Nuberg

Llewellyn

(2020) From interest to implementation: exploring farmer progression of conservation agriculture in eastern and southern Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 22: 3159–3177.

17.

Chirenje

Chitotombe

Gukurume

, et al. (2013) The impact of tourism leakages on local economies: a case study of Nyanga District, Zimbabwe. Journal of Human Ecology 2(1): 9–16.

18.

Corbeels

Graaf

Ndah

, et al. (2014) Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 187: 155–170.

19.

Curry

Nake

Koczberski

, et al. (2021) Disruptive innovation in agriculture: socio-cultural factors in technology adoption in the developing world. Journal of Rural Studies 88: 422–431.

20.

Derpsch

Friedrich

(2009a) Development and current status of no-till adoption in the world. In: Proceedings on CD 18th triennial conference of the international soil tillage research organization (ISTRO), 15–19 June, Izmir, Turkey.

21.

Derpsch

Friedrich

(2009b) Global overview of conservation agriculture adoption. In: Proceedings, Lead Paper, 4th world congress on conservation agriculture, 4–7 February, New Delhi, India, pp. 429–438.

22.

Farnworth

Sultana

Kantorand

, et al. (2015) Gender integration in aquaculture research and technology adoption processes: lessons learned in Bangladesh. WorldFish Working Paper 2015-17, Dhaka: WorldFish.

23.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (1985) Guide to Extension Training. Rome: FAO.

24.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2020) Principles of Conservation Agriculture. Rome: FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/conservation-agriculture/en/

25.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) (2022) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing Food and Agricultural Policies to Make Healthy Diets More Affordable. Rome: FAO. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en

26.

Garcia-Torres

Benites

Martinez-Vilela

, et al. (2003) Conservation Agriculture: Environment, Farmers Experiences, Innovations, Socio-economy and Policy. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

27.

Ghosh

Das

Saha

, et al. (2010) Conservation agriculture towards achieving food security in North East India. Current Science, 99(7): 915–921.

28.

Giller

Witter

Corbeels

, et al. (2009) Conservation agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Research 114: 23–34.

29.

Glover

Sumberg

Andersson

(2016) The adoption problem; or why we still understand so little about technological change in African agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 45: 3–6.

30.

Government of Zimbabwe (1999) Statutory Instrument 419 of 1999; Rural Land (Farm Sizes) Regulations. Harare, Zimbabwe: Government Printer.

31.

Government of Zimbabwe (2018) Climate Smart Agriculture 2018-2028 Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement. Harare, Zimbabwe.

32.

Halbrendt

Gray

Crow

, et al. (2014) Differences in farmer and expert beliefs and the perceived impacts of conservation agriculture. Global Environmental Change 28: 50–62.

33.

Jiri

Mafongoya

Chivenge

(2015) Indigenous knowledge systems, seasonal ‘quality’ and climate change adaptation in Zimbabwe. Climate Research 66(1): 103–111.

34.

Laurance

Sayer

Cassman

(2014) Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 29: 107–116.

35.

Lee

Gambiza

(2022) The adoption of conservation agriculture by smallholder farmers in southern Africa: a scoping review of barriers and enablers. Journal of Rural Studies 92: 214–225.

36.

Marongwe

Nyagumbo

Kwazira

, et al; Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division. (2012) Bibliographic information Marongwe. In Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Crop Intensification: A Zimbabwe Case Study. Rome: FAO, p.29. Available at: https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/fc116bad-2f63-4715-a7ef-ca2533fd2fbe

37.

Mazvimavi

Twomlow

Belder

, et al. (2008) An Assessment of the Sustainable Adoption of Conservation Farming in Zimbabwe. Global Theme on Agro Ecosystems (Report number 39), Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: ICRISAT.

38.

Nyanga

(2012) Food security, conservation agriculture and pulses: evidence from smallholder farmers in Zambia. Journal of Food Research 1(2): 120–138.

39.

Owuor

Olaimer-Anyara

(2007) The value of leafy vegetables: an exploration of African Folklore. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 7: 1–13.

40.

Pittelkow

Liang

Linquist

, et al. (2015a) Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 517: 365–368.

41.

Pittelkow

Linquist

Lundy

, et al. (2015b) When does no-till yield more? A global meta-analysis. Field Crops Research 183: 156–168.

42.

Rodríguez

Durán-Zuazo

Rodríguez

, et al. (2022) Conservation agriculture as a sustainable system for soil health: a review. Soil Systems 6: 87.

43.

Rogers

(2003) Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.

44.

Shaxson

(2006) Re-thinking the conservation of carbon, water and soil: a different perspective. Agronomie 26: 1–9.

45.

Soper

(2002) Nyanga: Ancient Fields, Settlements and Agricultural History in Zimbabwe. London: The British Institute in Eastern Africa.

46.

Sumberg

(2005) Constraints to the adoption of agricultural innovations: is it time for a re-think? Outlook on Agriculture 34: 7–10.

47.

Wagstaff

Harty

(2010) The impact of conservation agriculture on food security in three low veldt districts of Zimbabwe. Trócaire Development Review 2010: 67–84.

48.

World Bank (2015) Agricultural sector assessment study. Final Report, Harare, Zimbabwe Multi Donor Trust Fund.

49.

World Bank (2020) The World Bank in Zimbabwe. Online. Available at: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/zimbabwe/overview (accessed 10 December 2023).

50.

ZimStat (2012) Census 2012: Preliminary Report. Harare, Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe Statistical Agency.