Jun 11, 2014 - ... potentially reduce the costs of transportation and marketing (Conant ...... of drought, it helps to retain some moisture in the vegetable gardens; ...
Measuring the Contribution of Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions in Agriculture and Food Security to Resilience in Southern Africa A look at the role of farmers’ associative mechanisms, small -scale irrigation systems, crop varieties, cropping techniques and the timing of production in increasing the resilience of the rural small -scale farmer in Southern Africa
Document Information Document Version Number Document Type Title Applicability Status Editors
Contributing Authors
Version 1.0 Research report Measuring the contribution of disaster risk reduction interventions in agriculture and food security to resilience in Southern Africa. Malawi Madagascar Mozambique Final Dewald van Niekerk, Victoria Prinsloo and David Spies African Centre for Disaster Studies at North-West University (South Africa) Doret Botha Christiaan Becker Suna Meyer Gideon Wentink Leandri Hildebrandt Kristel Fourie Elrista Annandale Kylah Genade Michael Murphree Technical University of Mozambique (Mozambique) Rui Da Maia Jorge Pondeca Bennedita Penicela Timi Gaspari Sustainable Rural Growth and Development Initiative (Malawi) Maynard Nyirenda Praise Mwenegamba Taonga Chirwa
Date of this Compilation Client Copyright Place of publication Citation (this report can be cited as follows)
University of Antananarivo (Madagascar) Tiana Mahefasoa Randrianalijoana Emilienne Raparson Julien Salava Pierre Lazamanana Andry Rakotodramanana Fy Rasoamananjara Fenitra Randrianarisaona Lalaina Andrianjatovo Kidja Hermann Lemena 11 June 2014 FAO © 2014 FAO Potchefstroom, South Africa. Van Niekerk, D., Prinsloo, V and Spies, D. 2014. Measuring the contribution of disaster risk reduction interventions in agriculture and food security to resilience in Southern Africa. Potchefstroom: NWU-ACDS.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 13
2
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESILIENCE .................................................................. 16
3
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 18 3.1
Farmers’ associative mechanisms ............................................................................. 19
3.1.1
Types of associative mechanisms commonly identified.................................... 20
3.1.2
Building resilience through farmer’s associations ............................................. 21
3.1.3
Benefits of associative mechanisms for small-scale agriculture relating to
resilience .......................................................................................................................... 23 3.2
Small-scale irrigation systems and resilience ............................................................ 27
3.2.1
Nature and characteristics of small scale irrigation systems in rural Africa...... 28
3.2.2
The benefits of small-scale irrigation systems to societal development .......... 30
3.2.3
Challenges and weaknesses of small-scale irrigation ........................................ 32
3.2.4
How small-scale irrigation affects resilience of small-scale farmers in a rural
setting 34 3.3
The use of different/improved crop varieties ........................................................... 35
3.3.1
Climate change and variability........................................................................... 35
3.3.2
Lower yield comparisons ................................................................................... 36
3.3.3
Short cycle crop varieties ................................................................................... 37
3.3.4
Crop varieties – reducing exposure time to hazards ......................................... 38
3.4
The use of improved cropping techniques ............................................................... 39
3.4.1
Use complementary functional traits to ensure production and resilience ..... 40
3.4.2
Maintain soil fertility through soil cover ........................................................... 43
3.4.3
Favour facilitation versus competition between plants .................................... 46
3.4.4
Contain pests through complex trophic levels .................................................. 47
3.4.5
Use plant properties and biological alternatives to control pests .................... 48
3.4.6
Reproduce ecological successions after disturbance ........................................ 48
3.5
Changing the timing of crop production ................................................................... 49
3.5.1
Early Planting ..................................................................................................... 50
3.5.2
Late Planting ...................................................................................................... 50
3.5.3
Adaptation of production season to increase resilience of small-scale farmers 50
4
5
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 53 4.1
Literature review ....................................................................................................... 53
4.2
Empirical study .......................................................................................................... 53
4.2.1
Sampling............................................................................................................. 54
4.2.2
Questionnaire design ......................................................................................... 54
4.2.3
Field research ..................................................................................................... 55
4.2.4
Data gathering ................................................................................................... 57
4.2.5
Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 58
DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 61 5.1
Demographical information ...................................................................................... 61
5.1.1
Survey area ........................................................................................................ 61
5.1.2
Gender representation ...................................................................................... 61
5.1.3
Household composition ..................................................................................... 62
5.1.4
Household consumption patterns ..................................................................... 63
5.1.5
Meal composition .............................................................................................. 64
5.1.6
Household assets ............................................................................................... 64
5.2
Crop production practices ......................................................................................... 65
5.2.1
Planting and harvesting time ............................................................................. 68
5.2.2
Stock availability and purchases ........................................................................ 70
5.3
Livestock production practices.................................................................................. 73
5.4
Market access............................................................................................................ 74
5.5
Natural hazards and their occurrence ...................................................................... 75
5.6
Access to credit ......................................................................................................... 77
5.6.1
Credit source ...................................................................................................... 78
5.7
Coping strategies used by households after experiencing a disaster ....................... 79
5.8
Farmers’ associative mechanisms: findings and data analysis ................................. 81
5.8.1
Farmers’ associative mechanisms: frequencies and descriptive statistics ........ 81
5.8.2
Factor analysis: role of farmers’ associative mechanisms in increasing farmers’
resilience to natural hazards ............................................................................................ 91 5.8.3 5.9
Farmers’ associative mechanisms: comparative statistical analysis ................. 94
Small-scale irrigation systems: findings and data analysis ....................................... 96
5.9.1
Small-scale irrigation systems: frequencies and descriptive statistics .............. 96
5.9.2
Small-scale irrigation systems: techniques and maintenance. .......................... 99
5.9.3
Factor analysis: role of small-scale irrigation systems in increasing household
food security resilience in hazard prone areas .............................................................. 106 5.9.4 5.10
Small-scale irrigation systems: comparative statistical analysis ..................... 108 Appropriate crop varieties: findings and data analysis ....................................... 115
5.10.1 Appropriate crop varieties: frequencies and descriptive statistics ................. 116 5.10.2 Early maturing varieties ................................................................................... 120 5.10.3 Factor analysis: role of appropriate crop varieties to reduce crop exposure to hazards 123 5.10.4 Appropriate crop varieties: comparative statistical analysis........................... 125 5.11
Good cropping techniques: findings and data analysis ....................................... 128
5.11.1 Good cropping techniques: frequencies and descriptive statistics ................. 128 5.11.2 Factor analysis: promotion of good cropping techniques to mitigate impact of natural hazards .............................................................................................................. 133 5.11.3 Good cropping techniques: comparative statistical analysis .......................... 138 5.11.4 Good cropping techniques: qualitative findings .............................................. 142 5.12
Timing of production: findings and data analysis................................................ 145
5.12.1 Timing of production: frequencies and descriptive statistics .......................... 145 5.12.2 Timing of production: country specific results and discussion ........................ 148 6
7
DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................... 153 6.1
Farmers’ associative mechanisms ........................................................................... 153
6.2
Small-scale irrigation systems ................................................................................. 155
6.3
Appropriate crop varieties ...................................................................................... 156
6.4
Good cropping techniques ...................................................................................... 157
6.5
Timing of production ............................................................................................... 160
RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................... 161 7.1
Farmers’ associative mechanisms ........................................................................... 161
7.2
Small-scale irrigation systems ................................................................................. 161
7.3
Appropriate crop varieties ...................................................................................... 162
7.4
Good cropping techniques ...................................................................................... 163
7.5
Timing of production ............................................................................................... 165
8
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 166
9
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 168
LIST OF ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A: Quantitative questionnaire ANNEXURE B: Qualitative questionnaire ANNEXURE C: List of country contributors and field researchers
TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Survey area ............................................................................................................... 61 Figure 2: Number of meals per day per country ..................................................................... 63 Figure 3: Types of food eaten on a daily basis per country ..................................................... 64 Figure 4: Assets per household per country ............................................................................ 65 Figure 5: Marketing channels .................................................................................................. 75 Figure 6: Occurrence of hazards according to months likely to occur in Malawi ................... 76 Figure 7: Occurrence of hazards according to months likely to occur in Madagascar ............ 76 Figure 8: Occurrence of hazards according to months likely to occur in Mozambique .......... 77 Figure 9: Household access to credit ....................................................................................... 78 Figure 10: Specific credit source per country .......................................................................... 78 Figure 11: Coping strategies used in Madagascar ................................................................... 80 Figure 12: Coping strategies used in Malawi ........................................................................... 80 Figure 13: Coping strategies used in Mozambique ................................................................. 81 Figure 14: Members and Non-members of farmers associations ........................................... 82 Figure 15: Source of credit for non-members and members of farmers associations ........... 84 Figure 16: The diverse variety of crops that members of farmer’s associations plant ........... 85 Figure 17: The variety of crops that non-members of farmers’ associations plant ................ 86 Figure 18: Where members of farmers associations and non-members obtain seed from ... 87 Figure 19: Members and non-members access to markets .................................................... 88 Figure 20: Activities that members of farmers’ associations engage in .................................. 90 Figure 21: Difference in coping strategies between members and non-members of farmers associations .............................................................................................................................. 91 Figure 22: Use of irrigation systems ........................................................................................ 97
Figure 23: Types of irrigation techniques used per household ............................................... 98 Figure 24: Ease of maintenance /use of irrigation systems ..................................................... 99 Figure 25: The perception of ease of maintenance of irrigation techniques ........................ 100 Figure 26: The perception of ease of use of irrigation techniques........................................ 101 Figure 27: Irrigation impact on crop production variables .................................................... 102 Figure 28: Perception of whether irrigation techniques have increased household crop production.............................................................................................................................. 103 Figure 29: Perception of whether irrigation techniques have allowed household to produce out of traditional production periods .................................................................................... 104 Figure 30: Irrigation and production outside hazard periods................................................ 105 Figure 31: Perception regarding positive impact of irrigation on timing of production ....... 105 Figure 32: Usage of short-cycle crop varieties per country ................................................... 116 Figure 33: Level of satisfaction of the use of short cycle crop varieties ................................ 117 Figure 34: Level of appreciation for reduced growing time from use of short cycle varieties ................................................................................................................................................ 117 Figure 35: Level of agreement on short cycle varieties having increased household income ................................................................................................................................................ 117 Figure 36: Level of agreement on short cycle varieties having increased household agricultural production.............................................................................................................................. 118 Figure 37: Early seed maturation ........................................................................................... 120 Figure 38: Cropping techniques used by respondents in Malawi ......................................... 128 Figure 39: Cropping techniques used by respondents in Madagascar .................................. 129 Figure 40: Cropping techniques used by respondents in Mozambique ................................ 130 Figure 41: Efficiency of cropping techniques in reducing losses due to droughts ................ 131 Figure 42: Efficiency of cropping techniques in reducing losses due to floods ..................... 132 Figure 43: Factors determining planting time ....................................................................... 146
Figure 44: Planting earlier or later than the traditional planting period ............................... 146 Figure 45: The timing of planting ........................................................................................... 147 Figure 46: The perceived usefulness of planting with the first rains..................................... 147 Figure 47: The perceived usefulness of planting after floods using residual moisture......... 148
TABLE OF TABLES Table 1: Household composition in surveyed countries ......................................................... 62 Table 2: Area planted and yields (Malawi) .............................................................................. 66 Table 3: Area planted and yields (Mozambique) ..................................................................... 67 Table 4: Area planted and yields (Madagascar) ...................................................................... 67 Table 5: Regression coefficients .............................................................................................. 68 Table 6: Planting times (percentage of respondents) ............................................................. 69 Table 7: Harvesting times (percentage of respondents) ......................................................... 70 Table 8: Stocks available and purchased ................................................................................. 71 Table 9: Depleted stocks Malawi ............................................................................................. 72 Table 10: Depleted stocks Mozambique ................................................................................. 73 Table 11: Livestock numbers and income from sales .............................................................. 74 Table 12: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity....................................................................... 92 Table 13: Component matrixa .................................................................................................. 92 Table 14: Comparison of the three countries regarding the efficiency of farmers’ associative mechanisms ............................................................................................................................. 93 Table 15: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity..................................................................... 106 Table 16: Component matrix ................................................................................................. 107 Table 17: Comparison of the three countries regarding the efficiency of small scale irrigation mechanisms ........................................................................................................................... 108 Table 18: Variety of seed used by respondents..................................................................... 122 Table 19: KMO and Bartlett's test of sphericity ..................................................................... 123 Table 20: Component matrix ................................................................................................. 124 Table 21: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity..................................................................... 133
Table 22: Component matrix ................................................................................................. 134 Table 23: Descriptive statistics for Factor: Cropping techniques .......................................... 137 Table 24: Comparison of the three countries regarding the efficiency of cropping techniques to reduce losses due to droughts/floods ............................................................................... 138 Table 25: Comparative statistical analysis for the Factor: Cropping techniques – Malawi .. 139 Table 26: Comparative statistical analysis for the Factor: Cropping techniques – Madagascar ................................................................................................................................................ 140 Table 27: Comparative statistical analysis for the Factor: Cropping techniques – Mozambique ................................................................................................................................................ 141
1 INTRODUCTION Southern Africa is exposed to disaster risk associated with natural hazards particularly in the context of droughts, floods and cyclones. The high risk is linked to the combination of natural hazard exposure as well as to the vulnerability of its population. Vulnerability in this instance is directly related to the prevalence of small-scale farmers dependent on agriculture and livestock rearing as their primary means of earning livelihoods. The frequency and intensity of natural hazards has been presented as a dangerous implication of a changing climate. The potential for devastation based on the increased exposure of the hazards on vulnerable populations can undermine already fragile economies and environmental conditions in poor states in Southern Africa. There is, as a result, a recognised need to promote the importance of adaptation strategies and risk reduction mechanisms in hazard exposed regions in order to reduce risk through the development of resilience among communities. In support of this acknowledgement, the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) has adopted a corporate strategy in order to provide support and assistance at the local and national level to strengthen and implement policy and capacity to reduce risk and adapt to climate change. The FAO seeks to focus on building resilience in the context of livelihood systems, which when threatened by shocks, sever events and hazards, have the potential to disable and devastate already vulnerable populations. This research primarily targeted livelihood resilience related to agriculture and food security, which are interdependent in so far as sustainable agriculture, and agricultural practices are requisites for producing and ensuring adequate food supply. Rural communities are often the most vulnerable when faced with natural hazard exposure as their welfare is directly dependent on the sole productivity of agricultural resources and livestock welfare for deriving their income. The implementation of various intervention activities targeted at building the resilience of hazard exposed small-scale farmers to recurrent natural disasters has focused on improved disaster risk reduction methods and techniques. These include the application of conservation agriculture, crop production, appropriate seed varieties, land and water use, agricultural inputs supply, insurances, environmental rehabilitation, proactive afforestation and
irrigation. The FAO endeavours to prove that despite increased exposure to natural hazards, the use of effective agricultural practices can help to build the resilience of those most vulnerable populations. This study therefore aims to determine the contribution of key technical activities to the increase in resilience and preparedness of small-scale farmers in Malawi, Mozambique and Madagascar for natural hazard exposure in Southern Africa. This report will focus on the following technical areas:
Role of farmers’ associative mechanisms in increasing farmer resilience to natural hazards;
Role of small-scale irrigation systems in increasing household food security resilience in hazard prone areas;
Role of appropriate crop varieties to reduce crop exposure to hazards;
Promotion of good cropping techniques to mitigate the impact of natural hazards (and facilitate an early recovery); and
Timing of production in hazard prone areas to prevent losses at peak risk periods.
The research provides an overview of the multi-partner research programme designed to gather critical data through the application of most efficient approaches and technologies to evaluate the contributions of technical activities to creating resilience in Malawi, Madagascar and Mozambique for hazard exposed, small-scale farmers. The research took advantage of strong partnerships that exist between the African Centre for Disaster Studies (North-West University) and local institutions in the target countries including Sustainable Rural Growth and Development Initiative (Malawi), University of Antananarivo (Madagascar), and the Universidade Tecnica de Mocambique (Mozambique). In order to reduce costs the partner organisations lead the data collection in their respective countries hence taking advantage of their local knowledge, language abilities and translation skills. Initially a general ‘road map’ was compiled which documents a review of literature related to the evaluation of resilience particularly pertaining to the areas of agriculture and food security. This compilation detailed the methodological direction that guided the study and defined its data collection protocol. It also provided the impetus to a training workshop and pilot study.
A comprehensive literature review served to trace and document various methods and approaches available for measuring resilience within the context of agriculture and food security. Theoretical grounding and methodological approaches was compared based on their applicability, relevance, rigour and general acceptance by the academic/research community. This in-depth review of critical studies served as a basis for grounding the literature and theory supporting the five key technical areas. Following the in-depth literature review, an explanation of the methodology and research techniques and tools are given. The qualitative and quantitative data analysis is explained followed by the representation of statistics and qualitative discussion. The discussions on the findings aim to make linkages between the various technical areas and research data where appropriate and possible. In conclusion the report represents a set of recommendations on each of the technical areas.
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR RESILIENCE Resilience has its roots in ecology (Holling, 1973) and has recently been applied to socioecological systems (Hinkel, 2011). Resilience is a theoretical concept, which enjoys almost as many definitions as there are disciplines studying it (Folke et al., 2010; Gunderson, 1999; Klein et al., 2003; Turnbull et al., 2013). A perusal of the body of knowledge of resilience shows numerous studies aiming to “measure” this theoretical concept (Carpenter et al., 2001; Maxwell, 2012; Tulane University State University of Haiti, 2013). However, resilience is “not a fixed end state, but a dynamic set of conditions and processes” (Turnbull et al., 2013). Notwithstanding, the need exists to transition from this theoretical term into practical, measurable estimations. To achieve the above it is paramount that the theoretical concept of resilience is defined. For the purpose of this report resilience is defined as: “The capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure and feedbacks, and therefore identity, that is, the capacity to change in order to maintain the same identity” (Folke et al., 2010). The definition used in this study for resilience is that of Folke (2010) indicating that: The FAO (2014) defines resilience as “The ability to prevent disasters and crises as well as to anticipate, absorb, accommodate or recover from them in a timely, efficient and sustainable manner. This includes protecting, restoring and improving livelihoods systems in the face of threats that impact agriculture, nutrition, food security and food safety.” In the context of food security, resilience is defined as “the ability of a household to keep with a certain level of well-being (i.e. being food secure) by withstanding shocks and stresses” (FAO, 2014a). For this theoretical term to become measurable one needs to relate it to real world variables and indicators. Theoretically, from this definition a number of variables can be extracted for the purpose of the research. The FAO has done intensive work in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in South Africa since 2010, with the support of several international donors, and the contribution towards increased resilience of some of these interventions in hazard prone countries should to be assessed. First, the system will be identified as the communities and households (and the networks and systems on which they depend) and how they benefitted from the various DIPECHO projects over the past five years (2008-2013). The capacities relate to the various capital domains as generally accepted in livelihood assessment (i.e. human,
natural, financial, physical and social). Disturbance(s) relate to any shocks and stresses affecting the system. In this context these are primarily floods, drought and cyclones, with some mention of pests and diseases. Reorganise will refer to the five activities as identified by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (see sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5) which will be measured for their contribution to building resilience. Retaining the same identify relates to the essence of the target population, which is small-scale farmers. Thus, the research aims to determine to what extent the five selected agricultural and food security activities contributed to the ability of small-scale farming households and communities to absorb shocks and stresses to essentially remain productive small-scale farmers, while undergoing change.
3 LITERATURE REVIEW The occurrences of extreme weather events such as drought, floods and cyclones are expected to increase in the future, mainly because of the impacts of global climate change (Ding et al., 2009:28; McDonald, 2013:1). Climate change is one of the greatest environmental, social and economic threats facing the planet today and threatens to affect food and water resources that are critical for livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially for those communities which rely solely on rain-fed agriculture for their livelihoods (Zhou et al., 2010:3). According to the FAO (2013:8) small-scale farmers represent 90 percent of the rural poor and make up the majority of the world’s hungry population. FAO believes that the underlying risk of food and nutrition security could be addressed by the application of prevention and mitigation measures in approaches to farming (FAO, 2013:8). The two most known severe hazards that occur in the southern parts of Africa are droughts and floods. According to Van Zyl (2008:27) drought is a major climate feature in Southern Africa that has devastating impacts on agricultural activities. Drought is a climatic condition of extreme dryness that is so severe that it in effect reduces soil moisture and water levels to below the minimum requirements that are necessary for crops, animals and economic and social systems. The effect of drought is more severe in developing countries, which depend on dry-land farming, and a large part of sub-Saharan Africa is susceptible to drought and frequently experience droughts (Mulugeta et al., 2007:6). Van Zyl (2008:34-37) explains that atmospheric extremes are the most common causes of floods and flash floods. These floods can vary from tropical cyclones, which are associated with lengthy rainfall periods over a large drainage basin, to convectional storms over small basins that can occur randomly. Semi-predictable seasonal rains, saturation of low hydrological basins and the confluence of rivers, are also likely to increase the annual wetseason floods in tropical areas. Floods and flash floods in effect may not only cause loss of life, but also cause damage to properties and increase the spread of diseases. For these reasons defences against floods are essential to protect communities (Mulugeta et al., 2007:5-6).
The hazard profile of southern Africa thus has a significant impact on the primary economic activities of the region which remains agriculture based. The sections to follow provide an indepth literature review of the five agricultural activities under investigation.
3.1 Farmers’ associative mechanisms The process of liberalisation of commodity trading and pricing in developing countries with their developing economies emerged at the beginning of the 1990s (UNCTAD, 2002). Prior to liberalisation, governments took a great deal of the risk in agriculture and markets upon themselves. From the 1990s onwards, however, this burden had shifted to farmers. Farmers now have to deal directly with the risk of unpredictable and unstable market prices (UNCTAD, 2002), and find ways to deal with this risk. With the threat of climate change and increased exposure to natural hazards, farmers need to be able to absorb disturbances while faced with these changes and maintain the same function, structures and feedback mechanisms (Folke, 2010; Hellin, et al., 2009:16). In essence farmers have to find ways of increasing their resilience to the changing environment and exposure to hazards. Farmers faced with climatic or other risks develop various coping strategies which may include reactive strategies, short term actions and an adaptation response. These strategies often develop into some form of collective action to enable farmers to manage change and decrease the intensity of events as individual attempts are often unsuccessful (Osbahr et al., 2010; Chanrith, 2008:01). The main motivation behind forming associative mechanisms such as farmers’ associations, apart from the direct agricultural production benefits they offer, is that of self-help and developing collective power (Chanrith, 2008:01). Collective action refers to any coordinated activity where groups voluntarily decide to take action together in order to address a common interest or to obtain an objective they all share and in doing so these activities draw strongly on people's social capital (Vermillion, 2001:183; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2004; Devaux et al., 2009:32). Social capital is defined as the ‘structure of relations between and among actors’ and it is these relationships and the strength of the social capital of a group that enhances collective action (Kruijssen, et al., 2009:47). Collective action through social learning engages members of the group in such a way so as to jointly define problems, collectively search for and implement solutions and eventually as a group evaluate the outcome (Mayunga, 2007:7; Kruijssen, et al., 2009:48). This process allows
groups engaging in collective action to generate innovative ideas and practices that none would have been able to develop individually (Kruijssen et al., 2009:48). Collective action further allows farmers to meet basic market requirements for quality and frequency of supply that would otherwise have been difficult for individuals to achieve (Kaganzi et al., 2009:23). Collective action in this regard often occurs through a structure regulating the activity of the group. This structure may function independently and be driven internally by members themselves therefore being defined as an informal structure (MaCarthy, 2008:1). The other way in which these organisations can function is in a more formal capacity directed and driven with the support of external entities like governments or NGOs (Devaux, et al., 2009:32). Farmers’ associative mechanisms are one way in which farmers engage in and exploit the potential of collective action to enhance their productivity and increase their bargaining power (Chanrith, 2008:01; Poole & De Frece, 2010:13). The role of associative mechanisms in managing crises and disturbance in agriculture is not extensively documented in literature (Osbahr, et al., 2010:27; Poole & De Frece, 2010:60). Curtis (2013:7,11) does, however, mention that where associative mechanisms were formed, smallholder farmers had more control over their resources, thus enhancing their resilience. Farmers who are members of associations are building their knowledge on how to become more resilient to climate change (Kumwenda, et al., 2013: 52). Furthermore, with the advantages farmers gain from their membership to these associative mechanisms and the way in which the governance of these mechanisms promote legitimate institutions to sustain and generate collective action, these associative mechanisms do play a role in enhancing a system’s resilience (Siedenburg, et al., 2009:23; Osbahr, et al., 2010:27). 3.1.1 Types of associative mechanisms commonly identified Associative mechanisms can take on different forms and there can be differentiated between formal and informal associative mechanisms depending on aspects like resources, relationships, roles and rules (McCarthy, 2008). An informal associative mechanism is usually a group of farmers voluntarily forming some sort of association or organisation. These informal structures are governed independently without directive or involvement of external groups like governments or NGOs (Poole & De Frece, 2010:35). However, the external groups might support the activities of the informal structure in the form of funding, office space,
equipment and communication systems, and ideally should if such organisations want to be successful (Jere, 2005:10). Different types of informal associative mechanisms include ad-hoc groups, community-based groups, producer society or clubs and nucleus, farmer collectives, farmers’ associations and rural community enterprises (McCarthy, 2008; Poole & De Frece, 2010:18). Formal associative mechanisms, on the other hand, are those that are driven and called together by external entities like governments or international organisations such as NGOs (MaCarthy, 2008:1; Devaux et al., 2009:32). Being members of formal associative mechanisms can build a capacity-building knowledge ‘chain’ that links national policies to informal associations through district extension workers to lead farmers (Kumwenda et al., 2013:54). Informal associative mechanisms are often part of larger national level associative mechanisms. In a study undertaken by the Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network in 2005, three distinct types of farmer organisations were identified in the SADC region (Jere, 2005:8). Firstly, farmers’ unions/associations are those groups that function on a district and regional level. Examples of such unions or associations are the National African Farmers Union of South Africa (NAFU) and AgriSA in South Africa, the Farmers Union of Malawi (FUM) in Malawi, and the Zambia National Farmers Union (ZNFU) in Zambia. These unions or associations are formal associative mechanisms functioning at national level. Secondly, Commodity Associations are those groups that focus their activities on specific commodities or crops or enterprises. Thirdly, Cooperatives focus their activities around a specific activity or as a means to access specific resources such as financial credit (Jere, 2005:8). 3.1.2 Building resilience through farmer’s associations Although literature on the contribution of associative mechanisms to resilience is limited, their inherent characteristics in the context of Folke’s (2010) definition can contribute to resilience building. Folke et al. (2003:354-355) indicates the four factors that interact and are necessary to adapt to changing circumstances and therefore build resilience: firstly, learning to live with change and uncertainty; secondly, nurturing diversity in its various forms; thirdly combining different types of knowledge and learning; and lastly, creating opportunity for selforganisation and cross-scale linkages.
The latter two factors mentioned are of specific importance when discussing farmers’ associative mechanisms and their contribution to resilience. Firstly, combining different types of knowledge and learning refers to the process and the ability of a group or a system to use local and traditional knowledge in collaboration with science (Berkes, 2007:289). Berkes (2007:289) argues that there are many different ways in which local and traditional knowledge in combination with science can enhance communication and motivate collaboration. Collective action and farmers associative mechanisms rely quite strongly on the participation and engagement of farmers in order to be successful and therefore offer a platform for persons from a local to a scientific background to engage with one another (Osbahr et al., 2010:27). Enhanced communication, sharing of information and better relationships are all mentioned as advantages of associative mechanisms (Gabriel, 2012; Darnhofer, 2010; Poole & De Frece, 2010). Moreover, in this context, farmers’ associative mechanisms firstly ensure that all role-players gain access to both local and scientific knowledge and offer the opportunity to learn from one another. Secondly, farmers engaging in collective action and specifically farmers’ associative mechanisms work directly to create opportunities for self-organisation and cross-scale linkages in a system. According to Berkes (2007:290) the resilience of a system is quite dependent on its capacity to self-organise. Therefore effective functioning of structures and a strong capacity to self-organise in an associative mechanism is critical to the process of building resilience (Osbahr et al., 2010:27). According to Sichali et al. (2013:90) associative mechanisms provides both crucial local knowledge and a route to rapid widespread dissemination of climate-smart agricultural activities, thus enhancing resilience. It is through these farmers’ associations that rural farmers are more exposed to information on small-scale irrigation techniques, different and more suitable crop varieties, improved cropping techniques, and varying the timing of production. Certain conditions are needed for an association to be effective in reaching its objective and therefore increasing the resilience of the group. Members need to have the freedom to join or leave such an association at any time. It is important to allow members to have ownership in the association rather than it being something that is enforced by government entities or NGOs (UNCTAD, 2002). These associations must be able to function democratically with every member having an equal right in giving input and electing representatives (UNCTAD, 2002).
According to the FAO (2010) the promotion of effective producer organisations is essential for rural development, and governments need to create the right enabling policy environment and an incentive system for these to flourish. 3.1.3 Benefits of associative mechanisms for small-scale agriculture relating to resilience Being part of a farmers’ associative mechanism is a good way for rural farmers to be included in certain programmes that are being implemented and funded by Governments, NGOs, and outside donors. The concern to improve a country’s agricultural base, and therefore the livelihood of its inhabitants, is commonly expressed in terms of programmes and projects of rural development (). Being a part of a funded and guided programme or project focussing on agricultural development is extremely beneficial to a rural small-scale farmer. The main advantages can be included in, but are not limited to, the following aspects:
Financial gain;
Risk management function;
Skills, Information and Technology;
Communication and Relationships; and
Negotiating/bargaining power.
3.1.3.1 Financial gain The financial benefits of belonging to a farmers’ association are far more referred to in literature than the other advantages. Financial gains can be seen as one of the main motivations for small-scale farmers to get involved and participate in collective action and associative mechanisms. The financial advantages that farmers who are part of the associative mechanisms stand to gain, are not limited simply to that of income relating to production. These farmers are able to collectively invest to procure machinery for their production activities that would have been too expensive for them individually (UNCTAD, 2002). By belonging to an associative mechanism, farmers can gain access to economic development opportunities by exposure to local and regional advantages (Gabriel, 2012). Small-scale farmers usually have a high transaction and production cost because of their size, but this can be reduced by pooling resources and marketing products as a collective (Kruijssen, et al., 2009:47; Poole & De Frece,
2010). Furthermore, being part of an associative mechanism allows the mobilisation of financial resources and can enhance farmers’ access to resources such as credit (Kruijssen, et al., 2009:47; Uphoff & Wijayaratna, 2000; Gabriel, 2012). A further benefit is that associative mechanisms can organise price insurance for them, which provides some security for farmers (UNCTAD, 2002). All of these financial benefits lead to an increased potential to produce a higher yield, ultimately leading to a small-scale farmer’s ability to generate a higher income and become more financially stable. In a study undertaken by Devaux et al. (2010:76) the authors found that members who were part of an associative mechanism showed an income twice as high (USD543 as opposed to USD236) as those who were non-members. This shows that at least in terms of income there is often an advantage for small-scale farmers to be part of an associative mechanism. While there are definite advantages, according to the “Support to farmers’ organisations in Africa Programme (SFOAP) (SFOAP, 2014) the Southern African Confederation of Agricultural Unions (SACAU), who’s mission it is to promote and ensure strong and effective farmers’ organisations in all Southern African countries, has experienced a number of weaknesses facing the financial management of such farmers’ organisation. These relate to inadequate administration and financial management systems, limited interaction with the private sector and a low level of understanding of commercialisation among small-scale farmers, and inadequate performance management and measurement frameworks (SFOAP, 2014). 3.1.3.2 Risk Management Function In the past, governments had taken the financial risks of farming, linked largely to commodity price fluctuations, upon themselves, however, farmers are now expected to take this risk largely upon themselves. In some countries governments still subsidise rural farmers. For example, Malawian farmers have reaped the rewards of a government farm subsidy programme, the “Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP)”, which was introduced in 2005 to improve national food security and the increase productivity of smallholder farmers after many years of drought resulted in poor harvest. It has, however, been reduced due to the government of Malawi cutting expenditure for this (IRIN, 2011). Managing the price risk at the level of the farmer is of high interest, especially in developing countries, so as to increase income and investments in agriculture (Combe, 1997). Farmer’s
associative mechanisms can assist and provide a risk management service to their members by operating a stabilisation fund (UNCTAD, 2002). This refers to funds that are set aside for times of high prices and instability. Associations can reduce the risk for individual farmers, especially those with long term investments or with capital intensive processing technologies, which relates quite strongly to the risk management service that associative mechanisms can provide members (Kruijssen et al., 2009). There are many initiatives being carried out mainly by NGOs in Africa, concentrating on managing financial risk. Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) try to overcome the difficulties of offering credit to the rural poor by creating groups of people who can pool their savings in order to have a source of lending funds (IPA, 2014). Members are able to make savings contributions to the pool and are also able to then borrow from it, creating a selfsustainable and self-replicating mechanism (IPA, 2014). CARE International’s Adaptation Learning Programme for Africa (ALP) supports rural communities in Africa in self-help microfinancing using the VSLA model to mobilise financial resources to support livelihoods diversification. This has been implemented in Mozambique, Ghana, Kenya and Niger (Gyang & Ayamga, 2012). 3.1.3.3 Skills, information and Technology Engaging in collaborative action, in the form of farmers associative mechanisms, gives farmers access to and the means to acquire other resources, such as training to improve production quality and skills training (Devaux, et al., 2010; UNCTAD, 2002). It is stated by Osawa (1997) that if provided with the right inputs, feasible and appropriate technology and relevant information, small scale farmers will be capable of transforming their traditional agricultural practices. Associative mechanisms can give guidance and enhance skills such as methods of trading, new farming techniques, the importance of quality, and methods of evaluating quality of produce (UNCTAD, 2002). New farming techniques relate closely to the other four technical areas elaborated on in this report: the implementation of small-scale irrigation systems; the role of appropriate crop varieties; the promotion of good cropping techniques; and the timing of production. These associative mechanisms serve as a central point for the distribution of information about markets, traders and prices, as well as system information about supply and demand
(Gabriel, 2012; Poole & De Frece, 2010). Forming a cooperative or marketing association allows farmers to sell their products together, allowing them to better control the prices they get for their crops, and potentially reduce the costs of transportation and marketing (Conant & Fadem, 2008). When governments or international organisations arrange training programmes they usually coordinate with, and focus on, farmers’ associative mechanisms rather than individual farmers (Devaux, et al., 2010). There are some training platforms, such as the “Farmer Field School Approach” which focus on improving the knowledge base of rural farmers. These farmer field schools are based on the concepts and principles of people centred learning and enable farmers to learn how to farm better by observing, analysing and trying out new ideas on their own fields (FAO, 2014b). This hands on method differs from traditional approaches where extension officers provided advice to farmers, in that it enables the groups of farmers to develop their own solutions to problems (FAO, 2014b). Farmers can in turn educate and teach other farmers in the region, spreading the knowledge further. Farmers can also invest collectively in new technology that would have otherwise been too expensive for individuals to acquire (UNCTAD, 2002). 3.1.3.4 Communication and relationships Associative mechanisms facilitate communication and dialogue between farmers and government representatives, as well as government institutions and other role-players (Gabriel, 2012). Improved communication between role-players and farmers associative mechanisms, contributes to better conflict resolution and decision-making (Uphoff & Wijayaratna, 2000). Better communication and the creation of opportunities for discussion and exchange of opinions also enhances better relationships and information flow between the different role-players (Gabriel, 2012; Darnhofer, 2010). 3.1.3.5 Negotiating/bargaining power Associations can assist and enhance farmers’ negotiation or bargaining power. Associative mechanisms can help their members to access markets as a collective. Pooling products enhance their bargaining power in terms of sales conditions with traders and wholesalers (Poole & De Frece, 2010; UNCTAD, 2002; Gabriel, 2012; Kruijssen, et al., 2009). This is possible because associations can offer larger quantities of their members’ products in higher quality
conditions (Gabriel, 2012). As part of the bargaining ability that associations offer their members they can arrange fixed-price or minimum-price forward contracts (UNCTAD, 2002). Grouping together and purchasing implements and stock (fertiliser and seed, for example) in bulk can also be of significant financial benefit as the farmers are able to purchase at a lower price, through the potential of economies of scale (Nyang, et al., 2010). There exists a number of advantages and opportunities for members of farmers’ associative mechanisms. By offering these benefits to their members, farmers’ associative mechanisms strengthen the social capital as well as the economic capital and sometimes even the human capital by giving farmers access to training and skills through the farmers’ association network. One aspect which farmer’s associate mechanisms can address as a collective is small-scale irrigation.
3.2 Small-scale irrigation systems and resilience Small-scale irrigation plays a crucial role in the agricultural sector and it also forms part of the broader sustainable development goals within many developing regions and nations across the globe (Haque, 1975:48; Lam, 1996: 1301; Ogunjimi & Adekalu, 2002:297; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:868). The beneficial characteristics of small scale irrigation centre mostly around issues such as immediate production benefits (i.e. increases in production and crop diversification), behaviour change in farmers (i.e. uptake of more advanced farming techniques), market generation (local and international) and poverty reduction (i.e. household and national levels). There is a great degree of agreement between authors such as Lankford (2003:817), Gebregziabher et al. (2009:1837), Hanja et al. (2009:1597) and Hussain et al. (2007:317), that small-scale irrigation can serve as a very effective catalyst for generating social and economic development in rural areas, both of which are crucial aspects in increased resilience within rural societies. The resilience generating capability of small scale irrigation is crucially important, especially in areas of Africa where large parts of the rural farming population find their livelihoods to be exposed to various shocks (i.e. natural hazard impacts), trends (i.e. economic, political in nature) and seasonal variations (Brugere & Lingard, 2003:67; Bogale, 2012:581; Li & Yuan, 2013:142). The urgent need to develop more effective and productive small-scale irrigation systems should be viewed in the light of changing climate (recurring droughts and floods), rapid population growth and the need for
increased food security (Wellens, et al., 2013:9; Meza, Silva & Vigil, 2008:27; Tesfaye, et al., 2008:146). To understand the potential benefits of small scale irrigation, it is important to first understand the nature and characteristics of small-scale irrigation activities. 3.2.1 Nature and characteristics of small scale irrigation systems in rural Africa Case studies taken from a diverse set of countries such as Nepal, Nigeria, Mauritania, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Taiwan, South Africa, Bangladesh and Tanzania, show that most small scale irrigation projects work with land allocation between 0,11 hectares (ha) – 0,52 ha (FAO, 1997; Haque, 1975; Lam, 1996; Ogunjimi & Adekalu, 2002; Hussain, et al., 2007; Mwendera, et al., 2013; Lam, 2001; Connor, et al., 2008; Kamara, et al., 2001). Although small in size, these land holdings allow their owners to produce a combination of substance crops and cash crops for local markets such as maize, rice, vegetables, beans and sugarcane , therefore allowing for food security and livelihood options for farmers (Mwendera, et al., 2013:139; Lam 2001; Speelman, et al., 2008:31). In addition, small scale irrigation does not only increase production and the possibility of an extra agricultural season, but also allows for the production of crops that cannot grow under exclusively rain fed conditions in a specific location, and can provide additional nutritional options for farming communities (Mwendera, et al., 2013:139). To produce crops under irrigation, a combination of modern and traditional irrigation methods are employed in many parts of the world. Traditional irrigation mechanisms such as head works and diversion canals are built by farmers themselves from locally sourced materials such as boulders, timber and leaves (Lam, 1996:1303; Tafesse, 2003). Lam (1996) states that although these traditional systems are sufficient for providing basic irrigation needs to their users they are often vulnerable to environmental hazards (i.e. floods, cyclones, strong winds). There is also a great degree of water wastage (through seepage) due to the basic nature of the building material used for construction and this leads to a decline in crop productivity (Makombe, et al., 2007; Hanja, et al., 2009:1597; Tafesse, 2003). These negative aspects are, however, offset by the fact that these systems are easier to maintain by farmers themselves and that there is a greater degree of ownership and buy-in from farmers involved in such systems (Lam 1996; Aberra, 2004:237). Some traditional small-scale irrigation types 1 2
0,1 ha = 1 000m2 0,5 ha = 5 000m2
that emerged from literature include the following (Hanja, et al., 2009; Ogunjimi & Adekalu, 2002; Tafesse, 2003; Awulachew, et al., 2005):
Furrow irrigation;
Watering cans;
Rainwater harvesting;
Surface water irrigation;
Basin irrigation; and
River diversions.
In contrast, modern irrigation technologies have been introduced, to improve the efficiency of water distribution, to many areas through either government or international donor interventions (Connor, et al., 2008; Ogunjimi & Adekalu, 2002; Li & Yuan, 2013). Some of these interventions comprised complex constructions such as concrete dams, headworks, weirs and control structures (Lam 1996:1303; Makombe, et al., 2007:36). Although these modern irrigation techniques are more efficient than traditional techniques, it emerges from literature that these interventions are often not appropriate to the context and needs of the farmers that should use them (Lam, 1996; Aberra, 2004). Additionally, modern irrigation systems are often expensive to attain and maintain and require investments that small farmers cannot afford. Furthermore, these techniques are often so technical in nature that small scale irrigators do not have the necessary expertise to adequately maintain the system (Li & Yuan, 2013; Mwendera, et al., 2013; Connor, et al., 2008). Apart from these very technical irrigation constructions, various more accessible and easy to use, modern irrigation options are available to small scale irrigators, and they include (Tafesse, 2003; Awulachew, et al., 2005):
Treadle pumps;
Tube well pumps;
Modified well pumps;
River pumps;
Pressure pumps;
Solar power pumps;
Diesel operated pumps;
Drip irrigation;
Micro-sprinkler irrigation; and
Centre pivot irrigation.
Whether employing traditional, modern or a combination of the two irrigation systems, small scale farmers can derive various agricultural and social benefits. It should be noted, however, that irrigation can also have possible negative effects on the livelihoods and resilience of farmers through ecological imbalances, socio-economic impacts (inequality generated through unequal access), biological and ecological change (change in soil properties and water quality) (Ulsido, et al., 2013:18; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:879). It is crucial that both the positive and negative characteristics of small scale irrigation be highlighted, as this will provide some insight into the variables that would need to be considered when measuring the contribution of small scale irrigation to rural community resilience. 3.2.2 The benefits of small-scale irrigation systems to societal development Many authors agree that the positive impact and contribution of small scale irrigation to societal development is clear over different temporal and spatial scales (Haque, 1975, Li & Yuan, 2013; Gebregziabher, et al., 2009:1840; Mabuza, et al., 2013:72; Connor, 2008; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006). Access to irrigation has a dramatic effect on the crop production capacity and output of small scale irrigators (Connor, et al., 2008:9; Mabuza, et al., 2013:72; Gebregziabher, et al., 2009:1840; Bogale, 2012; Hussain, et al., 2007:333; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:876-877). Makombe et al., (2007:41) indicates that on average irrigated land can be as much as ten times more productive than rain-fed agricultural land. The discrepancy between irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture is also made clear by the number of agricultural cycles (sowing-harvesting) that can be completed per year. Specifically, without access to small scale irrigation systems, most farmers can only produce crops once or maybe twice a year, depending on the local climatic conditions and rainfall patterns. Due to their dependence on rain, which can be sporadic, this is of course not a given, whilst farmers that have access to irrigation systems can produce crops for food on a more consistent basis, significantly increasing their food and livelihood security (Bogale, 2012:589; Mabuza, et al., 2013). The knock on effect is that more income is potentially available to small scale irrigators to help them diversify their farming income through engagement in non-cropping activities such
as livestock farming (Gebregziabher, et al., 2009:1840). It has also been shown that increased production stimulated by irrigation leads to increased supply and demand for local and international markets, thereby raising the prices farmers can get for the production of certain crops (Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:876-877). Tesfaye et al. (2008) and Kamara et al. (2001) believe that small-scale irrigation farmers tend to put more effort into exploring ways of maximising farming income through the application of new techniques and technologies. It should be noted that the level of education of the farmer could also contribute to their likelihood of adopting new technologies or farming techniques. Some of the techniques adopted by irrigation farmers for improved production include increased crop diversification, use of fertilisers and insecticides, and renting additional farm land (Haque, 1975; Connor, et al., 2008:9). One of the most enduring impacts of small-scale irrigation is its ability to contribute to poverty reduction. Poverty plays an integral part in driving vulnerability, and therefore resilience can be increased when poverty is alleviated (Namara, et al., 2008). This assertion is not only evident on a theoretical level but also from various case studies. Bogale (2012:588), Haque (1975) and Hussain et al. (2007:333) state outright that access to irrigation contributes significantly to reducing the high poverty rate experienced by rural communities by enabling higher productivity, creating job opportunities and increasing food security. Gebregziabher et al. (2009:184) believe that there is a great discrepancy between the levels of poverty experienced by irrigators versus non-irrigators. It is specifically indicated that in a country like Ethiopia, irrigators tend to generate 44% more income than non-irrigators, and that consequently the levels of absolute poverty are far less prevalent in the irrigators group than in the non-irrigators group. Non-irrigators also tend to be less food secure than irrigators, with only 20% of non-irrigators indicating a positive level of food security, whilst 70% of irrigators show positive food security (Gebregziabher, et al., 2009:184; Tesfaye, et al., 2008:145). Namara et al. (2008) corroborates the link between lack of irrigation and poverty by stating that there is a significant difference in the severity of poverty between households who have access to an irrigation system and those who don’t. The advantages generated through small-scale irrigation are not just limited to the farmer and his immediate family, but society at large. Li and Yuan (2013:139) shows that small scale irrigation has a broader economic impact by contributing to the economic development of
rural areas and assisting in stabilising the micro-economy in such areas. This is done through the creation of local markets for labour, food, other goods and services (Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:879). Lankford (2003:819) and Gebregziabher et al. (2009) confirms this in postulating that as the size and number of small-scale irrigation projects increase, so too does population size, thereby increasing the instances of trade and economic exchange between irrigating farmers, labourers, householders, landowners and service providers. The economic integration generated through small scale irrigation has great benefit for poverty reduction and basic service delivery for rural communities (Gebregziabher et al., 2009:1837; Hanja et al., 2009:1602). 3.2.3 Challenges and weaknesses of small-scale irrigation Although it has been demonstrated that small-scale irrigation provides an excellent opportunity for improving societal resilience, food security and the overall level of development, cases do exist that illustrate that when implemented incorrectly, small-scale irrigation could be extremely counter-productive and harmful to societal development (Ulsido, et al., 2013:18). Issues highlighted include, water distribution inequalities and the consequences thereof, difficulties in maintenance and management of irrigation systems, top-down implementation of irrigation projects and price fluctuations. The most prominent issue with regards to irrigation is access to irrigated land. Often the poorest and least resilient persons in a community do not have access to or ownership of irrigated land. This means that they either do not have the ability to produce crops for their own food security or to generate an income, or they effectively have to give away part of their productive output (food security/ income) to the land owner as rent payment for the land they are using. An associated issue that emerged from literature regarding difficulties faced by small scale irrigation farmers is the unequal distribution of water sources throughout an irrigation system. To put this into perspective, small scale irrigation systems are divided into sections called the head, middle and tail (Lam, 1996; Hussain, et al., 2007; Brugere & Lingard, 2003; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:879). Lam (1996) and Hussain et al. (2007) explain that farmers at the head (called “headers”) of an irrigation system have a tendency to overuse water resources due to the abundance of water available to them. Wellens et al. (2013:12), estimates that “headers” are often responsible for using twice their allowable allocation of water to irrigate their land. This situation generates an inequality of water distribution to
farmers in the middle and tail sections of the irrigation scheme, which in turn effects their production and capital generation capacity (Hussain, et al., 2007; Brugere & Lingard, 2003; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:879). On a different level this situation also leads to unequal development and differing levels of resilience within society, with “headers” becoming rich landowners, whilst tail farmers remain subsistence farmers (Lam, 1996; Hussain, et al., 2007; Brugere & Lingard, 2003; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:879). Another almost universal problem identified relates to the maintenance and management of small scale irrigation projects. There is an increasing movement by Governments, NGOs and international donors to upgrade or replace traditional small scale irrigation with more efficient modern irrigation technologies. As mentioned earlier these modern technologies do hold advantages for improved water control and increased crop production (Lam 1996:1303; Makombe, et al., 2007:36). However, due to the technical nature of many of the interventions, farmers cannot always maintain the systems themselves, and very often the systems fall into disrepair and irrigation efficiency starts to decline (Lam, 1996; Li & Yuan, 2013:140; Mwendera, et al., 2013:136). Aberra et al. (2004:237), Li and Yuan (2013) and Lam (1996, 2001) all indicate top down implementation of small scale irrigation projects as a huge impediment to the sustainability of many such projects. Specifically, the authors indicate that projects are often implemented without prior engagement with the farmers or communities they are intended to serve. The effect of this is two-fold: firstly, the projects do not speak to the needs of the farmers and are often also not environmentally appropriate (as outside engineers are often not aware of changes in seasonal river flows, for example). Secondly, because farmers were not consulted before implementation, there is a low level of buy-in or ownership of the project and they view their role as minimal in terms of maintenance - leading to the maintenance issues discussed above (Lam, 1996; Aberra, 2004; Li & Yuan, 2013). Lam (1996:10-13) states that irrigation projects where there is an equal relationship between the farmers and the implementing agency (i.e. government or international donors), and constant technical assistance provided to the farmers, the success and sustainability of the project is greatly enhanced, The final aspect that should be taken into account is price fluctuation brought about by smallscale irrigation projects. As was alluded to briefly in the advantages of small-scale irrigation,
irrigation projects may increase production or help to diversify production, and lead to the opening of markets which could lead to an increase in the sale price of crops produced (depending on the pricing regulation mechanisms that are in place locally and internationally). However, this is somewhat of a double edged sword, as in the absence of a controlling agency or rules and regulations, production can become unregulated within such a system (Lam, 2001; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:876-877). The effect is that all farmers in the irrigation project start to produce the same high value crop with the view to generate a large profit. This leads to supply outstripping demand, and a sharp decline in the crop price. The decline in the crop price would greatly impact on the livelihood and overall poverty of farmers within the irrigation system, especially the farmers at the tail of the irrigation scheme (Lam, 2001; Van den Berg & Ruben, 2006:876-877). 3.2.4 How small-scale irrigation affects resilience of small-scale farmers in a rural setting It is clear from the discussion above that small-scale irrigation can potentially play a significant role in increasing small-scale farmers' resilience. Small-scale irrigation contributes immensely to the alleviation of poverty in households as well as increases their level of capacity to cope with certain obstacles posed by food insecurity, climate and weather unpredictability. The use of small-scale irrigation systems enhances a small-scale farmer’s ability to produce a higher overall yield per annum, thereby increasing the farmer’s potential to survive the negative impacts associated with natural disasters that affect rain-fed production. An increase in annual yield should increase the farmer’s own food supply, allowing him the ability to provide his household with enough food year round, potentially even during times of drought and other natural disasters. Crops produced beyond the immediate needs of the family can also be stored for times of need. Increased crop production above the needs of the farmer’s household allows for the selling of the excess, thus allowing the farmer to generate an income, thereby alleviating poverty and leading to increased financial security in times of need, such as when natural disasters strike. A more constant supply of food year round, without the dependency on often sporadic rainfall, and a level of financial self-sustainability created out of producing and selling excess crop yields, should lead to a small-scale farmer’s increased ability to secure his own food needs, thereby making him more resilient in the face of a natural hazards. However, small scale irrigation is not a panacea and should be employed
with other livelihood securing techniques of which improved crop varieties is worth mentioning.
3.3 The use of different/improved crop varieties The use of localised and traditional crop varieties is widely recognised as an important component of both resilience and adaptability. There are often strong cultural affiliations to both crop varieties and agricultural practice. However, a review of the literature shows that there are limitations to the extent of traditional crop varieties in respect of agricultural resilience with the following being critical factors:
Inability to adapt to changing climate conditions;
Lower yield in comparison to improved or hybrid varieties; and
The increased use of marginal soils requiring either fertiliser or hybrid crops further influenced by population pressure.
In light of this it is important to understand what needs to be done to improve crop production while ensuring environmental and social sustainability. Where the hazards are varied it is important that the crops farmers are planting are “appropriate” for their own conditions and enhance resilience rather than contribute to their own vulnerability. 3.3.1 Climate change and variability Climate change is transforming the context of smallholder agriculture (IFAD, 2013). Over the centuries, smallholders have drawn on indigenous knowledge and historical observations to manage the effects of a variable climate. Today, the speed and intensity of environmental change is outpacing their capacity to do so (FAO, 2013). Drought ranks as the highest cause of death particularly in Africa (IFAD, 2013). The reason for this is partly because “drought can cause water shortages, crop failures, and starvation. A shortage of precipitation causes soil moisture drought (also termed agricultural drought) and if this occurs during the growing season it can impinge on crop production, or ecosystem function. Similarly, during the runoff and percolation season, a shortage of precipitation affects water supplies due to hydrological drought. Soil moisture deficits have several additional effects beside those on agroecosystems, most importantly on other natural or managed ecosystems (including both forests and pastures)” (CDKN, 2013).
In April 2013 at a conference on global agriculture the following was noted: “Climate change could negatively affect the production potentials of agricultural resources in many areas. Increasing incidence of drought and desertification reduces the area of productive agricultural land. Climate change has encouraged the prevalence of new crop diseases and pests for which farmers are not prepared. Water sources have been influenced by climate both in terms of incidences of flooding and drought. These issues are often experienced in the same region, in the same year. The climate focus is shifting from a basic increase in global temperature, to increasingly erratic and extreme global weather events. It is as yet unclear whether these are short-term anomalies or demonstrating long-term climate patterns” (Wilton Park, 2013). 3.3.2 Lower yield comparisons Crop growth is limited by the soil nutrients and the availability of water. The primary soil macronutrients are nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and these are needed in sufficient quantities in the soil to ensure efficient plant growth. These nutrients are most likely to be in short supply in agricultural soils. The lack of any one of these essential nutrients can result in a severe limitation of crop yield. Secondary macronutrients are also needed in smaller quantities (Wilton Park, 2013). Water availability can be viewed either as a scarcity of water, or flooding whereby the soil is inundated for the planting of crops. In much of rural southern Africa the dilemma of using higher yielding hybrid maize varieties over lower yielding traditional varieties in uncertain climatic conditions poses a risk many are unwilling to take (CIMMYT, 2012). A 2012 study by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT) notes the following: “Trait preferences tacitly indicate the objectives and priorities of farming households. The preferences are also dictated by the opportunities and constraints farmers face in their enterprise selection and management. Under smallholder and semi-subsistence scenarios, smallholders' trait preferences do overlap and revolve around yield parameters. The findings of this research verify this conventional fact as farmers in all countries (except Mozambique) mentioned yield potential of varieties more than any other trait as the most desired trait of an ideal maize germplasm” (CIMMYT, 2012).
3.3.3 Short cycle crop varieties Padgham (2009:xix) is of the opinion that adaptation to climate change has never been as crucial as it currently is due to the climatic risks confronting agriculture and also the rising opportunity costs of not addressing resource degradation and poverty associated with underinvestment in agriculture. The positive aspect to agricultural development and adaptation is that better access to new varieties and other production factors can assist farmers to improve their overall production and to better manage the risks from droughts and floods (Padgham, 2009:xix). The emphasis in this report is the role of appropriate crop varieties to reduce crop exposure to hazards. Short cycle crop varieties will specifically be investigated, as a new crop variety that yields a harvest in a shorter time frame and will therefore be more beneficial than a traditional crop variety which takes longer to mature, thus being exposed to potential hazards for longer before being harvested. This can be summarised as follows:
Developing countries have chronically underinvested in science, technology, and innovation (ADB, 2009:10). The use of improved and short cycle crop varieties will be an essential component of adapting to key biotic and abiotic stresses related to climate change, including drought, heat, salinity, pests, and disease. These should be combined with tapping of traditional knowledge on crop varieties and adaptation (ADB, 2009:10).
The short cycle variety matures within an average of 90 instead of 120 days, which allows the grande saison to begin end February rather than in December. The benefits of this delay in the grande saison planting are twofold: firstly, it reduces the overlap between the main season and the peak cyclone season (February to March) when rice is traditionally at a very vulnerable developmental phase (flowering, heading). Secondly, it allows beneficiaries to recover from any serious damages to the fields as a result of cyclones during the counter season (FAO REOSA, 2011a).
REOSA (2011) states that one of the common actions taken to reduce the disaster risk and the impact on food security that cyclones and floods have on Malawi, Mozambique and Madagascar, is to introduce short-cycle crop variations for cereals such as rice, maize, millet and sorghum. These short-cycle crop variations have the benefit of producing larger yields in a shorter space of time (ASFG, 2013) so to reduce the exposure time to possible disasters such as floods and cyclones. A further advantage of the short-cycle crop
variations is that farmers are in fact able to harvest their crops earlier (REOSA, 2011), before the flooding season in these three countries start, thus maximising the eventual harvest. Being able to produce more crops in a shorter space of time has the added benefit of allowing farmers to plant a secondary crop after the flood season (REOSA, 2011). REOSA (2011) explains that the improved crop varieties used in Mozambique, Malawi and Madagascar have not been genetically altered by means of non-native genes, but rather developed by means of cross-breeding. These are termed Open Pollinated Varieties and their basic characteristic is heterogeneity, which makes them more adaptable over a diverse set of production environments. They are produced on-farm (Akulumuka et al., 2001), and the seed for the following year’s crop is obtained by saving seed from the current year’s crop. These seeds are able to reproduce up to 3-5 cycles of multiplication where after they will need to be replaced. 3.3.4 Crop varieties – reducing exposure time to hazards Cleveland et al. (1994) examined the benefits that short-cycle (short season) crops have played in rural, developing communities for many a year. As previously stated, by making use of short-cycle crops, subsistence and small-holder farmers have the potential to produce more within a given year. Although not focusing on the reduction of hazards nor on providing adequate food security, Cleveland et al. (1994) indicates the role that varying crops have played within African communities over a long period of time. They further recognise the effect that short-cycle crop varieties can have on reducing food insecurity and crops' exposure time to the potential natural hazards that might occur. Cleveland et al. (2006:1) states that small-scale family farmers are increasingly being challenged by the reality of producing "adequate harvests in difficult biophysical and socioeconomic environments". Resulting from a thorough study in the southern districts of Mali, Cleveland et al. (2006) argues that farmers choose varieties so as to optimise their agricultural outputs, with much evidence indicating farmers adopting shorter cycle sorghum varieties because of declining rainfall in Sahel. According to the research undertaken by Cleveland et al. (1994; 2006) subsistence farmers use different crop variations and cycle periods out of their own resolve, and also develop these variations according to their own needs as determined by the area they are situated in.
By using variable crops, these farmers are able to maximise their harvest and therefore also secure food for themselves and the community, thereby increasing their livelihoods.
3.4 The use of improved cropping techniques The promotion of good cropping techniques, such as diversity in crop rotation, improving soil and water resources, conservation tillage methods, crop sequences, cultivar selection, nutrient management and weed and disease control could mitigate the impact of natural hazards, and could facilitate early recovery. Fertile soils with good physical properties to support root growth are essential for sustainable agriculture (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). Soil degradation often occurs from poor fertiliser and water management, soil erosion and shortened fallow periods. Furthermore, soil degradation is intensified by continuous cropping and inadequate replacement of nutrients (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). Erosion can be severe on steep slopes where windbreaks have been cleared, vegetative cover is absent during the rainy season, and where heavy machinery is involved in land preparation. The simplification of vegetation, which is what happens in monocrop production systems, leads to a decrease in faunal diversity as the root exudates from one single crop will only attract a few different microbial species. This affects the predator diversity, where the more opportunistic pathogen species will be able to cause more harm to the crop (Bot & Benites, 2005). Soil fertility could be restored and maintained by crop rotation, reduced tillage, cover crops, fallow periods, manuring and balanced fertiliser application (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). Malézieux (2011:3) emphasised that sustainable agriculture should ensure no chemical contamination of the environment, no soil loss, a limited impact on biodiversity, and reduced dependency on non-renewable resources, while meeting economic and social objectives. Therefore, enhancing resilience in agriculture requires the integration of natural ecosystems and traditional agrosystems, and is based on the following six principles (Malézieux, 2011:9):
Use complementary functional traits to ensure production and resilience;
Maintain soil fertility through soil cover;
Favour facilitation vs. competition between plants;
Contain pests through complex trophic levels;
Use plant properties and biological alternatives to control pests; and
Reproduce ecological successions after disturbance.
A variety of practices could be employed to increase nutrient-use efficiency: soil testing and improved timing of fertiliser application, preferential planting of crops and crop strains that have higher nutrient-use efficiency, and the closing of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles by appropriately applying livestock waste as an organic fertiliser, to name a few (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). Furthermore, cover crops or reduced tillage can reduce leaching, volatilisation and erosional losses of nutrients (Tilman et al., 2002: 673). Nutrient-use efficiency could also be increased by better matching nutrient supply with plant demand. Applying fertilisers during periods of greatest crop demand, at or near the plant roots, and in smaller and more frequent applications all have the potential to reduce losses while maintaining or improving yields and quality. The use of multiple cropping systems such as crop rotations or intercropping may increase nutrient- and water-use efficiency. Agroforestry, in which trees are included in a cropping system, may improve nutrient availability and efficiency of use and may reduce erosion, provide firewood and store carbon (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). Planting of trees and shrubs in buffer strips surrounding cultivated fields could decrease soil erosion, mitigate the negative effects of wind and take up nutrients that otherwise would enter surface or ground waters. Furthermore, buffer zones along streams, rivers and lakeshores can also decrease nutrient and silt loading from cultivated fields or pastures. Insects and other animals living in nearby habitats or buffer strips could also contribute to crop pollination (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). 3.4.1 Use complementary functional traits to ensure production and resilience The use of complementary functional traits means that different resources are used by different species (Malézieux, 2011:23). Species differ from one another in their resource use, environmental tolerances, and interactions with other species. Furthermore, species composition has a major influence on ecosystem functioning and stability. “The traits that characterise the ecological function of a species are termed functional traits, and species that share similar suites of traits are often categorised together into functional groups” (Cleland, 2012). When species from different functional groups occur together, complementary resource-use could take place, indicating that they use different resources or use the same resources at different times. For example, in the case of plants, all species may utilise the same suite of resources (space, light, water and soil nutrients, for example) but at different times during the growing season. Increasing the diversity of species can influence the
functioning of an ecosystem, for example, ecosystem productivity may increase due to efficient exploiting of soil resources such as nutrients and water (Cleland, 2012). Row planting is a system of growing crops in linear pattern in at least one direction rather than planting without any definite arrangement. It is practiced in most crops whether direct seeded, transplanted or grown from vegetative planting materials (April, 2011). Crops are planted in rows or straight lines, either singly or in multiple rows, mostly to improve maximum yields as well as for convenience. An east-west row alignment is preferred to maximise light absorption, but this is not always achievable. In many circumstances the topography, which includes the shape, terrain and slope of the land, as well as the location of current vegetation, roads, irrigation lines, buildings and physical barriers, dictate the row orientation (April, 2011). Advantages of row planting include the following (April, 2011):
Light absorption is increased and, equally, the excessive shading effect of other plants is reduced thus supporting more efficient photosynthesis and improved crop yield;
Wind passage along the inter rows is improved which increases gas exchanges and prevents excessive humidity;
Access through the inter rows enables cultivation, weeding, and other farm operations including hauling;
Movement within the crop area is convenient and permits close inspection of individual plants; and
Visibility is better.
‘Skip rows’ refers to a planting technique in which planting density is limited by planting crops using wider row spacing, for example, planting two or four rows and skipping one (Creswell & Martin, 1998:13). Decreasing planting density by skipping rows can increase water availability in areas with very limited water availability, and thereby increase yield (Whish et al. cited in Davies et al., 2010:2). Dynamic cropping systems include the following: what to grow, when to grow it, and how to grow it. Dynamic cropping systems use crop sequencing to manage crop residues, to reduce the impact of diseases, to improve nutrient- and precipitation-use efficiency and to increase water-use efficiency of the cropping system. Crop sequencing could also decrease
requirements for fertiliser and pesticides when sequencing crops in a manner to take advantage of available water and nutrients while disrupting weed and disease cycle. On the other hand, mono-culture and short-term fixed-sequence cropping systems can lead to significant weed and disease problems which could result in reduced crop yield (Anderson and Petrie cited in Hanson et al., 2007:941). For the successful implementation of crop sequencing farmers and farm advisors will need an enhanced understanding of the biology involved in agro ecosystems, particularly regarding the interaction of biological and ecological factors (Hanson et al., 2007:941). Interplanting can be defined as the growing of two different plants or crops in an area at the same time (Miller, 2006:211). This technique of planting is used to save space, among others. The following different types of interplanting could be identified (Miller, 2006:211):
Poly culture: many different plants planted together, crops mature at different times, provide food throughout the year and keep soil covered for protection;
Poly varietal cultivation: planting a plot with several genetic varieties of the same crop;
Intercropping: two or more different crops grown at the same time on a plot; and
Agroforestry: crops and trees grown together.
To successfully interplant, plants should be considered with similar nutrient and moisture requirements (Miller, 2006:211). Intercropping, also known as mixed cropping or cocultivation, is a type of agricultural technique that implicates the planting of two or more crops simultaneously in the same field. By planting multiple crops at once it will allow the crops to work together (Hirst, 2013). Intercropping has the following benefits (Hirst, 2013):
Balancing the input and outgo of soil nutrients;
Suppress weeds and insect pests;
Sustain climate extremes (wet, dry, hot, cold);
Restrain plant diseases;
Growth of overall productivity; and
Utility of scarce resources to the fullest degree.
Intercropping is recommended as an alternative technique for small-scale farmers to improve their yield, and therefore food production and income in limited spaces. Intercropping can
also be seen as insurance: if one crop fails, the other might not, and at least one of the crops might produce in a given year, no matter how extreme the weather circumstances (Hirst, 2013). 3.4.2 Maintain soil fertility through soil cover Agriculture usually entails mechanical actions, such as tilling and hoeing, which disturb the soil fauna and flora. Soil tillage can be considered as an effective way of preparing for the next crop. However, soil-borne bio-diversity appears to be greater when there is no soil tillage. Large quantities of residue and organic matter are returned to the soil in no-tillage, and to varying degrees reduced tillage systems. The residues left on the soil surface slow down the carbon cycle as they are exposed to fewer micro-organisms and thus wane more slowly. This results in the production of humus, which is a stable form of organic matter, thereby increasing the soil’s fertility naturally (Bot & Benites, 2005). Soil tillage is thus a human-made disturbance that modifies the dynamics and balance between animal and plant species (weeds, earthworms, etc.) (Malézieux, 2011:23). The adoption of agricultural conservation practices, such as minimum (limiting tillage intensity) or no-tillage production techniques, is one strategy that farmers can use to protect themselves against extreme weather events such as drought. Conservation tillage refers to any tillage system that leaves at least 30 % residue cover on the soil surface after planting (Ding, et al., 2009:17), thus allowing for natural maintenance of soil fertility. Crops are planted or sown directly into untilled soil that may retain residues from the previous crop or a cover crop. Appropriate cover crops can fix nitrogen, which is an essential element need for crop production. No-till agriculture refers to a production method of growing crops from year to year without ploughing the soil, which leads to increased levels of crop residues in the field that conserves soil moisture (Ding et al., 2009:5). “Conservation agriculture aims to minimise both mechanical soil tillage using heavy machinery and the application of agrochemicals, while retaining permanent organic soil cover to minimise soil evaporation” (Davies, et al., 2010:1). Organic and/or inorganic materials (mulching) can be used to cover soil in order to minimise soil evaporative losses and suppress weeds (Macdonald, 2013:15; Davies, et al., 2010:2) and improve soil fertility. Mulching may also speed up crop development. Organic mulches
include, among others, by-products from other industries such as farmyard manure, maize stalks and grass, and are usually locally sourced. They could be seasonal in their availability. The application of natural organic compost and mulch should reduce the dependency on inorganic/chemical fertilisers. Previous research suggests that no-till, when applied on suitable land with favourable weather and proper management, could produce yields at least as high as conventional tillage. However, some studies considered conservation tillage to be riskier than conventional tillage. Therefore, risk averse producers are less likely to employ conservation tillage systems because they are unfamiliar with the new tillage practices and/or lack management skills. This perception could decrease over time with education, demonstration, and assimilation of the new technology (Ding et al., 2009:6). The following benefits could be derived from adopting conservation tillage practices (Ding, et al., 2009:22; Davies, et al., 2010:1):
Greater amounts of crop residue left on the soil surface should significantly reduce water evaporation and increase water infiltration into the soil;
Time-saving effect - conservation tillage systems should reduce fieldwork during the critical pre-plant and post-harvest periods. Some researchers suggest that the adoption of conservation tillage should be greater in areas with a shorter growing season (Rahm and Huffman cited in Ding et al., 2009:18) and when the growing season is intentionally reduced due to the use of short cycle crop varieties;
Reduce costs: labour (the main cost in rural Africa) and machinery-related costs, as well as fuel consumption;
Reduce soil erosion. Rain is the largest cause of soil erosion and heavy rainstorms contribute to soil erosion and destructive damage. Without any shift in production practices, wet years can significantly increase soil loading into surface water sources (Turvey cited in Ding et al., 2009:22). An effective method to fight this kind of erosion is to keep the soil covered. Conservation till could reduce soil erosion as it leaves more residue in the field;
Decrease damaging soil compaction. Long-term intensive tillage causes soil compaction, and excessive rain could worsen the problem of compaction;
Reduce the loss of soil carbon; and
Minimise disturbance in soil biology.
Data (Ding, et al., 2009:21) suggests that conservation tillage is more frequently adopted with the production of corn and soybeans, as no-till provides greater benefits with corn and soybeans than with other crops. Firstly, corn and soybean are water-intensive crops and lack drought tolerance, and secondly, corn takes longer than other crops to establish ground-cover in the spring, when the land is most prone to soil erosion (Ding, et al., 2009:21). Potential negative effects of conservation practices could be the build-up of plant pathogens in the rhizosphere due to residue retention and slow root elongation and shoot growth due to the increased strength of untilled soil (Masle & Passioura cited in Davies et al., 2010:2), and possible harvest decline due to the use of herbicides (Friedrich, 2005). The interacting negative effects of soil microbiology and physical properties may be overcome using varieties with more vigorous root growth (Watt et al. cited in Davies et al., 2010:2). Pit planting is an old farming technique that has been rediscovered after the great drought of 1973/74 and was later perfected by development partners working with the farmers. Planting pits involves digging a pit with a diameter of at least 30 to 40 cm and 10 to 15 cm deep, spaced 70 to 80 cm apart, resulting in around 10,000 pits per hectare. Staggered rows of holes are dug vertically to the slope (Dorlöchter-Sulser & Nill, 2012:39). The soil dug out of the hole is piled up to form a small edge around the rim, which captures water. Only a few handfuls of organic fertiliser or compost is put into each pit. Pits are normally made in the dry season before the first rains start, but it is actually recommended that the pits are made immediately after the rainy season, when the weather is not too hot and the soil is still moist. If the pits are in place early in the dry season, they act as traps during the windy period, retaining rich dust carried by wind and contain organic matter. The recommendation for compost is at least three tons per hectare. The planting pits must be redug every two years (Dorlöchter-Sulser & Nill, 2012:39). According to Rangarajan (2009), it is important to understand the basics of how nutrients are added to and released from soil organic matter, and this will help the farmer in choosing crop categorisations and amendments to optimise organic crop fertility. Certain fractions of soil organic matter contribute to plant nutrition more than other fractions. To effectively plan organic crop rotations to meet crop nutrient needs, several factors should be considered. As
already mentioned, legume crops, which capture atmospheric nitrogen and “fix” it into forms available to plants, can be used strategically in rotations to meet the needs of nitrogendemanding crops. Cover crops used after a cash crop capture surplus plant-available nutrients and conserve these for following crops. Other types of organic amendments, such as compost and manures or approved mineral fertilisers, can supplement nutrients at targeted times during a rotation. 3.4.3 Favour facilitation versus competition between plants In plant combinations, various rhizosphere processes (processes that are largely controlled or directly influenced by roots) may be involved in helping to increase the performance of intercropped species (Malézieux, 2011:23; Cheng, 2009). These processes may include exudation of soluble compounds, water uptake, nutrient mobilisation by roots and microorganisms, soil organic matter decomposition, and the release of CO2 through respiration (Cheng, 2009). One of the species (sometimes both) facilitates access to nutrient resources that are not easily available to the associated cultivated species. In that way nutritional interactions between species can be encouraged. Combinations including nitrogen-fixing legumes are among the best known and the most efficient. Legumes can provide other species with large quantities of nitrogen through their dead roots or nodules (Malézieux, 2011:23). Salinger (2011) explains that crop rotation consists of swapping the species of crop that a farmer grows on his or her land each year. Rotating crops helps prevent pests from getting used to the type of plant that is being grown. Planting different species of crops each growing season also promotes soil fertility. According to Lanting (2011:1), planting legumes (a plant that helps fertilise crops through nitrogen fixing bacteria that it has on its roots) and then planting crops that require high levels of nitrogen ensures that soil is healthy each growing season. In turn, healthy soil helps protect against pests because an imbalance in plant nutrition increases a harvest’s vulnerability to pests. The following benefits could be derived when adopting crop rotation (Osundwa et al., 2013:812):
Dramatic increases in soil fertility;
Optimise nutrient and water use by crops;
Improve soil resources; and
Can save crops from damaging pests without the need for harmful pesticides.
Mohler and Johnson (2009:4) describes the following basic guidelines that should be considered in crop rotation practices:
The starting point for the design of a rotation should be the capabilities of the farm and the land in terms of soil type, soil texture and climatic conditions;
Deep rooting crops should follow shallow rooting crops;
Alternate between crops with high and low root biomass;
Nitrogen fixing crops should alternate with nitrogen demanding crops;
Wherever possible, catch crops, green manures, and under sowing techniques should be used to keep the soil covered;
Crops which develop slowly and are therefore susceptible to weeds should follow weed suppressing crops;
Alternate between leaf and straw crops;
Where a risk of disease or soil borne pest problems exists, potential host crops should only occur in the rotation at appropriate time intervals;
Use variety and crop mixtures when possible; and
Alternate between autumn and spring sown crops. 3.4.4 Contain pests through complex trophic levels Literature suggests that the intensity of pest problems faced by modern agriculture is exacerbated by the massive use of chemicals. There is a great deal of evidence that biodiversity in plant communities might be used in agro-ecosystems to improve pest management. Habitats should be promoted that are suitable for the native useful fauna and unsuitable for harmful fauna. By favouring an abundance of associated natural enemies, plant diversity may improve the regulation of insect herbivore populations. Pest populations could be reduced by repelling them or discouraging them from coming to settle on threatened plants, or by attracting them to other neighbouring plants. The stimuli may be visual, chemical, or food-based. For example, pigeon pea and maize are able to attract the species Helicoverpa armigera, a cotton and tomato pest. Weedy strips could be installed that increase
nectar and pollen nutrient resources for numerous insects. Many intercrops have also been tested as trap plants with various crops, for example the use of alfalfa or sorghum with cotton (Malézieux, 2011:24). 3.4.5 Use plant properties and biological alternatives to control pests Biopesticides and botanicals can also serve as alternatives to chemical pesticides. Microbes and natural plant extracts can be used as natural alternatives to pesticides. For example, extracts from leaves of the African mint Hyptis sualovens, papaya, and neem have insecticidal and/or repellent properties (Malézieux, 2011:24). Effective pest management is needed to control weedy competitors of crops, crop diseases and pathogens. This could also result in increased yields (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). The intermingled planting of crop genotypes that have different disease-resistance profiles can also decrease or even effectively eliminate a pathogen. Therefore, crop rotation and intercropping can reduce the impact of crop diseases and pathogens and improve pest control. Organisms living in buffer strips can provide effective control of many agricultural pests. Buffer strips can also be managed to reduce inputs of weeds and other agricultural pests (Tilman et al., 2002: 674). Moreover integrated pest management (IPM) is an effective and environmentally sensitive approach to pest management that relies on a combination of common-sense practices. IPM is not a single pest control method but a series of pest management evaluations, decisions and controls. Typically in an IPM approach four steps are present:
Setting thresholds for action (i.e. when should pest control actions be taken?);
Identify and monitor pests;
Prevention; and
Control (biological, cultural, mechanical and/or chemical methods used in combination).
3.4.6 Reproduce ecological successions after disturbance The successions of species seen after a disturbance have been covered in numerous studies. An example of this is the traditional slash-and-burn systems employed in the humid Tropics in which grain cropping is followed by vegetable cropping, followed by silviculture and ultimately recreating a forest cover (Malézieux, 2011:24). After the destruction of forest by fire, grain crops are planted (rice, maize, etc.), soon followed by vegetatively propagated
plants (cassava, taro, yam, banana), and soon intercropped with or replaced by woody perennial species (fruit trees, palms, coconuts). Thus, shifting agriculture in the Tropics consists of alternative periods of fallow and cultivation. During the fallow period, successional vegetation takes place during soil restoration and may diversely be used, managed, exploited, or harvested depending on the site and climate. The main objective of leaving land fallow is to restore chemical and biological soil fertility. It allows the replenishment of nutrients, decreases populations of weeds and pathogens, and increases the population of earth-worms and mycorrhizal fungi (Malézieux, 2011:25). The implementation of the above-mentioned principles requires ecological knowledge of local natural ecosystems as well as an analysis of the objectives sought for the cropping system. Designing cropping systems from nature requires the use of specific practices or combinations of practices such as mixed cropping of species, varieties or cultivars, intercropping, rotations, agroforestry practices, cover crops, service plants, no-tillage practices, composting and green-manuring (Malézieux, 2011:26). All these techniques could be used in a variety of combinations, but their success and their development also depend on how well farmers can incorporate these practices in new cropping systems that satisfy both ecological, economic, and social constraints on a farm scale. Local farmers are also often a source of original (traditional) agro ecological knowledge based on observations of nature. Such traditional knowledge from local farmers should be directly integrated into existing and/or new cropping systems (Malézieux, 2011:26). Improved cropping techniques can also have an impact on the timing of production.
3.5 Changing the timing of crop production One of the most important factors that affect agricultural productivity in Southern Africa is the high spatial and temporal variability of rainfall. This is reflected by the dry spells and periodical droughts and floods that these areas experience. For this reason the altering of production timing will be explored to prevent severe agricultural losses at peak risk periods in hazard prone areas. In Southern Africa the peak of hazards for droughts are likely to occur at random intervals, while floods and cyclones are more likely to occur in the period from December to March. These in effect directly influence the agricultural rain fed season and production, especially in
areas prone to hazards. The timing of crop production in these hazard prone areas of Southern Africa can be altered slightly to reduce or prevent the climatic impacts at peak risk periods and to ensure that small-scale farmers and their production period are more resilient during peak risk periods, by either early planting or late planting of crops. 3.5.1 Early Planting Early planting is when crops are planted earlier in the planting season to ensure that the crops will be mature enough at peak hazard periods. Early planting might significantly increase dry matter accumulations and improve crop yields in comparison with normal planting times (Bannayan et al., 2013:57). Laux et al. (2010:1259) on the other hand also explained that planting crops too early might lead to crop failure. Therefore, early planting is when crops are being planted with the first rains, which in effect increases the risk of crop failure. 3.5.2 Late Planting Late planting is when crops are being planted after the normal planting season, or the planting season is delayed until the severe hazards have passed. Thus, late planting is considered to be the planting of crops after the rainy season. Laux et al. (2012:1259) states that by planting crops too late in a season might reduce the crops’ valuable growing time and also crop yield, while it can also delay or reduce crops’ initiation and maturity (Buddhaboon et al., 2011:270). According to Bannayan et al. (2013:62) the late planting of crops holds a few advantages and disadvantages for crop production. The advantages include that the stress of drought during the early growth stages could be avoided because of more water availability. The disadvantages on the other hand include that the crops could be exposed to higher temperatures while maturing and a probable scarcity of rain in the final stages of crop growth, except if it is combined with short cycle varieties and with good cropping agronomic techniques. In the following section the adaptation of the crop production will be investigated to determine whether or if these adaptations influence farmers’ resilience. 3.5.3 Adaptation of production season to increase resilience of small-scale farmers Laux et al. (2010:1260) believe that the planting dates of crops are of central importance for agricultural productivity. It is therefore critical for the agricultural sector, especially the smallscale farmers, to increase their resilience to hazards by making adaptations to their
production season. A key component in adapting agriculture identified by Howden et al. (2007:19693), is to change the agricultural practices of farmers at the management level. The existing adaptation options at the management level are basically an extension of existing production enhancement activities in the response to a potential climate change risk profile. Various management adaptation options are identified by Howden et al. (2007:19693) to cope with the projected climatic hazards and they include:
Altering the timing as well as the location of farmers’ cropping activities;
Annual climate forecasting can be used to reduce the agricultural production risk;
Improving the effectiveness of pest and disease control practices(through an integrated approach);
Adapting integration with other farming activities, for example livestock;
Adapting crop species to those species with increased resistance to hazards, or intercropping;
Adapting irrigation timing and water management in crop fields; and
A wider use of technologies to “harvest” water and to conserve soil moisture.
By combining some of these adaptations, negative impacts could be limited and the positive impacts could be increased. Farmers around the globe according to Sacks et al. (2010:607), are going to face a very challenging task because a growing population leads to an increase in food production. One of the most important strategies that farmers could use in the face of a changing climate in order to maintain or even increase their crop yields, especially in developing countries, is to adjust their crop planting dates. The quantity and quality of crop productions can be drastically impacted, just through the appropriate selection of crop planting dates. By changing the planting date of crops one can either increase crop production and reduce the risk of crops being impacted by hazards, or crops can be exposed to severe environmental conditions (Bannayan et al., 2013:57). In a few hazard prone areas like Cameroon and Khorasan the timing of crop production has already been altered to make them less vulnerable to severe hazards. A few examples of these areas will be given below. 3.5.3.1 Lessons learned from other countries Laux et al. (2010:1269-1270) evaluated the impact of climate change on the yields of maize and groundnuts under rain fed conditions, at five different stations in Cameroon. The authors
found that in rain fed regions like Cameroon, crop yields don’t reach their full potential because of fluctuating weather conditions and imperfect agricultural management decisions. They identified that the planting date of crops is of great importance. This study’s results indicated that the estimation of optimal crop planting dates is consequential for crop productivity. For the five stations in Cameroon, the adaptation of the planting date resulted in a very cost-effective way of potentially increasing crop productivity and increasing or stabilising their food security (Laux et al., 2010:1269-1270). Similarly, Bannayan et al. (2013:56-63) investigated the optimum planting date for rain fed crops in the Khorasan province in Iran. The authors found that the planting date had a direct impact on crop evapotranspiration, especially when there is limited soil moisture which is determined by the intensity of droughts. This study proved that there was a higher crop production when the crops were planted at earlier stages. This study therefore suggests that ideal planting dates can result in an early ground cover for crops, thereby reducing evaporation from soil surface, and increased production (Bannayan et al., 2013:56-63). According to Lopez-Marrero and Tschakert (2011:229) enhancing a community’s resilience is the core element of disaster management, risk reduction and efforts to reduce vulnerability. The differences in the timing of crop production are affected by various factors, which include rainfall, fluctuating temperatures, solar radiation and soil conditions. Malawi, Madagascar and Mozambique are the three areas identified in this report, which are prone to severe hazards. By altering the timing of crop production by means of planting time; producers could increase crop production by reducing the exposure of crops to severe hazards.
4 METHODOLOGY To answer the research questions of this study as rigorously and comprehensively as possible this study adopted a literature review and an dualistic empirical study design (qualitative and quantitative).
4.1 Literature review A comprehensive literature review was conducted to provide a theoretical overview of resilience and disaster risk reduction interventions in agriculture and focused on the following key technical areas: • Role of small-scale irrigation systems in increasing household food security resilience in hazard prone areas; • Role of farmers’ associative mechanisms in increasing farmer resilience to natural hazards; • Role of appropriate crop varieties to reduce crop exposure to hazards; • Promotion of good cropping techniques to mitigate the impact of natural hazards (and facilitate an early recovery); and • Timing of production in hazard prone areas to prevent losses at peak risk periods.
4.2 Empirical study A quantitative and qualitative research paradigm was used (a mixed method design). According to De Vos et al. (2013:443) in an embedded mixed method design “one data set provides a supportive, secondary role in a study based primarily on the other data type”. This research design is particularly useful when qualitative data is used to follow up the results of an experimental type design (De Vos et al., 2013:443). In this study quantitative data gathered from surveys was used to test the various hypotheses. Qualitative data, which was obtained from focus groups and face-to-face surveys, was used to give a deeper understanding of, and elaborate on the findings from the quantitative data. The combination of these designs gave the researchers the ability to draw on multiple types of data and results to structure their arguments for the conclusions of this study.
4.2.1 Sampling The survey sample was targeted at the beneficiaries of various agricultural and food security activities undertaken by FAO and partners over the past five years under DIPECHO funding. The research was conducted in Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique. A combined total of 1110 respondents were interviewed; Mozambique represented 40.3% (N=447) of participants, Madagascar 30.4% (N=337) and Malawi 29.4% (N=326). These beneficiaries were identified by FAO partners in the various countries. Respondents were then randomly selected from these target populations by enumerators and the survey was completed as discussed further in this report. The communities in the various countries were:
Madagascar o Vangaindrano (N=169); o Farafangana (N=101); and o Mananjary (N=67).
Malawi o Chikhwana (N=151); and o Nsanje (N=175).
Mozambique o Mossuril (N=213); and o Ilha de Moçambique (N=234).
4.2.2 Questionnaire design The survey used in this study was designed in such a way to allow the questions to be analysed in various ways.To evaluate the contribution of each of the FAO’s activities, Likert scale items were included as well as questions which would allow the researchers to measure disaster resilience, based on the theoretical foundation as discussed previously. The literature review was conducted to identify a framework, which could be used to measure disaster resilience. It was found that there is currently a vast amount of frameworks which could be used to measure resilience (Brown & Kulig, 1996-1997; Tobin, 1999; Adger, 2000; Buckle, 2006; Foster, 2006; and Tierney, 2006). However it was felt that these frameworks do not adequately capture all the dimensions of resilience, which is inherently a very broad concept.
It was decided to use the Department for International Development’s (DFID) Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) because it gives a more holistic picture of the dimensions of resilience. This framework is also more suited to the objectives of the FAO’s activities. According to this framework, resilience has the following dimensions (called “capitals”): natural, social, human, economic, and financial. These capital domains were used to structure the research tool. If a community increases the amount of capital they have along these dimensions, they will be able to in a position to better anticipate and reduce their exposure and also recover better after a disaster. Questions were therefore included in the survey which would test the various dimensions of the SLF. The draft survey was sent to the FAO and the in-country teams for their comments. To test and validate the research tools, a workshop was held in Malawi. The aim of the workshop was also to train key personnel of each country team (Malawi, Mozambique and Madagascar) on the utilisation of the research tools, technology and techniques. To this end, during the workshop, a pilot study was carried out in Chikhwana district in Malawi to see if there were any unforeseeable problems with the application of the questionnaire, and to test the research technology in a live environment. During the pilot study the quantitative questionnaire was constantly changed in line with the learning of the pilot team in the field. After the workshop and pilot study the final questionnaire was compiled, and agreed to by FAO. The focus group questionnaire was designed to elicit supplementary information which could be used to support or illuminate some findings from the survey data. The focus group questionnaire was also sent to the FAO and the in-country teams for their comments before it was finalised. 4.2.3 Field research 4.2.3.1 Madagascar The Centre d’Etudes et de recherches Economiques pour le développement (CERED) at the University of Antannanarivo, undertook the field reseach in three districts of two Regions of Madagascar (Vatovavy Fitovinany Region with the district of Mananjary and Southeast Region with the districts of Farafangana and Vaingaindrano). In addition to the data collected in ten communities (2 communities within the district of Mananjary, 3 communities within the district of Farafangana and 5 communities within the district of Vangaindrano), ten focus
group sessions was organised with the representatives of local communities in order to gain a better understanding of information captured in questionnaires. For this purpose, CERED established a team of 14 persons composed of 3 senior researchers and 5 researchers working with 6 newly DRM graduating experts from DMGRC (Multidisciplinary DRM Master programme within the University of Antananarivo). The team was trained on the methodology to be used in order to have a good and commonly agreed understanding. This was followed by training on the use of the research technology (tablets training). After these two steps, the team translated the questionnaires into Malagasy with special emphasis on local dialects. The training session were conducted from 20 November to 3 December 2013. 4.2.3.2 Mozambique The Technical University of Mozambique (UDM) was tasked to conduct the field research in ten communities of the Mossuril and Mozambique Island districts in the Nampula Province of Mozambique. UDM therefore established a team to collect data. The members were chosen after nine training meetings that took place in Maputo at UDM between the 18th and the 29th of November 2013. The purposes of these meetings were:
to inform the participants on the mission objective and methodology, on the questionnaire and on the focus group interviews;
to select the team members;
to set up a team able to cooperate productively with the Nampula team and to accomplish the mission’s objectives; and
to plan and define the data collection process.
The UDM team trained agriculture extension workers from Mossuril and Mozambique Island districts to conduct the survey in the local language, and supervised and supported them during the survey. The extension workers where chosen in collaboration with Oikos and the District Services for the Economic Activities (DSEA) of Mossuril and Mozambique Island. These extension workers participated to a two-day training programme on the research objectives, using the research technology and the survey’s questions. Three survey simulations were also conducted. Moreover, several short training sessions of 30 minutes were undertaken at the beginning of
every day of field work to review the more complex questions and to answer questions or provide clarity. 4.2.3.3 Malawi The Sustainable Rural Growth and Development Initiative (SRGDI), a local NGO in Malawi, conducted the research in Malawi. Due to the pilot study and workshop held in Malawi, the Malawi team had the benefit of early adoption and training. The communities of Nsanje and Chikhwawa (focus of the initial pilot study) were the focal points for the research. SRGDI had the privilege in working with GOAL Malawi, the Evangelic Association of Malawi as well as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security. The FAO country office also provided very valuable support. The core of the Malawi team consisted of eight researchers and ten community gate keepers. In order to familiarise the Malawi team with the research methodology and research technology, a number of training interventions were held. After such training the Malawi team conducted another pilot study within the Chikhwawa district with the aim of adding to the sample obtained from the initial pilot study. The additional data allowed the ACDS team to refine the questionnaire and test preliminary data analysis to determine statistical significance. 4.2.4 Data gathering The nature and extent of the research allowed the research team to explore new methods of multi-site, multi-language data collection by making use of electronic tablets and offline data capturing. The research team decided to use proprietary server side software (called Survey Analytics - see www.surveyanalytics.com) which allows for multi-language support and offline capturing of data with synchronisation capabilities. The final questionnaire was translated into Portuguese and French. Although the questionnaire was thus administered in three languages, the software allowed for the writing of the data to one central database. In doing so, the research team could constantly throughout the field research phase track data entries, research progress, identify problems with the answering of certain questions, and make live updates to the questionnaire which was synced with all the field electronic tables respectively. This data gathering technique and lessons learned in itself were found to be extremely valuable especially for an organisation such as FAO who are constantly relying on accurate and timely data from remote sites.
In each country the questionnaires were completed by trained enumerators and took place in the respective target areas. From the populated database the primary data was extracted for analysis. In addition to survey data, ten participatory focus group discussions were held in each country. These discussions were recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed. 4.2.5 Data analysis The study used a number of data analysis techniques. For quantitative data analysis, descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, Pearson correlation coefficient, and effect size were used. Palmquist’s eight steps for analysing qualitative data were employed. 4.2.5.1 Quantitative data analysis The following quantitative data analysis techniques were used. 4.2.5.1.1 Descriptive statistics The frequency analysis for each section is reported on per statement as a percentage and the following ranking for scores was used:
Not at all effective (1);
Somewhat effective (2);
Moderately effective (3);
Very effective (4); and
Extremely effective (5).
Descriptive statistics were reported per statement as mean and standard deviation. The benchmark (ideal) in terms of responses for every statement would be 5, which indicates that compliance with the specific statement is satisfactory, except for a small number of reversed statements. Ratings of 2.5 and lower were regarded as “low‟ and indicate that compliance with the specific statement is none or very limited. 4.2.5.1.2 Exploratory factor analysis An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the sections pertaining to the following four key technical areas (small scale irrigations mechanisms, farmers’ associative mechanisms, crop varieties and cropping techniques) of the questionnaire to identify the structure and factors of each construct (section), and through this process the structural validity of the
survey was also determined. The following values were measured and the results are reported as part of the factor analysis: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure can be calculated for individual and multiple variables and represents the ratio of the squared correlation between variables to the squared partial correlation between variables. KMO statistics vary between 0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates diffusion in the pattern of correlations, suggesting that factor analysis is likely to be inappropriate. A value close to 1 indicates that patterns of correlations are relatively compact and so factor analysis should yield distinct and reliable factors (Field, 2009:647). KMO values can be interpreted as follows (Hutcheson & Sofroniou, cited in Field, 2009:647): • Factor analysis is considered to be inappropriate for values smaller than 0.5; • Values between 0.5 and 0.7 are mediocre; • Values between 0.7 and 0.8 are good; and • Values between 0.8 and 0.9 are superb. The p-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity Barlett’s test of sphericity is conducted to determine whether sufficient intercorrelation between variables (statements) is present. For a good factor analysis, these intercorrelations should be very small. Barlett’s measure tests the null hypothesis that the original matrix is an identity matrix. Barlett’s test of sphericity should be significant (the value of ‘Sig.’ should be less than 0.05). A significant test indicates that the R-matrix is not an identity matrix, suggesting that there are some relationships between the variables (Field, 2009:659). Furthermore, it shows that the data are suitable to be subjected to multivariate statistical analysis, such as factor analysis. Communalities Communality is the proportion of common variance within a variable (Field 2009:637). A variable that has no specific variance (or random variance) would have a communality of 1; a variable that shares none of its variance with any other variable would have a communality of 0. Once factors have been extracted, it could be determined how much variance is really in common (Field 2005:637). The closer the communalities are to 1, the better the factors are at explaining the original data.
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated for each factor to determine the internal consistency reliability of factors. According to Field (2009:675), the Cronbach’s alpha should preferably be above 0.7. 4.2.5.1.3 Pearson correlation coefficient Pearson correlation coefficient is a standardised measure of the strength of relationships between two variables (Field, 2009:791). The correlation matrix can be used to check the pattern of relationships. The correlation between statements should preferably be of a value greater than 0.3. If any variable is found with a Pearson correlation coefficient greater than 0.9, it is possible that a problem could arise due to multicollinearity in the data (Field, 2009:657). 4.2.5.1.4 Effect size Effect size is a measure of practical significance and is independent of sample size (Ellis & Steyn, 2003:1). Effect sizes for the four key technical areas (small scale irrigations mechanisms, farmers’ associative mechanisms, crop varieties and cropping techniques) were measured. 4.2.5.2 Qualitative data analysis Qualitative data obtained through focus group discussions were analysed by means of conceptual (thematic) analysis. Coding choices were made according to the following eight category coding steps indicated by Palmquist (cited in Babbie & Mouton, 2011:492):
Deciding on the level of analysis;
Deciding on how many concepts to code for;
Deciding whether to code for the existence or frequency of a concept;
Deciding how to distinguish between concepts;
Developing rules for the coding of texts;
Deciding what to do with the data that are irrelevant;
Coding the data; and
Analysing the results.
5 DATA ANALYSIS 5.1 Demographical information This section provides a demographical overview of the survey areas in the countries studied. More specifically, this section provides information with regard to household composition and consumption patterns. 5.1.1 Survey area The research was conducted in Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique. A combined total of 1110 respondents were interviewed; Mozambique represented 40.3% (N=447) of participants, Madagascar 30.4% (N=337) and Malawi 29.4% (N=326) (Figure 5.1). The areas/districts surveyed as well as their representation within the different countries are provided in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Survey area
5.1.2 Gender representation Both male and female respondents were interviewed; both genders contributed equally across the countries with females accounting for 47.75% and males 52.25% of respondents.
5.1.3 Household composition Table 5.1 provides the household composition for the respondents interviewed in the respective countries and includes the average number of people (Head) per category living in respondents’ households; also expressed as percentage of total household. From Table 1 it is evident that the composition of households across the countries analysed are similar. Household size varied from 6.8 people in Mozambique to 7.6 people in Madagascar. In all cases the majority of the occupants are children younger than ten years of age followed by males and females between the ages of 15 to 50. Males and females above the age of 50 are in the minority and ranges between 4.1% and 5.2% of the total household. Table 1: Household composition in surveyed countries Malawi
Mozambique
Madagascar
Category Head
%
Head
%
Head
%
Children younger than 10 years
2.2
31.2
2.4
37.3
2.8
36.5
Young adolescents between 11-14 years
1.2
15.9
1.0
12.3
1.4
16.5
Males between 15-50 years
1.6
22.5
1.3
19.7
1.4
18.9
Females between 15-50 years
1.5
21.2
1.3
20.6
1.4
19
Males older than 50 years
0.6
4.8
0.4
5.2
0.3
5.1
Females older than 50 years
0.3
4.3
0.4
5
0.3
4.1
Average household size (Number)
7.4
6.8
7.6
5.1.4 Household consumption patterns Figure 2 shows the number of meals households in the surveyed countries consume per individual on a daily basis. The majority of Malagasy (95.3%) and Mozambican households (59.1%) consume three meals a day while the majority of Malawian households (65%) consume two meals daily.
Figure 2: Number of meals per day per country
5.1.5 Meal composition The type of food respondents consume in the countries surveyed is depicted in Figure 3. The Malawians’ diets mainly consist of cereals, vegetables and beans. In Madagascar they mainly consume rice and other products (mainly cassava) and to a lesser extent fish (11.3%). Mozambicans have the biggest variety in their diets which includes fish, cereals, beans, vegetables and other products. The only countries with an animal protein, in the form of fish, in their daily diet are Mozambique; and Malawi. Meat as a source of protein is still an expensive option in developing African countries.
Figure 3: Types of food eaten on a daily basis per country
5.1.6 Household assets From Figure 4 it is evident that households in all countries own little in terms of household assets. Only a small number of the respondents indicated that their household owns agricultural equipment like a plough, ox cart or fishing gear. Cellular communication is also still limited with approximately 20% of Malawian and Mozambican respondents and only 8.6% of Malagasy respondents own a cellular phone. A major contributor towards aforementioned is the fact that most of the respondents in these rural areas of the surveyed
countries do not have access to electricity. Personal transportation is limited to bicycles in all countries with only a third of Malawian respondents owning bicycles. In Mozambique and Madagascar the number of respondents owning bicycles is limited to 8.6% and 6.9% respectively. Motorcycles are the only other means of personal transport utilised, mostly in Mozambique (5.4%).
Figure 4: Assets per household per country
5.2 Crop production practices The main crops produced in Malawi include maize, both irrigated and rain fed (89% and 86% of the respondents produce these respectively) followed by sorghum (72%) and cotton (53%). Rice is also produced to a lesser extent with only 19% of the respondents indicating they produce rice in the summer growing season and 5% during the winter season (Table 2). The high standard deviation in both the area planted and yield of the various crops produced indicates variability in the production practices of the individual producers, the area planted are also directly influenced by land availability. Maize producers realised yields of 2.94 and 1.33 tonnes per hectare for irrigated and rain fed crops while sorghum producers harvested 1.28 tonnes per hectare. On average 634kg of cotton was produced per hectare compared to a world average of approximately 750kg/hectare; 53% of producers planted on average 0.58 hectares of cotton. When comparing maize and rice yields to that of Mozambique, it is evident that respondents from Malawi’s productivity were higher for the period under investigation.
Table 2: Area planted and yields (Malawi) Area planted (square meters) Crop
Ave
Stdev
Yield* (kg per ha) Ave
Respondents planted
Stdev
%
Maize irrigated
1866
2006
2946
3007
89
Maize rain fed
4179
3413
1326
1329
86
Sorghum
2938
2988
952
869
72
Millet
2249
1750
1166
1039
65
Cotton
5839
8883
634
547
53
Rice summer
1403
1808
2748
2725
19
Rice Winter
1357
1411
3636
1845
5
* Average (2008-2012) cereal yields for Malawi: maize (2058), sorghum (777), millet (669) Cotton (NA) and rice (1913) Source: FAOSTAT, 2014
Enumerators in Mozambique had some difficulty capturing data for the area planted for the various crops. This lead to ambiguous data that had to be discarded for use in the analysis as it skewed the results, However, after data adjustment by means of removing outliers, some estimations for comparison purposes was calculated. Table 5.3 shows the adjusted results for the main crops produced in Mozambique, the average area planted as well as the yields obtained. The main crop produced is cassava (82%) followed by rain fed maize (63%) and to a lesser extent irrigated maize (13%). The average area planted under cassava is 0.74 hectares yielding on average 1329kg per hectare.
Table 3 further shows the percentage of
observations included after the adjustment process.
Table 3: Area planted and yields (Mozambique)
Area planted (square meters) Crop
Ave
Yield* (kg per ha)
Stdev
Ave
Stdev
Respondents planted
Observati ons included
%
%
Cassava
7411
7323
1329
1565
82
51
Maize rain fed
6064
7095
695
805
63
36
Maize irrigated
3575
5336
2811
2373
13
6
Rice summer
4929
5753
1783
1894
6
4
Rice Winter
2100
1707
1282
1619
2
2
* Average (2008-2012) cereal yields for Mozambique: cassava (7504), Maize (1001), and rice (980) Source: FAOSTAT, 2014
Enumerators in Madagascar could not capture detailed data pertaining to the areas planted for the various crops. Therefore, the analysis for the area planted and yields could not be done. However, respondents that indicated that they do cultivate the specific crops are shown in Table 4; the main crops produced in Madagascar is summer rice (82%) followed by winter rice (68%) and cassava (66%). Table 4: Area planted and yields (Madagascar) Area planted (square meters) Crop
Ave
Stdev
Yield (kg per ha) Ave
Stdev
Respondents planted %
Rice summer
82
Rice Winter
68 NA
Cassava
66
Sweet potatoes
22
* Average (2008-2012) cereal yields for Madagascar: rice (2965), cassava (7442) and sweet potatoes (7154) Source: FAOSTAT, 2014
Stepwise regression analysis revealed the main factor influencing yield is the area planted. Except for irrigated maize in Mozambique (.263) the larger the area planted, the lower the yield per hectare. These results indicate a technical constraint in the form of the lack of necessary equipment to cultivate larger areas; currently all cultivation practices are performed by means of manual labour. Table 5: Regression coefficients Area planted Crop
Malawi
Mozambique
Madagascar
Irrigated maize
-0.593
0.263
Rain fed maize
-0.691
-0.402
Sorghum
-0.664
Millet
-0.523
Cotton
-0.542
Rice (Summer)
-0.609
-0.463
-0.619
Rice (Winter)
-0.565
-0.624
-0.634
-0.269
-0.865
Cassava Sweet potatoes
-0.666
5.2.1 Planting and harvesting time Table 6 and Table 7 provide the percentage of respondents who indicated their planting and harvesting times for the various crops per country respectively. It is important to note that the ability to irrigate maize crops enables Malawian respondents to plant maize outside of the typical planting time of November to January. Aforementioned enables Malawian producers to harvest irrigated maize from June to October.
Table 6: Planting times (percentage of respondents) Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Crop
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Malawi
Maize (irrigated)
1
Maize (rain fed)
6
Sorghum
4
1
Cotton
10
1
Rice (summer)
25
6
Rice (winter)
17
11
3
2
Millet
Jul
14
21
23
2 6
20
11
2 17
6
3
2
2 11
18
75
21
73
1
16
74
3
17
45
11
22
26
67
2
8
11
65
6
34
7
7
20
6 1
Crop
1
Mozambique
Maize (irrigated)
45
38
2
2
Maize (rain fed)
22
2
Rice (summer)
16
34
Rice (winter)
33
20
7
7
Cassava
11
2
1
1
3
Crop
4
6
2
8
11
18
47
2
2
15
19
52
Madagascar
Rice (summer)
6
1
1
1
1
Rice (winter)
1
3
13
18
19
11
20
8
4
1
3
1
2
1
2
14
51
10
9
3
6
44
30
3
5
5
7
0
2
2
Cassava Sweet potatoes
1
Table 7: Harvesting times (percentage of respondents) Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Crop
Jul
Aug
1
1
1
7
17
Maize (rain fed)
1
4
56
37
1
Sorghum
2
13
41
30
10
3
1
8
24
32
27
8
12
17
30
28
7
19
13
6
25
6
40
9
3
Cotton Rice (summer)
2
Rice (winter) 6
40
Crop Maize (irrigated)
Nov
Dec
33
22
11
5
2
2
6
6
19
2
2
2
Mozambique 2
Maize (rain fed) Rice (summer)
Oct
Malawi
Maize (irrigated)
Millet
Sep
1 3
Rice (winter) Cassava
4
38
19
29
2
2
2
10
37
19
21
10
1
1
10
20
20
37
7
3
14
21
43
21
2
6
4
9
6
18
Crop
31
1
18
6
2
1
3
Madagascar
Rice (summer)
2
2
3
6
70
11
2
Rice (winter)
9
3
1
1
4
2
4
6
2
11
23
34
Cassava
2
4
5
12
6
4
20
36
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
8
14
14
36
10
3
6
Sweet potatoes
1
5.2.2 Stock availability and purchases The stocks available to respondents in the countries investigated, as well as the amount purchased, are represented in Table 8. The main crop kept in stock in the case of Madagascar is cassava. Seventy five percent of respondents indicated that they have on average 139kg of cassava available while 37% indicated that they had to buy an additional 71kg. In Malawi respondents mainly keep maize stocks. Eighty-five percent of respondents keep an average of 197kg and 43% had to buy in an additional 66kg. Fewer Mozambicans keep crops in stock. Only around 20% of respondents kept millet (221kg) and rice (128kg), less than 2% of respondents had to buy additional millet and rice. A comparison to the DRR Baseline Survey data in terms of the percentage of households that had stocks available is also available in
Table 8. Except for rice in Malawi, the data shows that a larger proportion of respondents had stocks available compared to the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Baseline Survey data. The variability between collected data in terms of stocks available and the DRR data could be attributed to the time at which the surveys took place. The survey for this study was done during end October beginning November while the DRR survey took place end of January. Table 8: Stocks available and purchased Madagascar Stocks available
Bought
Crop Average (kg) Cassava
% respondents
DRR %
Average (kg)
% respondents
138.8
74.5
25.9
71.3
37.1
Maize
25
39.8
15.8
65.6
43.4
Rice
2.4
4.7
48
6.8
4.9
Malawi Maize
197.4
85
71.4
65.7
42.4
Millet
34.8
39.6
7
5.9
7.7
Sorghum
30.3
37.1
10.6
9.9
7.4
13
12.9
3.2
0.9
1.8
Rice
Mozambique Millet
221.7
21.7
2.3
11
1.5
Rice
128.5
21.1
12.6
10.3
1.2
Table 9 and Table 10 indicate the months when respondents in Malawi and Mozambique respectively depleted their stocks. Table 9 and Table 10 express the percentage of producers that depleted the stocks of a specific crop and in a specific month. In Malawi stocks mostly ran out during the months for July to November while stocks in Mozambique ran out during September to January. From the data captured it is evident that the enumerators did not fully understand the question as to when respondents ran out of stocks. In this case, data captured referred to a specific month i.e. the options was limited to 1=Jan...12=Dec. The data captured in Madagascar did not reflect this and thus no analysis was possible in this case.
Table 9: Depleted stocks Malawi Maize (irrigated)
Maize (rain fed)
Month
Millet
Rice
Sorghum
%
Jan
6
1
3
8
4
Feb
5
1
2
0
3
Mar
1
0
3
4
2
Apr
1
6
5
4
3
May
1
5
5
4
5
Jun
1
6
9
4
14
Jul
3
22
13
24
15
Aug
8
18
12
8
14
Sep
10
13
15
12
15
Oct
39
22
21
24
18
Nov
17
3
9
8
7
Dec
9
2
3
0
2
Table 10: Depleted stocks Mozambique Maize (irrigated)
Maize (rain fed)
Month
Rice
Cassava
%
Jan
17
2
4
18
Feb
5
2
0
14
Mar
0
2
0
7
Apr
2
7
7
3
May
0
9
7
4
Jun
5
7
0
4
Jul
0
7
0
4
Aug
7
2
0
3
Sep
38
6
22
9
Oct
14
11
22
11
Nov
2
26
22
8
Dec
10
18
15
15
5.3 Livestock production practices Table 11 shows the percentage (%) and number (N) of the respondents that keep animals, the types of animals kept, and the average number of animals owned per country during the last production season. Respondents in Malawi mainly own poultry (62.6%) and goats (46.6%). In Madagascar poultry (86.1%) is the main livestock kept followed by cattle (47.8%). Mozambican producers mainly keep poultry (41.8%) and to a lesser extent goats (13.4%) Table 11 further shows the percentage (%) and number (N) of respondents that sold animals during the past production season as well as the average total income received from animals sold. In Malawi poultry and goats are mostly traded, in Madagascar mainly pigs, and in Mozambique mainly poultry. It is evident that given the low percentage of respondents selling livestock and livestock products, that the majority of households keep their livestock and livestock products for own consumption.
Table 11: Livestock numbers and income from sales Respondents owning livestock
Respondents earning income from livestock Malawi
%
Cattle
11.3
37
3.8
3.7
12
165708
381
Poultry
62.6
204
9.6
26.1
85
5816
13
Goats
46.6
152
4.8
17.5
57
19974
46
7.1
23
4.5
3.1
10
41590
96
Pigs
N
Ave
%
Ave LC (local currency)
Type
N
Ave USD
Madagascar Cattle
47.8
161
4.5
Poultry
86.1
290
12.5
Rabbits
21.4
72
1.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.7
16
101875
40.7
Milk
Mozambique Poultry
41.8
187
5.0
20.8
93
326.3441
10.8
Goats
13.4
60
3.2
6.9
31
1583.871
52.5
-
-
-
4.5
20
49.65
1.6
Eggs
5.4 Market access From Figure 5 it is evident that 31.75% of respondents from Madagascar indicated that they make use of a neighbouring village market (31.75%) as well as a local village market (17%) for selling crops or livestock. According to Malawian farmers they prefer to make use of a trader (38.29%), local village market (22.86%) and neighbouring village market (17.66%) to sell crops or livestock, whilst research participants of Mozambique tend to make use of a neighbour (20.6%) and trader (19.1%). It is evident that respondents in all countries mainly utilise informal markets to sell their products while a significant amount of respondents of Madagascar (28.5%) and Mozambique (24.63%) do not use any of the mentioned indicators to sell their products. Market access to formal markets is still limited, future research into
the profitability of accessing formal markets versus selling in informal markets could provide more insight on the possible benefits of entering formal markets.
Figure 5: Marketing channels
5.5 Natural hazards and their occurrence Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 provide the occurrence of hazards according to months likely to occur in the three respective countries. From Figure 6 it is evident that the majority of respondents from Malawi indicated that strong winds tend to occur during the time-period October to January. Floods and droughts tend to occur mostly during the months of January and February. They are confronted with pests/locusts mostly during the time-period December to March. Strong winds are experienced mostly during the time-period November to January.
Figure 6: Occurrence of hazards according to months likely to occur in Malawi
The majority of respondents from Madagascar indicated that cyclones and floods tend to occur during the time-period January to March. Droughts are mostly experienced during the months of September and October. Pests/locusts are experienced from the time-period April to December. It is also evident from the figure that according to the respondents it is not rare to find strong winds in Madagascar throughout the year (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Occurrence of hazards according to months likely to occur in Madagascar
The majority of respondents from Mozambique indicated that cyclones tend to occur during the time-period January to March, with the highest occurrence in March. Floods are experienced mostly in the months of December and March. Droughts tend to occur mostly
from September to December. Problems with pests/locusts are mostly experienced from the time-period January to March. Strong winds are mostly experienced in March and also tend to occur in January and February (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Occurrence of hazards according to months likely to occur in Mozambique
5.6 Access to credit Combined data from the surveyed countries showed that majority of respondents (58.47%) do not have access to credit. However, when the results from the individual countries are analysed, it is clear that they differ in terms of their accessibility to credit (see Figure 9). With regards to Mozambique, only 16.1% of respondents indicated that have access to credit. In Malawi 78.8% of respondents indicated that they have access to credit, while 39.1% of respondents in Madagascar have access to credit. Limited access to credit, especially in the case of Mozambique and Madagascar should be a major concern. The inability to finance inputs during the production season negatively impacts on the resilience of respondents.
Figure 9: Household access to credit
5.6.1 Credit source In Mozambique 63.5% of respondents indicated that they either acquire credit from a family member or a neighbour. With regards to Malawi, 86% of respondents indicated village savings as their main source of credit. This village savings is a mechanism initiated by NGO’s based in a local association to keep surplus funds aside in case of a natural hazard. Malagasy respondents indicated that their main source of credit was a farmer association (32.98%), but also family members (22.51%) as well as neighbours (20.94%). Due to the lack of formal banking systems in the rural areas of the countries, banks were not indicated as a source for credit.
Figure 10: Specific credit source per country
5.7 Coping strategies used by households after experiencing a disaster When asked which coping strategies households use after experiencing a disaster, the combined statistics reveal that respondents either reduce the number of meals per day (14.33%) or reduce the size of food portions (13.57%). These two strategies account for approximately 28% of respondents. Other strategies include: hunting and gathering wild crops (11.47%) and a member of household going to work in other fields in exchange for food (11.17%). With regards to Madagascar, 17.69% of respondents indicated that they reduce the size of food portions per day, and 17.43% indicated that they go hunting and gathering of wild crops Figure 11). Malawi’s main coping strategies include: member of household going to work in other fields in exchange for food (19.13%), selling of household items (16.85%) and moving away from household’s plots (16.21%) for alternative means of non-farm income (Figure 12). The main coping strategy for Mozambique is reducing the number of meals per day (18.83%) which is closely followed by support from family for food and income (15.01%) (Figure 13). The fact that respondents from all countries have to revert to the reduction in meal portions, or the number of meals consumed in order to cope after a disaster, has a negative impact on food security. Disinvestment and alternative sources of income also ranked high in all countries, especially in the case of Malawi. However, as indicated in section 5.1.6 households own very little in terms of liquidable assets which limit their capacity to disinvest.
Figure 11: Coping strategies used in Madagascar
Figure 12: Coping strategies used in Malawi
Figure 13: Coping strategies used in Mozambique
5.8 Farmers’ associative mechanisms: findings and data analysis 5.8.1 Farmers’ associative mechanisms: frequencies and descriptive statistics 5.8.1.1 Membership In the quantitative questionnaire respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they are a member of a farmers’ association. In the combined data it showed that 53.42% of the respondents are members of a farmers’ association and 46.58% are not. The gender distribution within the members and non-members groups indicate very slight differences in both instances. In the members group slightly more (Female: 45.19%; Male: 54.81%) males are members of farmers associations and in the non-members group slightly more women are not part of a farmers’ association than men (Female: 50.68%; Male: 49.32%). In literature it is noted that membership of farmers associations allow farmers more control over their resources and therefore contribute to their resilience (Curtis, 2013:7,11). The distinction made between members and non-members will be an important guideline for other questions in this report. In order to establish how and if these two groups, members and nonmembers of associative mechanisms, experience different situations. In general, no indication was given by non-members as to why they were not part of this structure, except in one instance where during focus group discussions a non-member said that the motivation for them to work as an individual was to not share any financial gain with others. In the different counties the picture in terms of membership to these organisations looks quite different.
Malawi showed the greatest number of members to farmers associations with 89.88% of the respondents being members of such associations. In Madagascar also more than half (61.42%) of the respondents indicated that they are members of a farmers’ association. However, in Mozambique only 20.81% of the respondents indicated that they were indeed members of a farmers’ association in comparison with the 79.19% that were not members of a farmers’ association. This is interesting and needs to be understood by looking at other data and information. In the qualitative data gathered during the focus groups it was noted that many of the farmers associations in Mozambique are not legally recognised but do have structures in place. This could be a reason for the low number of members of farmers associations indicated in the quantitative data, in that farmers did not view themselves as part of a formally structured farmers’ association. This obviously also had an effect on the quantitative data that was captured.
Figure 14: Members and Non-members of farmers associations
Regarding the type of farmers’ association people belong to, the data showed that 47.49% of the respondents indicated that they are part of associations that have originated and are driven by farmers themselves. 42.46% of the respondents indicated that they are members of farmers associations that have been established by an external entity like an NGO or government entities but are driven and run currently by farmers themselves. Only 9.89% of the respondents indicated that they were members of associations established and driven by government entities or NGOs. In this study the type of farmers’ association that respondents belong to is important. Literature indicates that the motivation for farmers’ associations should be that of self-help and developing collective power amongst farmers (Chanrith,
2008:01). These tend to be stronger when farmer associations are driven by the farmers themselves as it promotes participation and ensures that ownership is taken of initiatives and activities that these groups decide on (McCarthy, 2008:1). This adds a certain sustainability factor to farmers’ associations originating and being driven by farmers, where farmers have a greater sense of ownership and responsibility. It is also expected that these farmers’ associations slot into the more formal system of national farmers’ associations. One example of how farmers’ associations develop was given in the focus group discussions in Malawi where the local farmers’ association was established with the support of the Evangelical Association of Malawi and is now managed by the farmers themselves. Once more the situation is different if we consider the countries individually. Malawi showed the highest number of farmers associations established and driven by farmers with 60.71%. Most of the farmers associations (62.50%) in Madagascar were established by an external entity (government or an NGO) but are driven and managed currently by farmers. Finally, Mozambique with the lowest number of members of a farmers’ association, showed that most of these associations are established and managed by an external entity (government or an NGO). 5.8.1.2 Membership and access to credit Credit and access to credit is another important factor to consider. Farmers usually use credit as financial fall-back when circumstances are unstable, yields low and losses high, as would be the case in hazard prone areas. In the research it was quite clear that members have more opportunity or more access to credit with 62.06% of farmers’ association members indicating that their household has access to credit services. In comparison with only 17.99% of nonmembers indicating that they have access to credit and a large number, 82.01%, of nonmembers saying that their household does not have access to credit. This is also a function that farmers associations fulfil for their members: enhancing farmers’ access to credit services (Kruijssen et al., 2009:47; Uphoff & Wijayaratna, 2000; Gabriel, 2012). Credit and access to credit describes the value of the access or even exposure to different services that a farmers’ association can offer its members. Farmers associations may assist by actually offering the service themselves or providing valuable information to farmers about how to go about acquiring credit services. In a different question on where people get the credit from, there was a big difference between the sources of credit for members and non-members. Most
farmers who are members of farmer associations indicated that they have access to credit through Village savings and loans and secondly farmers accessed credit mostly through Farmers Associations.
Figure 15: Source of credit for non-members and members of farmers associations
This shows that farmers associations might not be the institution offering the credit service but farmers might access Village savings and loans through their affiliation with the association. This is also in line with what is indicated in the literature. Farmer’s associative mechanisms assist with facilitating and strengthening relationships and linkages between their members and other role players as part of their Communication and Relationship benefit (Gabriel, 2012). Most non-members on the other hand indicated that they have access to credit through family members and neighbours and thirdly the data showed that they access credit through Village savings and loans. In light of this it seems that non-members rely quite heavily on their immediate social network of family and friends for credit. This may become a problem if this immediate network become severely impacted by an event of some sort, be it disastrous or something more localised to these immediate groups. 5.8.1.3 Diversity of crops produced Respondents were asked to indicate which crops they plant and the data shows to some extent the diversity of crops that members of farmers’ associations are able to plant. Those
farmers indicating that they are members of a farmers’ association mostly plant maize (rain fed) (16.53%), maize that is irrigated (13.22%) and rice (11.98%) in the summer time. Interestingly, even though these are the main crops that are produced, members of farmers’ associations also plant a variety of other crops such as sorghum (10.78%), cassava (10.73%) and millet (10.01%). The only crop in the list given to respondents that members of farmers’ associations seem to plant the least and rely on less is sweet potato (2.78%).
Figure 16: The diverse variety of crops that members of farmer’s associations plant
Farmers who are not members of a farmers’ association rely greatly on planting cassava (32.57%) and maize that is rain-fed (22.03%). In Figure 17 it can be seen that non-members did not indicate other crops in such a high number in comparison to those who are members of farmer associations. For members of farmers’ associations the amount of other crops they plant are much more evenly spread while the focus of non-member farmers is much more specified to certain crops.
Figure 17: The variety of crops that non-members of farmers’ associations plant
Members of farmers associations indicated that they receive the seeds for all of the crops mentioned, with the exception of Rice (summer) and Cassava, mostly from NGOs (Maize (irrigated): 72.47%; Maize (rain fed): 27.34%; Rice (winter): 59.51%; Millet: 52.21%; Sorghum: 52.92%). This could be the case as NGOs greatly support the farmers’ associations in the areas with regard to providing seeds. Respondents indicated that they mostly get seeds for planting rice (summer) from what they have produced themselves and in terms of cassava, respondents indicated the government as the main source for these seeds. NGOs are also the main source for non-members in terms of seeds for crops like Maize (irrigated) (41.27%), Rice (summer) (53.85%) and Rice (winter) (59.57%). However, the percentage of non-members that procure their own seeds for all of the crops in the list are much higher than for those farmers that belong to farmers associations. In terms of crops like Millet (34.48%) and Sorghum (34.88%) self-produced seeds were indicated as the most common source. Nonmembers, additionally indicated that Agro-dealers (30.96%) are their main suppliers of seeds for Maize (rain fed).
Figure 18: Where members of farmers associations and non-members obtain seed from
In light of the above its can of course be argued that farmers associations are not primarily responsible for the fact that their members are able to plant a larger variety of crops. However, it is clear from the data that there does exist a strong correlation between being a member of a farmers’ association and being able to plant a larger variety of crops. This might mean that with other functions that a farmers’ association fulfils they are enabling their members to plant a larger variety of crops. Either by sharing information with one another with regard to different crops, as indicated in the literature to be one of the advantages or by means of financially putting farmers in such a position so that they can actually try to plant different crops (Gabriel, 2012; Darnhofer, 2010; Poole & De Frece, 2010). Farmers’ associations might also have good relationships with NGOs and in this way form a link between their members and these organisations, exposing them to different beneficial relationships that they might not have had access to if they were not members (Gabriel, 2012). Also from the data one can see that non-members rely much more on procuring their seeds themselves. Therefore, without the interaction that they might have with other farmers who plant different crops they perhaps do not have the knowledge of how to plant different crops or the information or even resources like planting equipment to try and plant other crops than they are used to. 5.8.1.4 Membership and access to markets Respondents were asked to indicate where they sell their crops and livestock. Members of farmers’ associations indicated that they sell their crops and livestock mainly by making use of a trader (25.72%) and at neighbouring village markets (20.63%). Non-members mostly
selected none (26.44%) among all of the listed options. This could either mean that the means or structure that non-members use to sell their products were not indicated in the list or that they do not sell their produce but keep it for self-use. Furthermore, non-members also indicated that they sell their produce mostly to neighbours (18.26%), at the local village market (17.32%), and by using a trader (15.84%). It would seem as though the network nonmembers use to sell their products are much more confined to their own community and immediate surroundings. It could then be argued that farmers’ associations provide their members with the opportunity to sell their products in a wider network. Exposing them in such ways that they can make use of traders and access markets perhaps a bit further away such as neighbouring village markets. This once more shows the role farmers’ associations play with regards to linking their members with a wide network of other farmers, giving them easier access to other services like traders and credit services (Gabriel, 2012).
Figure 19: Members and non-members access to markets
5.8.1.5 Benefits and activities of farmers’ associations Participants to the study were asked to indicate the activities their farmers’ associations engage in. This gives a good insight into what farmers mostly need in their environment and how the various study areas differ. It also gives some information about how farmers associations meet these needs. From the data, the activities farmers’ associations in the study engage mostly in is the use and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure (19%). With regard to the three countries the fact that farmers associations offer this kind of support makes sense in the FAO context where the organisation has given farmers support and access to irrigation systems as part of their interventions. The activity farmers’ associations engage in second
most was indicated as seed and input procurement (17,5%). Third and fourth most common activity in which farmers associations engage in respectively was indicated as storage (16.19%) and offering safety nets (15.81%) to farmers. Farmers’ associations exist to service farmers that have specific needs and to offer farmers certain benefits. The rationale, therefore, is that it would be pointless for farmers associations to engage in activities that do not benefit their members (Hellin et al., 2009:16-17). The literature is very clear and abundant on the benefits that farmers’ organisations offer their members. The activities that farmers’ associations engage in, as indicated by the respondents in the study, can be easily grouped into different benefit categories identified in the literature. Firstly, farmers use farmers’ associations as a means of accessing resources this may include financial resources as well as other resources like seeds. This might be considered to provide farmers with a financial advantage as they might not, as an individual farmer, have been able to acquire seeds, production input or services due to the cost. In the literature this is indicated as financial advantages offered by farmers associations (UNCTAD, 2002). This being said, in the focus group discussions non-members did indicate that sharing their financial gain with others is one of their motivations not to join a farmers’ association. Indicating that some nonmembers do not consider the various other advantages of being a member of a farmers’ association enough for them to share their financial gain. Storage is another benefit that farmers’ associations offer their members. Storage systems may serve to safely store seeds for the next cropping season, as well as grain for food needs, but also be a platform for capacity building, information sharing, and the introduction of more developed activities such as Seed pass-on programmes, savings and loans or vouchers. Literature describes various advantages that can all be grouped as a risk management function that farmers’ associations provide their members. Offering farmers a stabilisation fund, giving access to mid- term investments, providing storage when hazards threaten and support in times of need can all be regarded as safety nets (Kruijssen et al., 2009). This is an import function and role that farmers associations fulfil when considering resilience and how these associations contribute to it. Farmers associations formalise a type of fund put together from communal savings and enables the group members to assist one another in times of need by giving members access to different resources, financial resources, seeds or equipment, when they need it most. In the qualitative data it was also indicated that by
fulfilling this function, farmers associations allowed their members’ access to financial aid through Village Savings Loan schemes to assist in times of need. Interestingly, activities that farmers associations engage in the least according to the data, is that of processing or value addition of produce, transport, fencing and providing an association bank account.
Figure 20: Activities that members of farmers’ associations engage in
5.8.1.6 Coping strategies of members and non-members An aspect where farmers’ associations play a major role is in the risk management function they offer (see section 3.1.3.2). This was indicated both in the study and in the literature. The data of members and non-members were considered with regard to the coping strategies that they use after experiencing a disaster. The coping strategy that members of a farmers’ association make use of first is sending a member of the household to go and work in other peoples fields (14.14%) and taking food as payment for the labour. Secondly, members reduce their portions of food at meal time to cope with the effects of a disaster and thirdly they sell household assets such as land, livestock, ox-drawn carts and other assets like radios. Non-members handle the effects of a disaster quite differently by firstly reducing the number of meals per day (17.1%) and as the second highest coping strategy non-members use is to reduce the portions of food at meal times (13.69%)
Figure 21: Difference in coping strategies between members and non-members of farmers associations
It would seem as though members of farmers associations firstly make use of the network of other farmers that they have access to in order to cope with the effects of a disaster. The extended network of other farmers that they have access to by being a member of a farmers’ association therefore allows them as an immediate reaction to the effects of a disaster to not adjust their food portions and meals in their household. Non-members not having access to this network of other farmers turn to a more drastic adjustment of food portions and meal needs of their household to cope with these effects. It would seem as though farmers associations and the networks they rely on allow their members to cope in a much less drastic manner when having experienced a disaster than the coping strategies that non-members apply. Apart from the risk management function farmers’ associations offer their members in times of need the access to a network such as the extended network that a farmers’ association offers is a very important capacity when members adjust and try to cope with the effects of a disaster. 5.8.2 Factor analysis: role of farmers’ associative mechanisms in increasing farmers’ resilience to natural hazards A factor analysis was conducted of the four indicator statements pertaining to farmers’ associative mechanisms to explore the factorial structure of the section. The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are presented in the table below.
Table 12: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Value
KMO
0.676
P-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Approx. chi-sq
815.588
df
6
Sig.
0.000
The KMO measured 0.676 and indicates that the sample size is adequate for factor analysis. The p-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity returned a value smaller than 0.05, suggesting that the correlation between statements is sufficient for factor analysis (Field, 2005:652). The results of the factor analysis are reported in the table below. Table 13: Component matrixa
Farmers’ associative mechanisms Factor 1 Farmers’ No. Question statement associative mechanisms Q22c Since I have joined a farmers’ association my household’s agricultural production has 0.871 increased in comparison to what it was previously. Q22d The amount of income my household has 0.807 increased since I have joined a farmers’ association. Q22a There is good cooperation between the members of the farmers’ association. Q22b Members in the farmers associations will often help other members recover from natural disasters/hazards (e.g. donations, advice...).
0.729
Commonalities
0.759
0.651 0.531
0.690 0.476
Cronbach’s alpha
0.772
Factor mean
4.14
Factor standard deviation
0.65
Factor 1: Farmers’ associative mechanisms
Only one factor was extracted by Kaiser’s criteria (Field, 2005:652) that explains 60.43% of the total variance in the section on Farmers’ associative mechanisms. The statements all loaded above 0.6 on the identified factor. The commonalities for all the questions are above 0.4. The factor mean calculated at 4.14, which indicates that a large majority of the participants positively agreed with the factor and its statements. Thus, on average, research participants indicated that farmer’s associative mechanisms positively contributed towards agricultural production and increased household income.
Furthermore, there is good
cooperation between the members of the farmers’ association, and members in the farmers associations will often help other members recover from natural disasters/hazards. The factor shows good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.772, which is well above the required 0.7, and shows high reliability and internal consistency. Table 14: Comparison of the three countries regarding the efficiency of farmers’ associative mechanisms Descriptives
Factor
Country
Mean
Standard deviation
Effect size
Madagascar vs Malawi, Mozambique
Factor 1:
Madagscar
3.98
0.64
Farmers’ associative mechanisms
Malawi
4.37
0.58
0.61
Mozambique
3.76
0.63
0.34
Malawi vs Mozambique
0.96
(a) small effect: d=0.2, (b) medium effect: d=0.5 and (c) large effect: d=0.8
From Table 14 it follows that the effect sizes of the Madagascar versus Mozambique target groups for the farmers’ associative mechanisms factor yield a d-value smaller than 0.5, indicating that the difference between the means of the different target groups is not
practically significant. Furthermore, the d-value of the Madagascar vs Malawi (0.61) target groups shows that the difference between the means has a medium effect. A large effect is evident from the means for the Malawi versus Mozambique (0.96) target groups. It can therefore be deducted that on average, the research participants of Malawi and Mozambique are more in agreement with the statements contained in the factor than the research participants of Madagascar themselves. 5.8.3 Farmers’ associative mechanisms: comparative statistical analysis A comparative statistical analysis were done for all three countries and how farmers associations statistically correlate to the other key technical areas explored. These correlations are presented below. 5.8.3.1 Madagascar
Famers Associations
Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Short Cycle Crop Varieties
Cropping Techniques
Correlation Coefficient
.396**
.464**
.245**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0,000
0,000
0,001
161
144
185,000
N
Comparative statistics for Madagascar revealed that farmers’ associative mechanisms relate statistically significantly to small scale irrigation mechanisms (.396**). Therefore, a relationship exists between members of farmers associations and those farmers who use and implement small scale irrigation systems. Consequently, the more farmers use and implement small scale irrigation mechanisms the more likely it is for memberships and satisfaction with farmers associations to also increase. Furthermore, from the comparative statistics it was also revealed that there exists a statistically significant correlation between members of farmers associations and the use of short cycle crop varieties (.465**). Therefore, the more likely farmers are to use short cycle crop varieties the more likely they are to be members of farmers associations as well. This significant statistical correlation can also be explained by the fact that NGOs use farmers associations to distribute seeds, including the short cycle crop
varieties. However, one of the elements that did not correlate quite as statistically significantly as the others with farmers associations is that of using good cropping techniques to reduce disaster losses (.245**). The relationship between members of farmers associations and farmers using good cropping techniques to reduce disaster losses are statistically not as significant as the others. 5.8.3.2 Malawi
Famers Associations
Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Crop Varieties
Cropping Techniques
Correlation Coefficient
.586**
.568**
.294**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0,000
0,000
0
279
290
292
N
In Malawi the comparative statistical analysis reveals a high statistical significance between members of farmers’ associations and farmers who use and implement small scale irrigation mechanisms (.586**). Therefore, a very strong relationship exists and thus the more farmers use these irrigation systems the more likely it is that members of farmers’ associations will also increase. This relationship is also indicative of the fact that irrigations systems are labour intensive and need a strong and shared infrastructure that farmers’ associations are well positioned to offer. Comparative statistical analysis reveals more or less the same high statistical significance for members of farmers’ associations and farmers using short cycle crop varieties (.568**). As in Madagascar the statistical correlation for members of farmers’ associations and farmers using good cropping techniques are not statistically as significant as with the other two elements.
5.8.3.3 Mozambique
Famers Associations
Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Crop Varieties
Cropping Techniques
Correlation Coefficient
.523*
.564**
0,045
Sig. (2-tailed)
0,015
0,000
0,673
21
71
91,000
N
In Mozambique the comparative statistical analysis also revealed a high statistically significant correlation between members of farmers’ associations and farmers using and implementing small scale irrigation mechanisms (.523*) as well as members of farmers associations and farmers using short cycle crop varieties (.564**). Therefore, if members of farmers’ associations would increase so too would farmers using and implementing small scale irrigation systems. Similarly, the more farmers who use short cycle crop varieties the more members of farmers associations would increase. Thus, there exists a strong statistically significant relationship between both the use of short cycle crop varieties and small scale irrigation systems and members of farmers associations.
5.9 Small-scale irrigation systems: findings and data analysis 5.9.1 Small-scale irrigation systems: frequencies and descriptive statistics The section to follow will discuss some of the study specific question relating to small scale irrigation systems. These questions illustrate the specific status quo with irrigation in the areas that participated in the study.
5.9.1.1 Irrigation systems use
Figure 22: Use of irrigation systems
Of the over 1110 respondents that participated in the study an amount of 52% (N=577) indicated that they make use of irrigation systems as part of their agricultural activities, whilst 48% (N= 533) indicated not using any form of irrigation systems. As stated earlier in the literature review the use of irrigation techniques provides a plethora of benefits to farmers that use them. These benefits included: increases in production, the possibility of an extra agricultural season, production of crops that cannot be grown in a particular area in a particular time under rain fed conditions, and additional nutritional and food security benefits 337 respondents were interviewed in Madagascar of which a majority of 61.42% (N=207) pointed out that they have been using an irrigation system. The research shows that 38.58% (N=130) indicated that they don’t make use of any type of irrigation systems in their agricultural activities. Malawi indicated the highest number of irrigation system users in the three respective countries involved in the study. The number of respondents using the irrigation techniques is 93.56% (N=305) and only 6.44% (N=21) indicated that they do not use irrigation systems at all. Mozambique showed the lowest level of uptake of irrigation systems of all the countries participating in the study. Specifically, the majority of respondents (85,46%) indicated that they do not use any form of irrigation, and only 14,54% currently use irrigation. Reasons for
the low uptake of irrigation as per the focus groups are: difficulty in accessing water sources, scarce rainfall, and a lack of equipment (good and resistant watering cans and water pumps). Additionally, the areas analysed in Mozambique are less suited to the use of small-scale irrigation, and fewer efforts have been made in this sense. 5.9.1.2 Types of irrigation techniques used per household
Figure 23: Types of irrigation techniques used per household
Three types of irrigation techniques emerge as the mainstay of agriculture in the different contexts. Specifically, the use of treadle pumps (34.79%, N= 278), canals (31.29%, N= 250) and buckets and watering cans (19,52%, N=156) serve as the primary irrigation options. Additionally, some participants indicated that they either use shallow wells (6.51%, N=52) or other irrigation options (5%, N=40). It is interesting to note that only a handful (0,75%, N= 6) of persons in all the study areas has access to more advanced irrigation infrastructure in the form of mechanically driven fuel pumps. Most of the participants use very basic (not technologically advanced) irrigation systems to assist them in their agricultural activities. As stated in the literature, using these basic methods allows the users to easily maintain the irrigation infrastructure themselves (see Q18a) and also facilitates greater ownership and buy-in from farmers involved in such systems.
In Madagascar, it was reported that two irrigation techniques are the most frequently practiced systems by small-scale farmers in all the districts. The dominant technique is the use of canals (88.21%; N=202)). Water is conveyed through canals through gravitation and is used mostly in the production of rice. In Malawi, the respondents indicated that they use different irrigation techniques in their households. The irrigation techniques used mostly are treadle pumps 58.26% (N=275), bucket/watering cans 18.64% (N=44), canals 9.32% (N=44) and shallow wells 5.30% (N=25). Of the 14,5% of Mozambican farmers that use irrigation, the majority (64,29%) indicated that they use either buckets or watering cans to water their crops. Another grouping (24,49%) indicated that they use shallow wells as their primary form of irrigation. There has been little effort in this area to spread the use of treadle pumps. 5.9.2 Small-scale irrigation systems: techniques and maintenance.
Figure 24: Ease of maintenance /use of irrigation systems
Of the 577 participants that indicated they do use some form of irrigation as a part of their farming practices an overwhelming majority of 71% (N=410) positively indicated (either agree or strongly agree) that the irrigation systems currently being used are easy to maintain. This high percentage could be ascribed to the fact that many of the irrigation systems (described above) being used by farmers that formed part of the study can be considered as less technical in nature, and therefore easy to maintain (also see discussion below). Yet, it should be noted that 24% (N= 140) indicated that they do experience some difficulties when it comes to maintaining irrigation infrastructure or hardware. The reasons for difficulties in maintaining existing infrastructure can be many for both basic and more advanced water infrastructure
systems. Prominent reasons for both falling into disrepair include: frequent impacts by hazards (basic irrigation systems), expensive maintenance costs (advanced irrigation systems) and a lack of continued donor or government support (through training or financial support). 5.9.2.1.1 Country Frequencies: Irrigation techniques are easy to maintain.
Figure 25: The perception of ease of maintenance of irrigation techniques
It was indicated in Madagascar that out of the 207 farmers that use irrigation techniques, 65.70% (N=136) positively agree (agree or strongly agree) that irrigation techniques are easy to maintain. The remaining 28.02% (N=58) indicated that they have trouble maintaining the existing irrigation systems. Consistent with the general findings, the majority of small scale irrigation farmers (75,4%) in Malawi either agreed (32,1%, N=98) or strongly agreed (43,3%, N=132) that the irrigation systems they use are easy to maintain. The majority (66%, N=43) of Mozambican small scale irrigators either agreed (55,38%, N=36) or strongly agreed (10.77%, N=7) that the irrigation systems they use are easy to maintain. It should be noted that a large number (33%, N=21) of respondents also indicated that they disagree with the statement, and that there are difficulties in maintaining irrigation systems. Some reasons for these maintenance difficulties, as per the group interviewed, include wells drying up, poor quality watering cans that are not replaced, or maintenance costs that are too high (wells and fountains are built by government, but communities have to maintain them out of their own funds).
86% (N= 499) of farmers participating in the study also positively indicated their current irrigation techniques employed are easy to use (see Figure 26). The ease of use provides some clarity as to why maintenance (see Q18a) of the irrigation systems is also considered to be easy by the majority of participants. The ease of use (and understanding) allows all farmers (including those with lower levels of education) to have access to the benefits provided by the use of irrigation systems. Only a minority of 7.8% (N= 48) indicated that the irrigation techniques are not always easy to use. The difficulties experienced by these groups might relate back to the issue of lack of continued donor or government support through training and capacity building programmes in how to use and maintain more technical irrigation systems (e.g. treadle pumps). 5.9.2.1.2 Country frequencies: irrigation techniques are easy to use
Figure 26: The perception of ease of use of irrigation techniques
The current irrigation techniques being used in Madagascar seem to be very user friendly (e.g. canals and others). Specifically, more than 83.58% (N=172) from the total of 207 farmers that make use of irrigation techniques indicated that they are easy to use. Irrigation techniques have allowed farmers to properly manage and use water according to their needs and the systems have improved their farming techniques altogether. There is a great degree of alignment between the general findings in terms of ease of use of irrigation techniques and country specific results for Malawi. Specifically, the majority of small-scale irrigation farmers (84,7%) in Malawi either agreed (35,6%, N=116) or strongly agreed (49,1%, N=190) that the irrigation systems are easy to use.
The majority (77%, N=51) of Mozambican small scale irrigators either agreed (66.15%, N=43) or strongly agreed (11%, N=7) that the irrigation systems they use are easy to use. This overwhelming positive response could be attributed to the fact that buckets and watering cans, which are examples of less technically advanced forms of irrigation, are predominantly used in Mozambique as a primary irrigation method (see discussion below). 5.9.2.2 Irrigation and crop production
Figure 27: Irrigation impact on crop production variables
The majority of participants (89%, N= 511) in the study confirmed that the use of irrigation has a positive impact on their ability to produce additional crops and boost their overall productive output. This confirms some of the findings presented in the literature that farmers that employ some form of irrigation alongside their normal agriculture activities experience a net increase in crop production. Only a very small percentage (3.83%; N=22), indicated that they do not experience any production benefits associated with irrigation of crops.
5.9.2.2.1 Country Frequencies: irrigation techniques have allowed your household to produce additional crops.
Figure 28: Perception of whether irrigation techniques have increased household crop production
In Madagascar, the usage of irrigation techniques has made positive impacts on the many households’ ability to increase crop production. 84.04% (N=172) of farmers from the three districts of Madagascar agreed that irrigation techniques have increased their crop production. Consistent with the general findings, the majority of small scale irrigation farmers (88,6%, N=190) in Malawi either agreed (33,4%, N=109) or strongly agreed (55,2%, N=180) that the irrigation systems have enabled them to produce additional crops. These additional crops could contribute positively to household food security or income. A significant amount of Mozambican small scale farmers also agreed that using irrigation methods has allowed them to produce additional crops. Specifically, 73,8% (N=48) of respondents indicated that they agree (61,5%, N=40) or strongly agree (12,3%, N=8) with the statement. The farmers sell these excess crops, not used for subsistence, to generate household income. The positive impact of irrigation on the production capability of farmers is also reiterated by the respondents. 87% (N=505) agreed (N=253) or strongly agreed (N=252) that irrigation techniques have allowed them to produce crops out of their traditional production periods. These findings confirm the statements made in the literature review that one of the main advantages of using irrigation agriculture is that it allows small-scale farmers to have an extra agricultural season within the same year.
5.9.2.2.2 Country Frequencies: irrigation techniques have allowed your household to produce outside of traditional production periods
Figure 29: Perception of whether irrigation techniques have allowed household to produce out of traditional production periods
The introduction of irrigation techniques has let Malagasy farmers produce outside the traditional production periods. This is evident from the data, as it has been indicated that about 78.74% (N=163) of farmers agree that they are able to produce outside the traditional production period. Malawian small scale irrigators showed an even greater level of agreement in terms of the benefit of small scale irrigation which allows them to produce crops outside traditional production periods. In total, 98,4% of participants either agreed (35,1%, N=107) or strongly agreed (63,3%, N=193) on this. Mozambican small-scale farmers also agreed that using irrigation methods has allowed them to produce crops outside of traditional production periods. Specifically, 65 % (N=42) of respondents indicated that they agree (51%, N=33) or strongly agree (14%, N=9) with the statement.
Figure 30: Irrigation and production outside hazard periods
The greatest majority of participants (81%, N= 470) also indicated that they either agree (N253) or strongly agree (N217) that the use of irrigation techniques provides them with the flexibility to shift their crop production to seasons that are less disaster prone. Therefore, they are not constrained to planting crops according to traditional rain-fed crop cycles that leaves their crops vulnerable to flooding or drought. Instead, they can now select planting periods that would optimise production, whilst lessening the likelihood of hazard impacts. The flexibility (in terms of planting season) provided by the use of irrigation greatly contributes to the overall livelihood resilience of rural farming communities.
Figure 31: Perception regarding positive impact of irrigation on timing of production
Of the 207 participants from Madagascar, 68% (N=141) have indicated that irrigation techniques enable them to produce crops even during the occurrence of disasters such as drought/floods. Malawian small scale irrigators also strongly confirmed (94,5%) that irrigation
allows them to produce crops outside the months or periods that tend to be more disaster prone. Specifically 38,2% (N=116) agreed and 56,3% (N=171) strongly agreed that irrigation does indeed benefit famers in producing during less disaster prone periods. Mozambican small-scale irrigators shared much of the positive sentiment around the fact that irrigation allows them to produce crops during less disaster prone periods. The majority of participants (64%) either agreed (52%) or strongly agreed (12%) with the statement. 5.9.3 Factor analysis: role of small-scale irrigation systems in increasing household food security resilience in hazard prone areas A factor analysis was conducted of the five indicator statements pertaining to small scale irrigation mechanisms to explore the factorial structure of the section. The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are presented in the table below. Table 15: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Value
KMO P-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity
0.796 Approx. chi-sq df Sig.
1226.331 10 0.000
The KMO measured 0.796 and indicates that the sample size is adequate for factor analysis. The p-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity returned a value smaller than 0.05, suggesting that the correlation between statements is sufficient for factor analysis (Field, 2005:652). The results of the factor analysis are reported in the table below.
Table 16: Component matrix
Small scale irrigation mechanisms Factor 1 No.
Question statement
Q18c
The introduction of new irrigation techniques has allowed your household to produce additional crops.
v12
Small scale irrigations mechanisms ,865
Communalities
,749
The introduction of new irrigation techniques has allowed your household to produce outside of the traditional production periods.
,859
The introduction of the new irrigation techniques has allowed your households to produce crops during periods when natural disasters/hazards do not usually occur.
,798
,636
Q18b
The irrigation techniques are easy to use.
,744
,553
Q18a
The irrigation techniques are easy to maintain.
,585
,342
Cronbach’s alpha
0.81
Factor mean
4.10
Factor standard deviation
0.73
Q18d
,738
Factor 1: Small-scale irrigation mechanisms Only one factor was extracted by Kaiser’s criteria (Field, 2005:652) that explains 60.37% of the total variance in the section on Small-scale irrigation mechanisms. The statements all loaded above 0.5 on the identified factor. The communalities for all the questions are above 0.3. The factor mean calculated at 4.10, which indicates that a large majority of the participants positively agreed with the factor and its statements. Thus, on average, research participants indicated that the new irrigation techniques allowed households to produce additional crops and to produce outside of the traditional production periods. Moreover, the research participants agreed that the new irrigation techniques are easy to use and easy to maintain. Research participants are also in agreement that the new irrigation techniques have allowed households to produce crops during periods when natural disasters/hazards do not usually occur. The factor shows good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.805, which is well above the required 0.7, and shows high reliability and internal consistency.
Table 17: Comparison of the three countries regarding the efficiency of small scale irrigation mechanisms Descriptives
Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Madagascar vs Malawi, Mozambique
Mean
Standard de viation
Madagascar
3.83
0.76
Malawi
4.39
0.58
0.74
Mozambique
3.63
0.63
0.26
Factor
Factor 1:
Effect size
Country
Malawi vs Mozambique
1.20
(a) small effect: d=0.2, (b) medium effect: d=0.5 and (c) large effect: d=0.8
From Table 17 it follows that the effect sizes of the Madagascar versus Mozambique target groups for the small scale irrigation mechanisms factor yielded a d-value smaller than 0.5, indicating that the difference between the means of the different target groups is not practically significant. Furthermore, the d-value of the Madagascar vs Malawi (0.74) target groups shows that the difference between the means has a medium effect. A large effect is evident from the means for the Malawi versus Mozambique (1.20) target groups. From the factor means it is evident that respondents from Madagascar (3.83) and Malawi (4.39) are more in agreement with the statements contained in the factor than the research participants from Mozambique. This means that respondents from Madagascar and Malawi more readily agreed (than their counterparts in Mozambique) that they make use of irrigation and different types of irrigation systems and that the use of the systems have brought them benefits in increasing productive output, helped them to produce outside of traditional production periods and produce crops during periods when natural disasters/hazards do not usually occur. 5.9.4 Small-scale irrigation systems: comparative statistical analysis A comparative statistical analysis was done to illustrate the relationship between the use of irrigation and other key factors and variables as contained in the questionnaire. Only statistically significant (above .200) positive or negative correlations were selected as they
more accurately point to relationships between different variables. The analysis is done on country specific data sets, so as to provide better insight into country specific relationships. 5.9.4.1 Madagascar: correlation with other studies
Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Famers Associations
Crop Varieties
Cropping Techniques
Correlation Coefficient
.396**
.210**
.253**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
N
161
158
185
Comparative statistical analysis reveals that the use of small scale irrigation techniques in Madagascar also strongly relates to membership of farmers associations (.396**), adoption of short cycle crop varieties (.210**) and the use of cropping techniques that reduce disaster losses (.253**). This is consistent with the findings from the literature where Tesfaye et al. (2008) and Kamara et al. (2001), indicated that farmers that tend to use small scale irrigation also tend to put more effort into exploring ways of maximising farm income through the application of new techniques and technologies.
5.9.4.2 Madagascar: coping strategies
Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Which of the following coping strategies does your household use after experiencing a disaster? Selling of household assets
Which of the following coping strategies does your household use after experiencing a disaster? Reducing size of portions of food at meal times
Which of the following coping strategies does your household use after experiencing a disaster? Eating seed stock
Which of the following coping strategies does your household use after experiencing a disaster? Other (specify)
Correlation Coefficient
.248**
-,255**
-,183**
.219**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
N
207
207
207
207
Comparative statistics revealed that farmers that use small scale irrigation mechanisms in Madagascar opt to sell household assets (.248**) following a disaster impact, as their primary coping strategy, but will also seek out other coping strategies (.219**) before reducing food intake. This strong correlation is indicative of the level of resilience of small scale irrigation farmers, as they actually have a financial buffer in the form of household assets to sell in order to survive. This assertion is reinforced in the fact that there is a strong negative correlation with reducing food portion sizes (-255**) and eating seed stock (-,183**), both of which have more to do with efforts to survive, and are indicative of communities with low levels of resilience.
5.9.4.3 Madagascar: small-scale irrigation and natural hazards Q11: Cyclon es April
Q11: Droughts November
Q11: Pests/locu sts December
Q11: Pests/lo custs June
Q11: Pests/lo custs May
Q11: Pests/lo custs April
.157*
,330**
,252**
,193**
,189**
,187**
Sig. (2tailed)
0
0
0
N
207
207
207
207
207
207
Small scale Correlation irrigation Coefficient mechanisms
Strong correlations exist between the use of small scale irrigation and the ability to keep on producing crops in the months affected by a wide array of natural hazards. Specifically, Malagasy farmers are able to continue with production although they are affected by cyclones (,157*) and droughts (,333**) in the months of April and November, respectively. The greatest benefit in using small scale irrigation, however, seems to be countering the impact of pest and locust invasions, with production being able to carry on during Decembers (,252**), June (,193**), May (189**), April (,187**). 5.9.4.4 Malawi: correlation with other studies
Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Famers Associations
Crop Varieties
Cropping Techniques
Correlation Coefficient
.586**
.559**
.177**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
N
161
158
185
Comparative statistical analysis reveals that the use of small scale irrigation techniques in Malawi has an even stronger (as opposed to Madagascar) correlation with membership to farmers associations (.586**), adoption of short cycle crop varieties (.559**) and to a lesser extent, but still statistically significant, use of cropping techniques that reduce disaster losses
(.177**). Therefore, Malawian farmers that use small scale irrigation mechanisms also tend to be part of farmers associations, use short cycle crop varieties and adopt cropping techniques that reduce disaster losses. 5.9.4.5 Malawi: coping strategies Q15: Which Q15: Which of Q15: Which of the the following of the following coping following coping strategies coping strategies does your strategies does your household does your household use after household use after experiencing use after experiencing a disaster? experiencing a disaster? - Reducing size a disaster? Reducing the of portions of Support from number of food at family for meals per mealtime food and day income Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Correlation Coefficient
-,328**
-,287**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0,008
0,001
N
305,000
305,000
Q15: Which of the following coping strategies does your household use after experiencing a disaster? Support from friend for food and income
.171**
198**
305,000
305,000
In the case of Malawi, small scale irrigation farmers show a strong tendency to either make use of family for food and income (.171**) or friends for food and income (.198**) as viable coping strategies following a disaster. Friend and family networks are generally considered within the field of disaster risk management as a coping capacity that improves a societies overall resilience. The existence and dependence on such networks to cope with disaster impacts by Malawian small scale irrigators points to a certain level of societal resilience. Just as was the case in Madagascar, small-scale irrigators are not strongly inclined to reduce meals per day (-.328**) or reduce portion sizes at mealtimes (-,287**).
5.9.4.6 Malawi: Small scale irrigation and natural hazards Q11: Q11: Floods Floods February December Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Q11: Droughts September
Correlation Coefficient
.184**
,183**
,143*
Sig. (2tailed)
0
0
0
N
305
305
305
Q11: Q11: Strong Strong winds winds October November ,141*
,188**
305
305
Strong correlations exist between the use of small scale irrigation and the ability to keep on producing crops in months affected by a wide array of natural hazards. Specifically, Malawian farmers are able to continue with production in months that are affected by natural hazard impacts. These hazards are floods in February (,184*) and December (,183**), droughts in September (,143**) and strong winds in October (,141*) and November (,188*). 5.9.4.7 Mozambique: correlation with other studies Famers Crop Varieties Cropping Associations Techniques Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Correlation Coefficient
.523*
.549**
0,045
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
N
161
158
Comparative statistical analysis also reveals (as was the case in the other two countries) strong statistical correlation between the use of small scale irrigation and membership to farmer associations (.523*) and the use of short cycle crop varieties (.549**). Interestingly, in the case of Mozambique, only a statistically insignificant correlation (,045) exists between
farmers that use small scale irrigation techniques and use cropping techniques to reduce disaster risks. 5.9.4.8 Mozambique: coping strategies Q15: Which of the Q15: Which of the following coping following coping strategies does strategies does your household your household use after use after experiencing a experiencing a disaster? - Selling disaster? - Hunting of household and gathering wild assets crops Small scale irrigation mechanisms
Correlation Coefficient
,256**
,301*
Sig. (2-tailed)
0,008
0,001
N
65,000
65,000
Q15: Which of the following coping strategies does your household use after experiencing a disaster? - Member of household working on other people’s fields in exchange for food -,327**
65,000
Comparative statistics revealed that farmers that use small scale irrigation mechanisms in Mozambique, just like their counterparts in Madagascar, opt to sell household assets (.256**) following a disaster impact, as their primary coping strategy. Additionally, they also adopt hunting and gathering of wild crops (,301*) as a coping mechanism, before considering reducing the number of meals per day (-,091). Mozambican small scale irrigators indicated that working on other people’s fields in exchange for food (-,327**) is not a widely used coping mechanism.
5.9.4.9 Mozambique: small scale irrigation and natural hazards
Small scale Correlation irrigation Coefficient mechanisms Sig. (2-
Q11:
Q11:
Q11:
Q11: Strong
Q11: Strong
Droughts -
Droughts
Droughts -
winds -
winds -
September
- October
November
August
September
-.313*
-.397**
-.386**
-.259*
-.256*
0
0
0
65
65
65
65
65
tailed) N
Farmers in Mozambique expressed during focus groups that they felt that irrigation doesn’t mitigate all hazards, and therefore doesn't necessarily increase the community resilience to natural hazards. This is confirmed by results from the cross correlation of data where it was shown that there were strong negative correlations between irrigation and the ability to continue production in months affected by certain hazards. Current methods of irrigation (buckets, watering cans and wells) prove particularly ineffective in periods of drought as per the correlation statistics (-.313*, -.397**, -.386**). This could be because watering cans can only carry a limited amount of water at a time, which does not allow for a sustained watering of affected areas. The affected area can also be so vast that it becomes impractical to water it with a watering can. It should also be kept in mind that watering cans could be physically demanding to handle, this physical strain would be amplified over a larger area, and would discourage farmers from using this as a means to irrigate in times of drought.
5.10 Appropriate crop varieties: findings and data analysis Appropriate crop varieties can play an important part in reducing crop exposure to hazards and small-scale farmers in rural communities need to be aware of this. This section will present the data that was collected during the fieldwork phase of this study in Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique. The discussion of the data takes the responses of the quantitative questionnaire into consideration as well as the qualitative data that was collected during the focus group interviews. The data will be discussed against what has been found in literature
regarding appropriate crop varieties in small-scale farming communities, seeking in this way to describe how crop varieties might contribute to the resilience of small scale farmers in these countries. 5.10.1 Appropriate crop varieties: frequencies and descriptive statistics According to the data, two thirds (67,27%) of all respondents indicated that they make use of short-cycle crop varieties while 32,73% still make use of traditional crop varieties. Between the three countries of study, the data varies greatly in terms of usage of short-cycle crop varieties. In Madagascar 60,24% of respondents make use of short-cycle crop varieties, in Malawi 98,77% of respondents indicated that they use short cycle crop varieties, while in Mozambique only about half of the respondents (49,55%) use short-cycle crop varieties.
Figure 32: Usage of short-cycle crop varieties per country
Respondents that make use of short-cycle crop varieties responded positively to the question whether the use of short-cycle crop varieties has reduced the amount of losses that their households have sustained due to natural disasters/hazards compared to traditional crop varieties. Respondents indicated that the use of short-cycle crop varieties has reduced the total growing time of their crops (Figure 34). In Malawi nearly all (98.13%) the respondents were either satisfied of extremely satisfied that their growing time has sped up with the use of short cycle crop varieties. Even in Madagascar (81.28%) and Mozambique (88.23%) the most of the respondents were satisfied with the growing time of short-cycle crop varieties. The same trend was followed when respondents were asked if the short-cycle crop varieties have increased the amount of income available in their households (Figure 35) and if the introduction of short-cycle crop varieties increased the agricultural production of their households (Figure 36). As can be clearly seen in Figure 33 below respondents in all three countries were mostly satisfied with the use and introduction of short-cycle crop varieties.
Figure 33: Level of satisfaction of the use of short cycle crop varieties
Figure 34: Level of appreciation for reduced growing time from use of short cycle varieties
Figure 35: Level of agreement on short cycle varieties having increased household income
Figure 36: Level of agreement on short cycle varieties having increased household agricultural production
5.10.1.1 Maize In Malawi maize that is under irrigation was mostly obtained from NGOs, as 71.68% of the respondents received their seed from NGOs. The rest of the respondents in Malawi indicated that the seeds they use for maize under irrigation is either self-produced (10.32%) or is obtained from an agro-dealer (7.37%), a farmers’ association (6.78%), a government subsidy (6.6%) or donations (0.59%). Most of the seeds for irrigated maize in Mozambique are obtained from a government subsidy (35%). Seeds that are self-produced and obtained from NGOs are equal with 30% and only 2.5% is obtained from agro-dealers or farmers’ associations. Respondents in Madagascar indicated that two thirds of seed used for maize on dry lands (rain fed) were self-produced with the other third being obtained from NGOs. Seed obtained for rain fed maize in Malawi is evenly distributed among NGOs (25.31%), government subsidies (24.38%), self-produced (21.25%) and agro-dealers (20.94%). Very little seeds were obtained from farmers’ associations (7.5%) and donations (0.62%). In Mozambique the main provider of seeds for rain fed maize were agro-dealers (28.24%) and NGOs (26.67%). The rest of the respondents who produce rain fed maize use seeds that are self-produced (19.22%) or from government subsidies (12.55%), farmers’ associations (8.24%) or donations (5.1%).
5.10.1.2 Rice Rice seeds for summer planting in Madagascar was obtained mostly from NGOs (54.09%) with the second largest supplier being self-production with 32.7%. The rest of the respondents obtained rice seeds for summer planting from farmers’ associations (10.06%), donations (2.52%) and agro-dealers (0.63%). In Malawi most of the rice seeds for summer planting were either obtained from agro-dealers (40.62%) or self-produced (35.94%). Farmers' associations (10.94%), NGOs (6.25%), donations (4.69%) and government subsidies (1.56%) were also providers of rice seeds for summer planting. In Mozambique, seed for rice during the summer was mostly self-produced (38.46%). Agro-dealers provided for 23.08% seed and all the other suppliers provided the same amount of seeds. Rice seeds that are planted during winter in Madagascar are mostly obtained from NGOs (70.69%) and a near equal amount is obtained from farmers’ associations (12.64%) and being self-produced (12.07%). In Malawi rice for planting in winter was mostly self-produced (50%) with agro-dealers (39,29%) and farmers’ associations (10.71%) also providing seeds. Rice seed for winter planting in Mozambique was obtained from only 3 sources. The farmers produced 50% of the seed themselves while farmers associations and NGOs provided 25% each. 5.10.1.3 Millet None of the respondents in Madagascar planted millet, therefore no information is available. In Malawi millet seeds wa mostly obtained from NGOs (49.41%). The second largest supplier was self-production (19.22%), while agro-dealers (13,58%) and farmers’ associations (12.76%) supplied a near equal amount of seeds. Seeds obtained from government subsidies (2.88%) and donations (2.06%) was very little. Half of the seeds for millet in Mozambique was received from NGOs while 25% came from agro-dealers, 16.67% was self-produced and 8.33% came from famers’ associations. 5.10.1.4 Sorghum Seeds for sorghum in Madagascar was obtained equally from government subsidies (50%) and agro-dealers (50%). A little more than half (50.99%) of sorghum seeds in Malawi was obtained from NGOs. The rest of the sorghum seeds in Malawi was self-produced (19.76%) or came from agro-dealers (13.44%), farmers’ associations (11.86%), donations (3.16%) or
government subsidies (0.79%). In Mozambique seeds for sorghum was obtained from NGOs (42.86%), self-production (32.14%), agro-dealers (21.43%) or farmers’ associations (3.57%). 5.10.1.5 Cotton In Madagascar 100% of seeds for cotton was obtained from agro-dealers. Respondents in Malawi that planted cotton obtained seeds from government subsidies (58.66%), farmers’ associations (20.11%), agro-dealers and NGOs (8.38%). In Mozambique seeds for cotton were obtained from NGOs (42.86%), self-production (32.14%), agro-dealers (21.43%) and farmers’ associations (3.57%).
Figure 37: Early seed maturation
5.10.2 Early maturing varieties When asked whether the seeds are early maturing a mean score ranging from 1.13 – 1.74 was received. This result shows that the majority of the respondents responded “Yes” when asked whether the following seeds mature early. Rice (summer), with a mean score of 1.74 was the item with the least amount of “Yes” responses (46.88%). 91.18% of respondents indicated that Maize (irrigated) does indeed mature early. In Mozambique 89.55% of respondents indicated that maize (rain fed) matures early, achieving a mean score of 1.13 whilst and 68.97% said that sorghum matures early, resulting in a mean score of 1,41. All the other crops in Mozambique had a mean score of more than 1.5 meaning that seeds did not mature early or that the answer was not applicable. The mean scores were: millet (1.77), maize (irrigated) (1.85), rice (winter) (1.89), rice (summer) (2.12) and cotton (2.6).
For Malawi maize (irrigated) (1.07), millet (1.2), sorghum (1.2) and maize (rain fed) (1.25) all had mean scores of less than 1.5 meaning that on average these seeds mature early. Cotton (1.55), rice (summer) (1.91) and rice (winter) (2.13) had mean scores of more than 1.5 meaning that rice and cotton was not planted or was not maturing early. With regard to Madagascar only three of the seven crops received responses, namely maize (rain fed), rice (summer) and rice (winter). All respondents agreed that maize (rain fed) matures early. It would seem that rice planted in winter is more likely to mature early (mean 1.14) than rice planted in summer (mean 1.47). In Table 18 the different seed varieties used by respondents in the different countries are shown. It is notable that Madagascar does not make use of hybrid seeds while hybrid seeds are used in Malawi and Mozambique from as little as 6.25% for rice (summer) in Mozambique to 64.91% for maize (rain fed) in Malawi. Also notable is that in Malawi the local variety is not used that much compared to the usage of local varieties in Madagascar and Mozambique.
Table 18: Variety of seed used by respondents
Madagascar Local variety Improved OPV Hybrid Retained seed Maize (rain fed)
50%
30%
0%
20%
Rice (summer)
52.55%
36.22%
0%
11.22%
Rice (winter)
47.51%
49.72%
0%
2.76%
Maize (irrigated)
2.04%
32.36%
62.10%
3.5%
Maize (rain fed)
7.31%
17.84%
64.91%
9.94%
Rice (summer)
23.51%
12.54%
36.68%
27.27%
Rice (winter)
20.45%
12.46%
38.98%
28.12%
Millet
4.31%
29.54%
61.23%
4.92%
Sorghum
6.44%
30.37%
60.12%
3.07%
Cotton
2.48%
23.29%
60.25%
13.98%
Maize (irrigated)
23.43%
27.83%
48.54%
0%
Maize (rain fed)
36.33%
22.10%
35.96%
5.62%
Rice (summer)
56.25%
25%
6.25%
12.5%
Rice (winter)
60%
20%
20%
0%
Millet
25%
8.33%
58.33%
8.33%
44.44%
3.7%
40.74%
11.11%
Malawi
Mozambique
Sorghum
5.10.3 Factor analysis: role of appropriate crop varieties to reduce crop exposure to hazards A factor analysis was conducted of the four indicator statements pertaining to crop varieties to explore the factorial structure of the section. The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are presented in the table below. Table 19: KMO and Bartlett's test of sphericity KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Value 0.79 9
KMO P-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Approx. chi-sq df Sig.
1603 .076 6 0.00 0
The KMO measured 0.799 and indicates that the sample size is adequate for factor analysis. The p-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity returned a value smaller than 0.05, suggesting that the correlation between statements is sufficient for factor analysis (Field, 2005:652). The results of the factor analysis are reported in the table below.
Table 20: Component matrix
Crop varieties Factor 1 No.
Question statement
Q25d
The introduction of short-cycle crop varieties increased the agricultural production of my household.
.888
The use of short cycle crop varieties has reduced the amount of losses my household has sustained due to natural disasters/hazards compared to traditional crop varieties.
.860
Q25b
The use of short cycle crop varieties has reduced the total growing time of my crops.
.841
Q25c
In general the introduction of short-cycle crop varieties has increased the amount of income available in my household.
.839
Cronbach’s alpha
0.877
Factor mean
4.15
Factor standard deviation
0.62
Q25a
Crop varieties
Communalities
.789
.740
.707
.704
Factor 1: crop varieties Only one factor was extracted by Kaiser’s criteria (Field, 2005:652) that explains 73.48% of the total variance in the section on crop varieties. The statements all loaded above 0.8 on the identified factor. The commonalities for all the questions are above 0.7. The factor mean calculated at 4.15, which indicates that a large majority of the participants positively agreed with the factor and its statements. Thus, on average research participants indicated that short cycle crop varieties have a positive impact on agricultural production; it reduces the total growing time of crops and increase the amount of income available in households. Furthermore, it reduces the amount of losses in households due to natural disasters/hazards.
The factor shows good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.87, which is well above the required 0.7, and shows high reliability and internal consistency. 5.10.4 Appropriate crop varieties: comparative statistical analysis A comparative statistical analysis was done for all three countries and how the planting of appropriate crop varieties statistically correlate to the other key technical areas explored. These correlations will now be presented below. 5.10.4.1 Madagascar Irrigation systems
Farmers Access to associations credit
Coping Coping strategies strategies
.210**
.464**
.202**
.268**
-.241**
Sig. (2-tailed) 0,008
0
0,004
0
0,001
N
144
203
203
203
Role of appropriate crop varieties Correlation to reduce crop exposure to hazards Coefficient
158
According to the above comparative statistical analysis it is clear that there are positive correlations between the planting of appropriate crop varieties and the implementation of good irrigation techniques (.210**). Good irrigation techniques include the usage treadle pumps or shallow tube wells. There are also positive correlations between the planting of appropriate crop varieties and being part of farmers associations (.464**) as the farmers associations provide advice as well as financial support. Another positive correlation was between the planting of appropriate crop varieties and having access to credit and implementing coping strategies (.268**). When one has access to credit it will enable the farmer to buy better yielding seed varieties, and also to take care of their household’s health. The healthier people are, the more productive they can be. The sources of their credit are famers associations, and village savings and loans. There is a negative correlation to informal money lenders being the source of their credit. The interest that informal money lenders ask is so much that the farmers are not able to survive with their income after having paid back the money they borrowed. Coping strategies include selling of household goods in order to
survive, which means that they are resilient enough to actually have household goods to sell before they need to go into survival mode of e.g. reducing their meals. There is a very negative correlation with having to migrate to urban areas as a coping strategy, since an urban way of life leads to various emotional stresses and an impediment of their freedom. 5.10.4.2 Malawi Irrigation systems
Farmers associations
Cropping Techniques
Coping strategies
Coping strategies
.559**
.568**
.273**
-0.397**
-0,474**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
0
0
N
302
290
320
321
321
Role of Correlation appropriate Coefficient crop varieties to reduce crop exposure to hazards
From the comparative statistical analysis in Malawi, one can see that there are very strong positive correlations between the production of appropriate crop varieties and the implementation of small-scale irrigation techniques (.559**) as well as implementing farmers associative mechanisms (.568**). There was also a positive correlation between the production of appropriate crop varieties and the application of good cropping techniques (.273**). Two negative correlations were found with their way of coping in adverse circumstances. The first coping strategy was to reduce their number of meals per day (0,397**) and secondly to reduce the size of the portions of their meals (-0,474). The fact that they had to reduce their food intake is indicative of the fact that the communities in Malawi don’t have buffers in place to make them resilient to the adverse effects of hazards/disasters.
5.10.4.3 Mozambique Irrigation systems
Farmers associations
Good cropping techniques
Coping strategy
Coping strategy
.549**
.564**
.284**
-.177**
-.214**
Sig. (2-tailed)
0
0
0
0,008
0,001
N
50
71
213
222
222
Role of Correlation appropriate Coefficient crop varieties to reduce crop exposure to hazards
The above comparative statistical analysis shows that there are strong positive correlations between planting appropriate crop varieties and the implementation of small-scale irrigation systems (.549**) and making use of farmers associative mechanisms (.564**). Another positive correlation is between planting appropriate crop varieties and the utilization of good cropping techniques (.284**). It can therefore be deduced that people who plant appropriate crop varieties are also making use of small-scale irrigation systems, part of farmers associations and implement good cropping techniques. There are however negative correlations with regard to coping strategies, in as much that members of the household have to work in other people's fields in exchange for food, thereby leaving their own fields unattended at critical times such as during planting, weeding, etc (-.177**). Another negative coping mechanism is that the members of the household have to succumb to eating their seed stock, because they do not have the capacity of having other food sources, this aspect shows a continued vulnerability for some communities in times of high stress.
5.11 Good cropping techniques: findings and data analysis 5.11.1 Good cropping techniques: frequencies and descriptive statistics 5.11.1.1 Cropping techniques used by respondents This section gives an indication of cropping techniques that are adopted in the respective countries included in the study, Malawi, Madagascar and Mozambique. Malawi From the quantitative results (Figure 38), it is evident that the majority of respondents from Malawi make use of mulching (83.7%) followed by row planting (76.7%), manure and fertiliser (70.2%), intercropping (55.8%), pit planting (46.3%) and moisture retention techniques (46%) to produce crops. These results are in line with work done by the FAO. According to the FAO (2014) mulching, row planting (in ridges), and use of fertilizer, are mainstreamed in Malawi as per a strong dissemination campaign done by extension services. Intercropping is also well known and used, and pit planting (or other types, such as box ridges, furrow planting or basin planting) is also used depending on the water availability and the cropping season.
Figure 38: Cropping techniques used by respondents in Malawi
Madagascar According to the quantitative results the majority of respondents of Madagascar (Figure 39) make use of manure and fertiliser (51.3%) followed by row planting (48.1%) to produce crops. Madagascar mainly produces rice and therefore manure and fertiliser as well as row planting are used in the production process.
Figure 39: Cropping techniques used by respondents in Madagascar
Mozambique Quantitative results showed that the majority of respondents from Mozambique (Figure 40) make use of row planting (57.9%) followed by intercropping (55%), no-tillage (44,1%), crop rotation (21,7%) and pit planting (19,2%) to produce crops.
Figure 40: Cropping techniques used by respondents in Mozambique
5.11.1.2 Efficiency of cropping techniques in reducing losses due to droughts From the means of the combined data (Malawi, Madagascar and Mozambique) it is evident that on average respondents felt that mulching (mean=3.32) is regarded as the most effective cropping technique in reducing losses due to droughts, followed by pit planting (mean=2.99), manure and fertiliser usage (mean=2.77), intercropping (mean=2.74), moisture retention (mean=2.67) and row planting (mean=2.52). Minimum tillage, no-tillage, crop rotation and agroforestry obtained mean scores below 2.5, indicating that on average respondents felt that these techniques are not successful in reducing losses due to droughts (Figure 41).
Figure 41: Efficiency of cropping techniques in reducing losses due to droughts
Country specific results yielded different results and show that Malawian farmers mainly make use of mulching (mean=4.3), pit planting (mean=3.6), moisture retention (mean=3.2), manure and fertiliser usage (mean=3.2) and minimum tillage (mean=2.7) to reduce losses due to droughts. Farmers in Mozambique tend to rely on intercropping (mean=3.2), pit planting (mean=3.2), row planting (mean=3.2), crop rotation (mean=2.9), no-tillage (mean=2.8) and minimumtillage (mean=2.7) to mitigate the effects of droughts. Means scores obtained from research participants from Madagascar for all the various techniques were below 2.5, indicating that none of these techniques prove to be efficient in reducing losses due to droughts in Madagascar. 5.11.1.3 Efficiency of cropping techniques in reducing losses due to floods From the means (combined data, Figure 42) it is evident that on average respondents from all three the countries felt that agroforestry (mean=2.75) is the most effective in reducing losses due to floods. All the other cropping techniques obtained a mean score of below 2.5, indicating that on average respondents did not regard these techniques as effective in reducing losses due to floods.
Figure 42: Efficiency of cropping techniques in reducing losses due to floods
Country specific results yielded different results and show that on average Malawian farmers regarded agroforestry (mean=3.6) followed by intercropping (mean=2.5) and row planting (mean=2.5) as the most effective cropping technique in reducing losses due to floods. Farmers in Mozambique indicated that row planting (mean=3), intercropping (mean=2.7), pit planting (mean=2.5) and no-tillage (mean=2.5) could mitigate losses due to floods. Means scores obtained from the respondents from Madagascar for all the various techniques were below 2.0, indicating that research participants thought that none of these techniques are efficient in reducing losses due to floods in Madagascar.
5.11.2 Factor analysis: promotion of good cropping techniques to mitigate impact of natural hazards A factor analysis was conducted of the 18 indicator statements pertaining to cropping techniques to explore the factorial structure of the section. Question XTR-Q27a (Annexure A) relates to the effectiveness of the mentioned cropping techniques to reduce droughts, and question XTR-Q2-C47 (Annexure A) relates to the effectiveness of the mentioned cropping techniques to reduce floods. The results of the KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity are presented in Table 21. Table 21: KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
KMO and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Value
KMO
0.833
P-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity
Approx. chi-sq df Sig.
3003. 723 153 0.000
The KMO measured 0.833 and indicates that the sample size is adequate for factor analysis. The p-value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity returned a value smaller than 0.05, suggesting that the correlation between statements is sufficient for factor analysis (Field, 2005:652). The results of the factor analysis are reported in Table 22.
Table 22: Component matrix
Cropping techniques Question statement No.
Please indicate which of the following cropping techniques are effective in reducing losses due to droughts/floods
Q XTR-Q27a _Row1
Factor 1 Cropping techniques
Commonalities
Row planting (Droughts)
0.833
0.866
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row8
Manure and fertilizer use (Floods)
0.831
0.916
Q XTR-Q27a _Row10
Manure and fertilizer use (Droughts)
0.815
0.922
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row1
Row planting (Floods)
0.804
0.889
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row3
No-tillage (Floods)
0.784
0.764
Q XTR-Q27a _Row9
Moisture retention (Droughts)
0.773
0.935
Q XTR-Q27a _Row3
No-tillage (Droughts)
0.767
0.707
Q XTR-Q27a _Row2
Minimum tillage (Droughts)
0.759
0.859
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row4
Crop rotation (Floods)
0.759
0.846
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row5
Intercropping (Floods)
0.739
0.757
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row2
Minimum tillage (Floods)
0.720
0.897
Q XTR-Q27a _Row8
Manure and fertilizer use (Droughts)
0.684
0.832
Q XTR-Q27a _Row4
Mulching (Droughts)
0.668
0.831
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row6
Pit planting (Floods)
0.619
0.844
Q XTR-Q27a _Row7
Pit planting (Droughts)
0.612
0.840
Q XTR-Q27a _Row5
Crop rotation (Droughts)
0.574
0.777
Q XTR-Q27a _Row6
Intercropping (Droughts)
0.421
0.798
Q XTR-Q2-C47 _Row7
Agroforestry (Floods)
0.529
0.871
Cropping techniques Question statement Please indicate which of the following cropping techniques are effective in reducing losses due to droughts/floods
No.
Factor 1 Cropping techniques
Cronbach’s alpha
0.94
Factor mean
2.77
Factor standard deviation
1.23
Commonalities
Factor 1: cropping techniques Only one factor was extracted by Kaiser’s criteria (Field, 2005:652) that explains 84.18% of the total variance. The statements all loaded above 0.5 on the identified factor, except for statement XTR-Q27a, row 6 (intercropping during drought) which has a factor loading of 0.421. The commonalities for these statements are above 0.7 (
Table 22). The factor mean calculated at 2.77 (just above the required 2.5), which indicates a tendency to agree with the statements contained in the factor. It could thus be deducted that on average, the participants agreed to some extent that the following cropping techniques are effective in reducing losses due to droughts: row planting, minimum tillage, no-tillage, mulching, crop rotation, intercropping, pit planting, agroforestry, moisture retention, manure and fertiliser use. Furthermore, participants agreed that row planting, minimum tillage, no-
tillage, crop rotation, intercropping, pit planting, agroforestry, manure and fertiliser use, when effectively practiced, could reduce losses due to floods. However, it should be noted that the mean scores for the various countries differ as indicated in Table 23 below. From the means it is evident that on average research participants from Malawi and Mozambique are in agreement with the statements contained in the factor, whilst the majority of respondents from Madagascar tended to disagree with the statements contained in the factor. This could be due to the fact that the respondents mainly make use of manure and fertiliser use and row planting when producing crops (mainly rice).
Table 23: Descriptive statistics for Factor: Cropping techniques
Mean
Standard deviation
Q XTR-Q2-C47_Row1Row8
Standard deviation
Q XTR-Q27a _Row1Row10
Mean
Q XTR-Q27a + Q XTRQ2-C47
Mozambique
Standard deviation
No.
Malawi
Mean
Madagascar
Please indicate which of the following cropping techniques are effective in reducing losses due to droughts: row planting, minimum tillage, no-tillage, mulching, crop rotation, intercropping, pit planting, agroforestry, moisture retention, manure and fertilizer use / floods: row planting, minimum tillage, no-tillage, crop rotation, intercropping, pit planting, agroforestry, manure and fertilizer use
1,96
1,04
3,18
1,18
2,99
1,14
Please indicate which of the following cropping techniques are effective in reducing losses due to droughts: row planting, minimum tillage, no-tillage, mulching, crop rotation, intercropping, pit planting, agroforestry, moisture retention, manure and fertilizer use
2,06
1,07
3,53
1,26
3,08
1,18
Please indicate which of the following cropping techniques are effective in reducing losses due to floods: row planting, minimum tillage, no-tillage, crop rotation, intercropping, pit planting, agroforestry, manure and fertilizer use
1,86
1,11
2,79
1,43
2,84
1,34
Indicator statement
Mean scores of 2.5 and lower were regarded as ‘low’ and indicate that compliance with the specific statement is none or very limited.
The factor shows good reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.94, which is above the required 0.7, and shows high reliability and internal consistency.
5.11.3 Good cropping techniques: comparative statistical analysis The descriptive statistics together with effect sizes of the different target groups regarding the factor: cropping techniques are reported in Table 24. Table 24: Comparison of the three countries regarding the efficiency of cropping techniques to reduce losses due to droughts/floods Descriptives
Effect size
Madagascar Factor
Country
Mean
Standard deviation
vs Malawi, Mozambique
Factor 1:
Cropping techniques
Malawi vs Mozambique
Madagascar 1.96
1.04
3.18
1.18
1.03
2.99
1.14
0.90
Malawi
Mozambique
0.16
(a) small effect: d=0.2, (b) medium effect: d=0.5 and (c) large effect: d=0.8
It can be seen that the effect sizes of the Malawi versus Mozambique target groups for the Cropping techniques factor yield a d-value smaller than 0.5, indicating that the difference between the means of the different target groups is not practically significant. However, the d-value of the Madagascar vs Malawi (1.03) and Mozambique (0.9) target groups is above 0.8, indicating that the difference between the means of the target groups has a large effect and is practically significant. It can, therefore, be deducted that on average the research participants from Malawi and Mozambique are more in agreement with the statements contained in the factor than the research participants of Madagascar themselves. Thus, on average, research participants from Malawi and Mozambique are more in agreement that the mentioned cropping techniques are effective in reducing losses due to droughts and floods then the research participants of Madagascar. The comparative statistical analysis for the factor: cropping techniques are presented below.
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Hunting and gathering wild crops
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Reducing the number of meals per day
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Member of household go to work in other people’s fields in exchange for food
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Reducing size of portions of food at meal times
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Children dropping out of school
Correlation Coefficient
Factor: Crop varieties
Cropping techniques
Factor: Farmers’ associative mechanisms
Factor
Factor: Small scale irrigations mechanisms
Table 25: Comparative statistical analysis for the Factor: Cropping techniques – Malawi
.177**
.294**
.273**
-.417**
-.476**
.310**
-.370**
-.223**
,002
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
305
292
320
325
325
325
325
325
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Table 25 shows that the cropping techniques factor relates statistically significantly to the factors: small scale irrigations mechanisms (.177**), farmers’ associative mechanisms (.294**) and crop varieties (.273**), indicating that Malawian farmers effectively practicing cropping techniques will also tend to engage in a farmers’ association, use small scale irrigation mechanisms and will also explore the use of different crop varieties to reduce losses due to droughts and floods. The cropping techniques factor also relates statistically significantly to the coping strategy: member of household go to work in other people’s fields in exchange for food (.310**), indicating that Malawian farmers will tend to follow this specific coping strategy rather than others in trying to survive the devastating impacts of a disaster. Statistically significant negative correlations are evident for the following coping strategies: reducing the number of meals per day (-.476**), reducing size of portions of food at meal times (-.370**), hunting and gathering wild crops (-.417**) and children dropping out of school (-.223**), indicating that
these strategies will only be followed by Malawian farmers as a last resort in an attempt to survive the impact of a disaster.
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Moving away from household’s plots for off-farm work for income
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Reducing size of portions of food at meal times
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Children dropping out of school
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Eating seed stock
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Migrating to urban areas for work
Sig. (2tailed)
Access to credit: Neighbor
Correlation Coefficient
Access to credit: Family member
Cropping techniques
Factor: Farmers’ associative mechanisms
Factor
Factor: Small scale irrigations mechanisms
Table 26: Comparative statistical analysis for the Factor: Cropping techniques – Madagascar
.253**
.245**
.193**
.184**
.218**
-.423**
.287**
-.258**
-.171**
,001
,001
,001
,002
,000
,000
,000
,000
,004
185
185
279
279
279
279
279
279
279
N
From Table 26 it is evident that the cropping techniques factor relates statistically significantly to the factors: small scale irrigations mechanisms (.253**) and farmers’ associative mechanisms (.245**). It could thus be deduced that farmers in Madagascar that effectively practice cropping techniques will also tend to engage in a farmers’ association (factor mean=4.14) and will also tend to put more effort in small scale irrigation mechanisms (factor mean=4.10) to produce crops in order to reduce losses due to droughts and floods. Furthermore, it is evident that the cropping techniques factor relates statistically significantly to access to credit: family member (.193**) and access to credit: neighbour (.184**). Thus, in order to practice cropping techniques respondents from Madagascar tend to get access to credit from family members and neighbours rather than utilising other sources such as banks, village saving and loans and informal money lenders.
The cropping techniques factor also relates statistically significantly to the following coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: children dropping out of school (.287**) and moving away from household’s plots for off-farm work for income (.218**). Statistically significant negative correlations are evident for the following coping strategies: reducing size of portions of food at meal times (-.423**), eating seed stock (-.258**) and migrating to urban areas for work (-.171**), indicating that that these strategies will only be followed as a last resort.
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Eating seed stock
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Support from friends for food and income
Correlation Coefficient
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Children dropping out of school
Cropping techniques
Coping strategies after experiencing a disaster: Hunting and gathering wild crops
Factor
Factor: Crop Varieties
Table 27: Comparative statistical analysis for the Factor: Cropping techniques – Mozambique
.284**
-.162**
-.138**
-.131**
-.210**
,000
,001
,005
,008
,000
213
413
413
413
413
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
From Table 27 it is clear that the cropping techniques factor relates statistically significantly to the factor: crop varieties (.284**), indicating that farmers of Mozambique effectively practicing cropping techniques will also explore crop varieties to reduce losses due to droughts and floods. The Cropping techniques factor also showed statistically significant negative correlations for the following coping strategies: support from friends for food and income (-.210**), hunting and gathering wild crops (-.162**), children dropping out of school (-.138**) and eating seed
stock (-.131**), indicating that these strategies will only be followed by respondents from Mozambique as a last resort in an attempt to survive the impact of a disaster. 5.11.4 Good cropping techniques: qualitative findings This section provides the qualitative findings obtained from the focus group interviews. Questions in the interview guide were included to determine:
which cropping techniques are used;
whether the techniques practiced are beneficial;
the advantages of the cropping techniques used; and
whether the techniques used are effective in reducing losses due to droughts, floods and cyclones.
5.11.4.1 Malawi Qualitative findings derived from the focus group discussions held in Malawi further revealed that households make use of the following various cropping techniques: row planting, minimum tillage, mulching, pit planting, intercropping, agroforestry and manure and fertiliser. These findings are also reinforced by the quantitative results as indicated in 5.11.1.1. It is indicated that the following benefits are derived from these practices:
Mulching conserves a lot of moisture and therefore crops are more resistant to droughts. Although it is indicated that mulching helps to suppress weeds thereby reducing labour, it is also emphasised that this technique is labour intensive;
Pit planting helps to harvest water hence the moisture is enough to support plant growth;
Intercropping assists crops to support each other in terms of covering the ground, thereby conserving moisture and reducing weeds;
Agroforestry assists in improving soil fertility; and
The application of manure and fertiliser helps to improve soil fertility and boost crop yield.
The following techniques were indicated as the most effective in reducing losses due to droughts: minimum tillage, manure and fertiliser, pit planting, mulching, intercropping and agroforestry. To protect crops against strong winds households make use of fencing, intercropping and agroforestry. Furthermore, intercropping, agroforestry, mulching and row
planting are indicated to be effective in reducing losses caused by floods. These findings are also in line with the quantitative results obtained from Malawian respondents (sections 5.11.1.2 and 5.11.1.3). 5.11.4.2 Madagascar From the qualitative findings it is evident that respondents from Madagascar mainly make use of chemical and natural fertiliser (compost) as well as row planting (in-line planting). These techniques are mainly used to produce rice. Respondents from the studied sites are all in agreement that these cropping techniques are good and efficient as they allow the production performance to increase. The following are some of the advantages indicated by the research participants when using these techniques: shortening of sowing time, a decrease in the quantity of seeds used and better water management. It was also indicated that planting time is shortened when using the in-line planting system (row planting). Despite the costs compared to the traditional cropping techniques, these new agricultural techniques are considered to be very efficient by the respondents as they allow for decreases in damage and losses caused by disasters, mainly due to the increase of production performance. However, the very high costs of fertiliser (chemical and/or natural) was indicated as a definite drawback; some respondents find it extremely difficult to afford. This is clearly contradictory to the responses obtained from the quantitative questionnaires. Mean scores obtained from the quantitative data (all the various techniques scored below 2.5) show that research participants from Madagascar do not regard any of the mentioned techniques as effective in reducing losses due to droughts (section 5.11.1.2) and floods (section 5.11.1.3). Also see Table 23 for the average mean scores obtained for droughts (1.96) and floods (2.06). It was also indicated that some households are still using traditional cropping techniques based on bulk transplanting and direct sowing. To enrich the land, respondents practice manure based fertilisation and good drainage techniques. DIPECHO project beneficiaries in the three studied sites are definitely in agreement that there is some improvement in their standard of living attributable to the increase of the rice production.
5.11.4.3 Mozambique Qualitative findings revealed that there is a substantial differentiation in the adopted cropping techniques, new and traditional, among people and communities. This differentiation depends on: traditional knowledge, level of education, access to trainings from Cooperation and Development (Oikos) or the local District Services for Economic Activities (DSEA), participation in farmers’ associations or community committees, local soil characteristics, local rainfall trend or field extension. Moreover, the findings showed that farmers who do not benefit constantly from trainings by Oikos or DSEA, hardly know cropping techniques different from the traditional ones. Oikos is one of the The Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department of the European Commission (ECHO) partners who implements DIPECHO activities in the Mossuril and Mozambique Island districts of Mozambique. The following traditional cropping techniques are used: planting without tilling, planting with the first rain and not in rows, few maintenance activities such as weeding, harvesting and agro-forestry. There are variations and additions to these techniques: the field can be cleaned or tilled before the planting time, many farmers practice intercropping, some separate the crops, some use the mulching technique in the field crops, many plant with the second rain and some before the first one, when possible they put manure, some use ashes to enrich the soil, and some rotate the crops when production decreases. Furthermore, the following plants are more commonly used for agroforestry: boer beans (that grow into a small tree), banana trees, mango trees and/or pineapple trees. Mulching is done in the vegetable gardens, rarely in the field crops. The following techniques were introduced by Oikos and/or DSEA: row planting, spacing the seeds apart (also to calculate the needed quantity of seeds and to estimate the production), intercropping or separation depending on the local characteristics, annual crop rotation and, in the vegetable gardens, mulching, beds and small-scale irrigation. The following advantages are derived from the new techniques:
it increases the production and income;
it allows for planning and managing of the crops;
in case of drought, it helps to retain some moisture in the vegetable gardens;
it helps the general household to be more resilient in terms of natural hazards due to increased production and income; and
it contributes towards food security and financial security.
These findings are also reinforced by the quantitative results as the mean scores obtained for the questions on the effectiveness of cropping techniques to reduces losses due to droughts (mean=3.08) and floods (mean=2.83) were well above the required 2.5 (Table 23). The following interesting information was also shared by the respondents:
maize is not intercropped with short crops (such as beans) because it shadows them too much;
mulching requires too much effort in the field crops, therefore it is mainly used in the vegetable gardens;
the communities know no solutions against pests beside pesticides, which are too expensive to purchase;
fields are set on fire before the planting time to protect crops from rats, but this doesn’t solve the problem; and
no measures are in place to mitigate losses caused by pests or strong winds.
5.12 Timing of production: findings and data analysis 5.12.1 Timing of production: frequencies and descriptive statistics The first question proposed to respondents was used to indicate which factor/s determine their planting time. As can be seen from Figure 43, more than half of the respondents (52.10%) indicated that the start of the rainy season determines their planting time. From the individual country results it was found that the respondents from Mozambique and Malawi mainly start planting when the rainy season starts. Although 44.26% of Madagascar’s respondents indicated that their planting season is traditional, 25.85% still indicated that they also start their planting season when the rainy season starts.
Figure 43: Factors determining planting time
Respondents were asked whether they ever planted outside of the traditional planting time (Figure 44): 50,09% of the respondents indicated that they practice early planting while 17,88% of the respondents indicated that they practice late planting.
Figure 44: Planting earlier or later than the traditional planting period
Respondents were asked whether or not they plant with the first rains or after a flood with residual moisture (Figure 45). A combined majority of the respondents (90.24%) indicated that they plant with the first rains while 57,13% indicated that they plant after the floods, utilising residual moisture. The individual country results support these findings as the majority of the respondents from all the countries agreed that they practice both planting
with the first rains and using residual moisture after floods. They further indicated that both of these techniques were very useful for their planting season.
Figure 45: The timing of planting
Figure 46 and Figure 47 present the respondents’ view of the usefulness of the techniques applied in Figure 45 where 87% of respondents agreed that planting with first rains is useful, while 41.19% indicated that they see planting in residual moisture following floods as useful.
Figure 46: The perceived usefulness of planting with the first rains
Figure 47: The perceived usefulness of planting after floods using residual moisture
The countries included in the survey differ in terms of, amongst others, their respective resource basis, environmental conditions and production practices. The findings in this section support this statement and therefore each country’s timing of their production period will be discussed separately in the following section. 5.12.2 Timing of production: country specific results and discussion 5.12.2.1 Madagascar The demographic information given in section 5.1 indicated that Madagascar experiences cyclones and floods during January to March, droughts from September to October, pests directly after the flood period from April to December and strong winds throughout the year. In Section 5.2.1 it was indicated that the main planting time in Madagascar is from March to September. These results correlate with Section 5.12.1, which showed that Madagascar’s respondents’ planting season is primarily in their traditional season (44,26%), but that they do also plant at the start of the rainy season (25,85%). In the focus group interviews, most of the households indicated that they have planted their crops prior to the traditional planting season, but very few of them (24,32%) planted after the traditional season. The reason for this is that the period after the traditional planting season is a rainy season that coincides with the spreading of pests like rats and birds that destroy crops. By planting later than the traditional planting period not only is the climate not suitable for cultivars, but this is also a risky planting period due to the threat of cyclones and floods. In areas like Sandra in
Madagascar the planting period for the farmers differs. Due to water shortages in this area, farmers are dependent on the first rains. In this area there are no dams or other water storage facilities to facilitate water management prior to the rainy season, additionally floods occur during the rainy season which makes it unsuitable for planting rice during this time. In fact, their crops are being destroyed by the floods and currently no mitigation measures are in place to address this matter. Malagasy respondents indicated that they practice early planting prior to the traditional planting season (33,63%). For them, early planting holds certain advantages when using short cycle crop varieties that reach their maturity prior to the occurrence of hazards like cyclones and floods. Even though the farmers in Madagascar prefer not to practice late planting because of the risks that it involves, 60,83% of them agreed that planting after floods by the use of residual moisture, however, is a very useful technique. According to the focus group interviews, the respondents indicated that utilising residual moisture is an efficient technique. Debris that is left from floods can also be used in the form of a mulch and/or fertiliser. The late planting of crops can be beneficial because the land is more fertile resulting in more efficient production. Food security is a major issue for the farmers of Madagascar. To ensure their food security, they plant yams and cassava during dry periods, which is earlier than the traditional planting period, as these crops are more resistant to drought. In order to increase their production, the majority of the farmers use traditional farming techniques and have to wait for the first rains to start planting their crops. During the traditional planting season they make use of short cycle varieties, which ensures that the fields can be maintained before the next planting time and also ensures a better harvest. From the focus group discussions it is evident that farmers in Madagascar are adopting both early and late planting techniques. By using these techniques, combined with the use of short cycle varieties in these planting periods, their exposure to severe hazards is being reduced and their crop production increased. This in effect makes the farmers more resilient during their harvesting periods. To ensure that the farmers of Madagascar’s resilience is being enhanced and also to ensure and improve food security producers can manage their planting calendar to avoid hazard prone times.
5.12.2.2 Malawi From the demographic data it was indicated that Malawi experiences heavy rainfall as a result of cyclone activity during the months of October to January and floods in January to March. Strong winds are experienced from November to January. It was also indicated by the respondents that they plant in the months from March to July. In Malawi 10 focus group discussions were held with farmer groups. The respondents expressed that they practice both early and late planting. Some farmers indicated that they use traditional planting time where they dry plant, after the problematic weather patterns have been observed. 54,91% of the respondents indicated that they make use of early planting, and 98,46% indicated that they plant with the first rains. Many of these respondents in Malawi plant early, or as they would say, the soonest after the first rains have fallen. Through early planting the respondents proved that they are able to harvest more, and better quality products are being harvested, because the crops use all the moisture in the soil and are able to avoid damage from pests and diseases. According to the respondents other advantages of early planting is that this planting period utilises good rainfall and the farmers are able to plant twice during this time period. By early planting crops also escape dry spells and droughts and when the floods come, the crops are already mature and farmers are still able to harvest some of their crops. Early planting increases production and the crops are exposed to less hazards, which therefore enables these respondents to be more resilient against hazards and disasters. The Malawian respondents mentioned that they also practise late planting. The quantitative results indicated that 54.91% practice early planting. Although they expressed that this period (late planting) could be beneficial, the disadvantages and risks of this period are too high for farmers to practice, and that is why the percentage found in the quantitative results is significantly lower. The disadvantages of late planting identified are that there is an increased risk of crops being invaded and damaged by pests. Farmers also find this period to be a very unpredictable period, because even though the floods are gone, they can still not be certain as to whether or not more floods are on the way. Late planting also leads to poor seed germination, which in effect causes reduced crop production. Therefore, through the respondents in Malawi in can thus be concluded that early planting and planting with the first
rains is effective: it not only increases their production, but it also makes them less vulnerable and more resilient against hazards and disasters, in contrast to late planting. 5.12.2.3 Mozambique The two districts surveyed in Mozambique experience subequatorial climates. In the dry months these districts experience humid tropical climates with winds. The farmers can experience an annual precipitation of approximately 800mm, peaking at 100mm-150mm per month in the rainy season. If the estimated rainfall deviation in Mozambique is studied between the years 2009-2013, it is evident that the rainfall is erratic. These two districts are also characterised by sand-rich soil and open clay soil. The communities in these districts that are situated next to the coastal area experience a lower crop production, due to acidic sandrich soil with little water retention. In contrast inland communities experience better crop harvests, partly due to less acidic open clay soils. From the geographical information where it was indicated that Mozambique experiences cyclones in the months from January to March, floods in December to March, droughts from September to December and pests and strong winds during the same period as the cyclones and flood occurrence period. Here the respondents also indicated that they plant in the months from November to February. During the focus group interviews the respondents expressed that early planting is the best strategy for them to follow to gain the best cropping results. This results from the focus group interviews correlate with the quantitative results where it was found that 58,92% practice early planting and 95,71% plant with the first rains. According to the respondents, early planting ensures faster growing crops, because the germination of the crops occur before the arrival of diseases and pests, and the crops are stronger and more resistant. Some of the farmers also expressed that early planting can also be very high risk, because if the rains come later than predicted then there is a higher risk that the seeds that they have planted will dry in the fields. In order to avoid this risk the farmers only use half of their seeds after the first rains, and the rest of the seed with the second rains. Therefore, the respondents from Mozambique suggest that planting after the second rainfall is the safest planting time, in spite of weaker and more vulnerable production. In these two districts in Mozambique it was found that planting before the first rainfall is a strategy that can increase production and subsequently income, in addition it contributes to
the resilience of the crops regarding droughts, pests and strong winds. It further found that planting with the second rainfall, which is their traditional planting time, is safer, although it does not minimise their crops losses if a hazard or disaster affects their district. Late planting (after their traditional planting time) leads to even greater losses, which is not an option for them at all. The only crop that is an exception regarding the planting time is the planting of cassava, because cassava is less affected by droughts in comparison with other crops. There is no specific planting time for this crop, and it could be planted any time during the year, depending on the household’s needs. This crop ensures that communities are less vulnerable during disasters and contributes to their resilience to disaster risk and ensures these communities’ food security.
6 DISCUSSION 6.1 Farmers’ associative mechanisms In the analysis and findings of the demographic data good indications were given as to how each country fared in terms of each specific question. Then in the following section of the frequency and descriptive statistical analysis data was discussed mainly according to the two groupings of members and non-members. However, there is a need to discuss some of the data from these two sections directly in comparison to one another to emphasise certain aspects for the argument of resilience promoted by associative mechanisms. In Malawi it was indicated in the demographic data that farmers make use mostly of traders (38.29%), local village markets (22.86%) and neighbouring village markets (17.66%) to sell their products. Malawi was also the country that had the most farmers belonging to farmers associations with 89.88% indicating this. In Madagascar farmers mostly use neighbouring village markets (31.75%) and secondly local village markets (17%) to sell their products. Second to Malawi, Madagascar had the most farmers who are members of farmers associations with 61.42% indicating this. Lastly Mozambique was the country in the study that showed the least farmers being part of a farmers’ association with 79.81% indicating that they are not members. In Mozambique farmers sell their products to neighbours (20.6%) and by making use of a trader (19.1%). From the above one can see that there is a definite relationship between being a member of a farmers’ association and what markets farmers use to sell their products. Also it should be noted once more that members of farmers associations are able to use a wider network to sell their product. In terms of access to credit in Malawi 78.8% of the respondents indicated that they do have access to credit. Once again Malawi showed the most memberships to farmers associations. From the geographical data Madagascar respondents indicated that 38.1% of them have access to credit. Madagascar was also the country with the second most members to farmers associations. Lastly as in the previous point Mozambique indicated that only 16.1% of the respondents had access to credit. Showing the exact same pattern as with farmers’ access to markets. The relationship between members of farmers’ associations and farmers’ access to credit is very strong and noticeable. In terms of resilience the source of credit is also important
as this needs to be a source that can sustain farmers through uncertain times and assist in times of need. Mozambique, it showed in the data, rely heavily on family members or neighbours as the source of their credit. In contrast with 86% of Malawian respondents indicating village savings as their main source of credit. With the most members of farmers associations found in Malawi it shows that farmers associations are well equipped to support their members with credit and also should the communities there experience a shock they can rely on a more formalised structure to supply credit. Finally the last aspect that can be directly discussed in comparison with the number of members of farmers associations and very important to the issue regarding resilience is that of coping strategies. This is important because when one refer back to the literature and the definition of resilience coping strategies needs to assist farmers in such a way as to enable them to continue functioning as before and retaining their inherent identity. Malawi with the most farmers being members of farmers associations indicated that the first strategy they use is to send members of the household to work for other farmers in their fields for food as payment (19.13%). Secondly, Malawian farmers sell their household items (16.85%) and finally they move away from their household plot to cope with the effects of a disaster (16.21%). It is however unclear form the data in the last mentioned coping strategy if by moving away from their household or plot farmer entirely stop farming or what other activities they engage in after moving. In Madagascar respondents indicated that to cope with the effects of a disaster they firstly reduce portion sizes (17.69%). Secondly, Madagascar farmers hunt and gather wild animals and crops (17.43%). Finally Mozambican farmer react first to such a shock by meals per day (18.83%) and secondly rely on support from family for food and income (15.01%). Therefore Malawian farmers firstly turn to the network of farmers that they have access to. This could be seen as a less drastic coping strategy to employ than for example reducing meals such as in the case of Mozambique. In the literature great mention was made about the various advantages that farmers associations offer their members. One of these advantages was that of bargaining and negotiating power. This is an aspect that did not seem to be one of the main activities that farmers associations in the three countries engage in. Literature refers to the pooling of products between members of the farmers associations to enhance quality and bargain for better sales conditions with traders. In fact processing and value addition of produce by any
means received some of the lowest responses during the study. Activities such as marketing and sale of produce also received quite low responses for the activities that farmers associations engage in. The contexts in these three countries differ, and this is an important aspect to take into account when planning initiatives or collaborations with farmers associations. Furthermore, an aspect that came out really strongly in the data for the three countries is that farmers associations are not always the entities providing service like credit services and products like seeds directly. However, farmers’ affiliation with the farmers’ association gives them the opportunity to interact with many other role players that farmers do not have necessarily have access to as non-members. Therefore, in these three countries the linking role farmers associations play in terms of relationships and communication is really important. A second aspect that did not come out of the data in the study quite as it is described in literature is that of combination and interaction between traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge and the sharing of information. Literature describes the role of farmers’ association with regard to skills, information and technology amongst other aspects as a linking role between governments (largely through extension services) and NGOs to provide information and training. Although this might be part of the function they fulfil in the three countries this aspect was not explicitly mentioned by the respondents. However, great emphasis was placed on the advantage farmers’ gain from sharing knowledge and information amongst themselves. In the three countries it can thus be said that one aspect that is greatly appreciated by members of farmers associations is the interaction they have with other farmers, in terms of information sharing and exchange. Curtis (2013:7,11) does, however, mention that where associative mechanisms were formed, smallholder farmers had more control over their resources, thus enhancing their resilience.
6.2 Small-scale irrigation systems The statistical analysis conducted above confirms many of the positive impacts of irrigation on agricultural production as per the literature review. It was illustrated that in all three of the countries participating that irrigation has massive impact on the ability of small scale farmers to increase and diversify crop production. The ability to increase production and diversify the type of crops planted is a crucial component in increasing the possibilities of generating greater income per household and improving food security. These in turn would
have a positive impact on individual household and overall community resilience to disaster impacts. Additionally it was also observed that irrigation provides farmers with the ability to reduce the impact of certain hazards by allowing them to either keep production going during the hazard impact (for example during droughts) or to shift their production to less disaster prone periods (for example flooding, droughts). The inherent ability of irrigation agriculture to increase crop production combined with the flexibility that it provides in moving planting seasons makes it one of the most pre-eminent factors that could contribute to improving the disaster resilience of small scale famers.
6.3 Appropriate crop varieties The literature review states that only a few communities in rural southern Africa are willing to take the risk of using higher yielding maize varieties over lower yielding traditional varieties in uncertain climate conditions. However, a 2012 study by CYMMYT found that “farmers in all countries (except Mozambique) mentioned yield potential of varieties more than any other trait as the most desired trait of an ideal maize germ-plasm” (CIMMYT, 2012). This apparent inconsistency may well be indicative of a shift in the understanding of the use of different seed varieties and the use by farmers of both traditional and improved varieties. Of the three countries surveyed Mozambique has the highest percentage of respondents continuing to use traditional crop varieties. When planting crops, 49.55% plant short-cycle crop varieties, while a slightly larger percentage of people still make use of traditional crop varieties at 50.45% of respondents. The data analysis for Madagascar indicates that almost no maize, millet, sorghum or cotton were produced. They are, however, significant producers of rice during the summer as well as the winter, along with cassava. The data analysis also shows that quite a significant number of people still use traditional crop varieties (39.76%), while the majority (60.24%) are implementing short-cycle crop varieties. In Madagascar people mostly obtain the seed for their maize by means of self-production. Seed for rice during summer was mostly obtained from NGOs (54.09%) and in winter NGOs again provided 70.69% of the seed. The few people who do plant sorghum get their seed from two sources, i.e. government subsidy (50%) and agro-dealers (50%). Seed for cotton was received from only agro-dealers.
In Malawi, the use of short cycle maize in the surveyed communities dominates agricultural production with 98.77% of respondents utilising these varieties obtained from NGOs. Rice production constitutes a smaller percentage of their crop production with seed for rice during winter and during summer mostly obtained by means of self-production and agro-dealers. In addition to the above respondents in Malawi also indicated a limited production of millet, sorghum and cotton. The data from this study clearly supports the use of a varied and diverse approach to crop varieties suited to local conditions. Two factors that need to be considered in this, however, are the influence of climate change induced seasonal variability and soil nutrient quality. The data collected in this regard is certainly supportive of the majority of studies and information examined in the literature review. As noted in much of the literature, the use of appropriate crop varieties must be seen in a wider social context which considers aspects of economics, agricultural policy, land use policy and socio economic development including environmental sustainability. Finally, measuring the results of this study against the REOSA hypothesis; “From a DRR-FS perspective, the use of early maturing (short cycle) varieties will increase the communities’ resilience by reducing the exposure of crops to negative external factors and shortening the risky lean period, which is critical for food insecurity (and for negative coping mechanisms) at household level” (REOSA,2013). It is possible to concur with this hypothesis especially in respect of the communities surveyed. It is suggested though that additional research and monitoring be undertaken in all three countries to develop a greater confidence level in the hypothesis with the addition of some comparative analysis.
6.4 Good cropping techniques From the findings and data analysis it is evident that there is a substantial differentiation in the cropping techniques adopted by the respective countries included in the study. This differentiation highly depends on: traditional knowledge, level of education, access to trainings, participation in farmers’ associations or community committees, local soil characteristics, crop varieties, local rainfall and access to finances, amongst others. In Malawi, households included in the study use various cropping techniques (row planting, minimum tillage, mulching, pit planting, intercropping, agroforestry and manure and
fertiliser) to produce crops. It is also indicated that the cropping techniques are adopted to conserve moisture (mulching, pit planting), suppress weeds (mulching, intercropping), improve soil fertility (agroforestry, manure and fertiliser use) and boost crop yield (intercropping, manure and fertiliser use). Furthermore, the following techniques are indicated to be effective in reducing losses due to droughts, floods and strong winds:
Droughts: minimum tillage, manure and fertiliser, pit planting, mulching, intercropping and agroforestry;
Floods: intercropping, agroforestry, mulching and row planting; and
Strong winds: fencing, intercropping and agroforestry
These cropping practices are in line with the literature which suggested that these cropping techniques are effective to conserve moisture, to suppress weeds, to improve soil fertility and to boost crop yields. If effectively practised, they will lead to an increase in production (physical capital) and income (economic capital) and will contribute towards the resilience of households. Furthermore, it could lead to a reduction in losses due to natural hazards such as droughts and floods and will also facilitate an early recovery. In Madagascar, farmers mainly use manure and fertiliser, row planting and minimum tillage to produce crops. It is indicated that these cropping techniques lead to an increase in production (physical capital) and therefore also an increase in income (economic capital). Furthermore, when practicing row planting the seeds required per area planted are fewer, and planting time is shortened. Although it is indicated that the use of manure and fertiliser increases production and income, it is very costly. From the factor means (droughts: mean=2.06; floods: mean=1.86) it is evident that research participants from Madagascar do not regard any of the cropping techniques to be effective in reducing losses due to droughts and floods. However, it is indicated that the use of manure and fertiliser increases production (physical capital) and therefore it contributes towards the resilience of households. From the empirical results it could be deduced that households included in the study need more education and training on methods and measures (pertaining to cropping techniques) that could be implemented and used to reduce losses due to natural hazards such as droughts and floods.
In Mozambique, households included in the study tend to still use traditional techniques such as planting without tilling, planting with the first rain and not in rows, using ashes to enrich soil, getting rid of weeds, and agro-forestry to produce crops. Farmers that were exposed to trainings by Oikos and DSEA use the new techniques introduced by these institutions which are: row planting, spacing the seeds apart (also to calculate the needed quantity of seeds and to estimate the production), no-tillage/minimum tillage, intercropping or separation depending on the local characteristics, annual crop rotation, pit planting and, in the vegetable gardens, mulching, beds and small-scale irrigation. It is indicated that these techniques increase production and income thus contributing towards households’ food security and financial security and by doing so contributes towards resilience. According to the farmers of Mozambique the following techniques are regarded to be effective to mitigate the effects of droughts: intercropping, pit planting, row planting, crop rotation, no-tillage and minimumtillage. Row planting and intercropping are regarded as cropping techniques that could mitigate losses due to floods. From the aforementioned it is evident that farmers that were exposed to trainings and who are practicing the new techniques introduced by the DIPECHO project already reap the benefits thereof. However, there are many farmers that are still practicing traditional cropping techniques and need to be exposed to these new techniques. Although it is indicated that some of the techniques prove to be effective in reducing losses due to droughts (the highest combined scores were obtained for mulching (3.3) and pit planting (3)) and floods (the highest combined scores were obtained for agroforestry (2.8) and row planting (2.4)), it is evident from the mean scores that much still needs to be done in terms of training on specific cropping techniques to mitigate the impact of natural hazards such as droughts and floods. From the literature review it is evident that various cropping techniques (conservation agriculture (minimum or no-tillage), mulching, row planting, skipping rows, protected cropping, crop sequencing, intercropping, pit planting, applying fertiliser, effective pest management, and maintaining and restoring soil fertility) could be implemented and used to mitigate the impacts of natural hazards such as droughts, floods and cyclones by reducing losses or facilitating an early recovery. It is also evident that these cropping techniques, when effectively practiced, could lead to an increase in production (physical capital) and therefore
income (economic capital) as also indicated by the qualitative findings. As indicated under point 2 the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) suggests that natural capital, social capital, human capital, economic capital and financial capital can contribute to reducing vulnerability and thus increasing community disaster resilience. Therefore, it could be deduced that the promotion of good cropping techniques could mitigate the impact of natural hazards and facilitate early recovery among small-scale farmers, and therefore could contribute to reducing vulnerability and thus increasing disaster resilience among small-scale farmers.
6.5 Timing of production The severe hazards that impact agricultural activities in hazard prone areas in Southern Africa should be mitigated in such a way that communities are less vulnerable and more resilient against the impact of hazards and have increased food security. Through a thorough literature review and a mixed method research design, it was found that intervention regarding the timing of the production and planting of crops was needed to ensure more resilient agricultural activities and less vulnerable small-scale farmers. This study found that the respondents from the countries investigated in this study indicated that they plant mainly with the second rains. This, however, did not increase their resilience to hazards or make them less vulnerable.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 Farmers’ associative mechanisms In terms of building, resilience from the data it is clear that being a member of a farmers’ association builds farmers’ social capital by enhancing networks and coordination between farmers with regard to various aspects. In light of the data analysis and findings as well as the discussion the following recommendations can be given: 1. Provide support and guidance to farmers for establishing internally driven and motivated farmers’ associations; 2. Externally driven farmers associations must be made sustainable trough transfer of knowledge and skills to farmers, therefore encouraging farmers to take initiatives themselves and encouraging internally driven farmers’ associations; 3. Promoting and encouraging farmers to become members of farmers’ associations by placing great emphasis on the advantages farmers stand to gain in terms of access to credit, access to markets, diversity of crops that can be produced, access to information and reliance on a wider network; and 4. Support should be given to farmers’ associations in terms of the main activities they engage in with regard to the specific context of the area.
7.2 Small-scale irrigation systems Due to its vital importance in generating resilience the following recommendations can be made: 1. The majority of participants (89%) in the study confirmed that the use irrigation has a positive impact on their ability to produce additional crops and boost their overall productive output. This should be used to motivate other farmers in using irrigation system to enhance their productivity even over the boundaries of traditional production periods. All attempts should be made to improve access to irrigation systems for all famers. Specific attention should be paid to introducing irrigation to farmers which indicated that they do not use the system, as it will assist them in increasing their productive output. It is recommended that farmers should be given enough training and shown ways in which they can use irrigation systems throughout the year. These systems will enable farmers to sell extra crops that are not used for subsistence but rather to
generate income for the household. Greater access to irrigation systems could for instance be improved in Mozambique where only 14% of famers participating said they currently use irrigation agriculture. 2. Although a large percentage of participants (71%) indicated that irrigation systems are easy to maintain great emphasis should be placed on building the capacity of farmers to use and maintain the irrigation techniques in their respective countries. These skills can be provided through peer-to-peer education amongst farmers (with particular involvement of lead farmers), community and farmers’ associations or Farmer Field Schools. Additionally, maintenance initiatives should be supported by governments or NGOs through providing funding for spare parts or equipment that would help with the maintenance of the existing infrastructure. This financial input is crucial as many of the small scale famers do not currently generate enough income to pay for the maintenance of their irrigation infrastructure. 3. Farmers should have representatives (i.e. through their farmers’ association) to oversee the conditions of the irrigation techniques/systems. Communication channels should also be enhanced between the farmers’ representatives, water users associations (to include the view of non-farmers that use the irrigation system) and the government extension workers in order to work together in maintaining the irrigation techniques. Distribution of water between users within an irrigation system should be equal. This can be made through the appointment of a representative from each community who will ensure that each farmer gets access to the daily amount of water that has been agreed upon. This will ensure even distribution of water resources. 4. Although the use of irrigation will significantly contribute to the improvement of resilience of small scale farmers it should not be seen in isolation from the other factors (i.e. farmers’ association, crop varieties, cropping techniques). Only once these factors are used in unison can the impact of using irrigation be optimised to generate reliance. The individual countries should therefore focus on integrating the different factors to generate resilience.
7.3 Appropriate crop varieties In terms of building resilience the use of improved crop varieties indicates an important contribution to local agriculture particularly in Malawi where a well-developed support
mechanism from NGOs is contributing to higher output and production. Respondents indicated that their food and livelihood security has improved with the newer seed varieties and this can be linked to an overall improvement in resilience to climate variation in particular. Key recommendations are as follows: 1. There should be continued research and development into the use and application of improved crop varieties; 2. Given the high degree of uncertainty in climate variations due to the influences of climate change, further monitoring and research should go into local crop varieties; and 3. The use of traditional crop varieties needs continued research particularly as it applies to dry land, rain fed farming.
7.4 Good cropping techniques In conclusion the following recommendations are made for possible action steps. These recommendations are informed by the literature review and empirical findings and aim to ensure the promotion of good cropping techniques to mitigate the impact of natural hazards (and facilitate early recovery). It is therefore highly recommended that FAO: 1. Provide regular trainings and follow-up visits to the beneficiaries of the DIPECHO projects focusing on specific cropping techniques, such as these indicated below, which could mitigate the impact of natural hazards. 2. Minimum and no-tillage practices should be promoted more vigorously to protect farmers against drought as it retains permanent organic soil cover to minimise soil evaporation. Furthermore, conservation tillage practices have a time-saving effect and they reduce labour and machinery-related costs. It also has the benefit of not disturbing the soil fauna and flora, thus enhancing soil-borne biodiversity. 3. Pit planting is not only a moisture conservation technique but the pits can also as traps during the windy period, retaining rich dust carried by wind and containing organic matter. The benefits of pit planting could be more promoted among farmers. 4. Although mulching is indicated to be very costly, it (organic and/or inorganic materials) should be used to cover soil in order to minimise soil evaporative losses, suppress weeds and increase soil temperature. Mulching is, however, only suitable for certain crops – it is
not a suitable application for rice for example. Where suitable, mulching should be promoted. 5. The advantages of crop sequencing and crop rotation practices should be promoted as it can increase the performance of intercropped species and could also reduce the impact of pest problems. Thus it could increase production (physical capital) and therefore income (economic capital), which could have a positive effect on households’ resilience. 6. Interplanting techniques such as intercropping and agroforestry should be promoted to save space, to cover soil, to suppress weeds and insect pests, to increase productivity and to abstain climate extremes (wet, dry, hot, cold). 7. A variety of practices should be employed to increase nutrient-use efficiency, such as: o Soil testing; o Improved timing of fertiliser application o Explore fertilizer compositions, mixing organic and chemicals and different formulations of chemicals; o Cover crops or reduced tillage can reduce leaching, volatilisation and erosional losses of nutrients; o The use of multiple cropping systems such as crop rotations or intercropping (two or more crops grown simultaneously) may increase nutrient- and water-use efficiency; and o Agroforestry, in which trees are included in a cropping system, may improve nutrient availability and efficiency of use, may retain the soil and may reduce erosion, provide firewood and store carbon. 8. Effective pest management is needed to control weedy competitors of crops, crop diseases and pathogens and could also results in increased yields and therefore enhance resilience. Crop rotation and intercropping can reduce the impact of crop diseases and pathogens and improve pest control. Buffer strips can be managed to reduce inputs of weeds and to provide effective control of many agricultural pests. Integrated pest management techniques should be promoted. 9. The implementation of the above mentioned principles requires ecological knowledge of local natural ecosystems as well as an analysis of the objectives sought for the cropping system. Therefore, extensive training on designing cropping systems from nature is
required which should include the use of specific practices or combinations of practices such as mixed cropping of species, varieties or cultivars, intercropping, rotations, agroforestry practices, cover crops, service plants, no-tillage practices, composting and green-manuring. Traditional knowledge from local farmers is often a source of original (traditional) agro ecological knowledge based on observations of nature and should be directly integrated into existing and/or new cropping systems.
7.5 Timing of production It is suggested that small-scale farmers should practice early planting (planting with the first rains) to ensure an increased resilience at peak risk periods and to improve their food insecurity. Small-scale farmers should also implement water management techniques for dry periods and when farmers practice late planting, the use of residual moisture retention should be utilised as a mitigation measure. Through these recommendations small-scale farmers will be more food secure and more resilient during peak risk periods.
8 CONCLUSION Natural hazards have increased in frequency and intensity over the last few decades, and are having an increasingly negative impact on the livelihoods and food security of rural smallscale farmers. Certain agricultural adaptations are needed in order for these farmers to be able to adapt to these changing climatic conditions in hazard prone areas. Building resilience requires a multi-sectoral response, and within this FAO addresses resilience as it relates to livelihoods – specifically agriculture and food security, and their related activities. Rural communities are amongst the most vulnerable to natural disasters as their livelihoods depend on agricultural production. While one cannot change the fact that hazard-prone areas will continue to be exposed to natural hazards, the impact of these hazards on agriculture and food security can be reduced if the right agricultural practices are implemented. This study aimed to measure the contributions of five key technical activities in increasing resilience to and preparedness for natural disasters for small-scale farmers in Southern Africa. From the results and discussion above one can see that the five technical areas investigated did show a positive impact on increasing the resilience of the rural small-scale farmer. While each technical activity showed an individual contribution to resilience, it became clear that these agricultural practices are best use concurrently and are not as effective in isolation. The linking role that farmers’ associations play in terms of relationships and communication is really important, and it is this potential for information transfer that is of particular importance here as it can lead to the implementation of the other key technical aspects, such a small-scale irrigation, appropriate crop varieties, good cropping techniques and the timing of production in hazard prone areas. Accessible and sustainable farmers’ associative mechanisms should be promoted throughout the region for these activities to be really successful. Small-scale irrigation has a significant impact on the ability of small scale farmers to increase and diversify crop production, and potentially adjust the timing of the production season, so as to either avoid disaster prone times or continue production during a disaster such as a drought. Those farmers involved with farmers’ associative mechanisms are more likely to be exposed to new and improved crop varieties, such as short-cycle varieties, and together with the use of irrigation systems would have the ability to produce a higher yield in any given
year. This ability is a crucial component in increasing the possibilities of generating greater agricultural yield per household, thereby improving food security, which is one of the most important factors in improving the disaster resilience of small-scale famers. The implementation of improved cropping techniques is also linked to the other four key technical activities. Improved cropping techniques can be applied more successfully when the farmer has the correct knowledge, which is usually obtained through a farmers’ associative mechanism, has the appropriate crop varieties, can utilise the most productive growing season, and has access to an irrigation system. These five technical activities are key to contributing to an increase in crop production of rural small-scale farmers in Southern Africa. This increase in food production allows these farmers to become more self-sufficient, with the potential to store excess yield for the lean times and to sell excess yield to generate a financial income. This increased income coupled with improved food security leads to increased resilience.
9 REFERENCES Adato, M. & Meinzen-Dick, R. 2002. Assessing the impact of agricultural research on poverty using the sustainable livelihoods framework. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2009. Building climate resilience in the agriculture sector of Asia and the Pacific: International Food Policy Research Institute. Asian Development Bank. Akulumuka, V., Mwakitwange, F. & Ngowi, P. 2001. On-farm seed multiplication of open pollinated maize varieties using farmer group approach. Integrated approaches to higher maize productivity in the new millennium: Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference. 11-15 Feb. pp 418-422. Alinovi, L., Mane, E., & Romano, D. 2009. Measuring household resilience to food insecurity: application to Palestinian households. FAO: Rome. April. B.G. 2011. What Is and How Crops are Arranged in Row Planting. http://www.cropsreview.com/row-planting.html Date of access: 6 Mar. 2014. Arnall, A., Thomas, D.S.G., Twyman, C & Liverman, D. 2013. Flooding, resettlement, and change in livelihoods: evidence from rural Mozambique. Disasters, 37(3): 468−488. Baker, J. 1998. The Effect of Community Structure on Social Forestry Outcomes: Insights from Chota Nagpur, India. Mountain Research and Development, 18(1):51-62. Bannayan, M., Rezaei, E.E. & Hoogenboom, G. 2013. Determining optimum planting dates for rainfed wheat using precipitation uncertainty model and adjusted crop evapotranspiration. Agricultural Water Management 126(2013): 56-63. Bellon, M.R. & Taylor, J.E. 1993. “Folk” soil taxonomy and the partial adoption of new seeds. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 41(4):763-786. http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.nwulib.nwu.ac.za/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid= c42ca8b5-6b6d-41d1-98e6-86f68a86b868%40sessionmgr110&hid=116 Date of access: 6 Mar. 2014.
Berkes, F. 2007. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2):283-295, May. Bindi, M. & Howden, M. 2004. Challenges and opportunities for cropping systems in a changing climate. http://www.regional.org.au/au/asa/2004/symposia/2/7/1792_bindi.htm Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. Bolluyt, J., Johnson, S. E., Lowy, P., McGrath, M. T., Mohler, C. L., Rangarajan, A., Stoner, K. A., Toensmeier, E. & Van Es, H. 2009. Crop rotation on organic farms: a planning manual, NRAES 177. www.extendonondaga.org/wp.../Crop_Rotations_on_Organic_Farms.pdf Date of access: 6 Mar. 2014. Bot, A. & Benites, J. 2005. The importance of soil organic matter: key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production. Rome: FAO publishing management service. http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0100e/a0100e00.htm#Contents Date of access: 6 June 2014. Brouwer, R & Nhassengo, J. 2006. About bridges and bonds: community responses to the 2000 floods in Mabalane district, Mozambique. Disasters, 30(2):234-55. Buddhaboon, C., Jintrawet, A. & Hoogenboom, G. 2011. Effects of planting date and variety on flooded rice production in the deepwater area of Thailand. Field Crops Research 124(2011):270-277. Carpenter, S., Walker, B., Anderies, J.M., & Abel, N. 2001. From metaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what? Ecosystems, 4(8):765–781. Carpenter, S.R., Westley, F., & Turner, M.G. 2005. Surrogates for Resilience of Social– Ecological Systems. Ecosystems. 8(8):941–944. Chanrith, N. 2008. Farmers’ associations in Cambodia: internal functions and external relations. Working paper by the Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable Development of the Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Cleveland, D.A., Lacy, S.M. & Soleri, D. 2006. Farmer choice of sorghum varieties in southern Mali. Human Ecology, 34(3):331-353, June. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27654124 Date of access: 7 Mar. 2014. Cleveland, D.A., Soleri, D. & Steven, E. 1994. Do folk crop varieties have a role in sustainable agriculture? BioScience, 44(11):740-751. http://www.es.ucsb.edu/faculty/cleveland/CV/1994afvs.pdf Date of access: 7 Mar. 2014. Climate and Development Knowledge Network. 2012. Managing Climate Extremes and Disasters in the Agriculture Sector: Lessons from the IPCC SREX Report. www.cdkn.org/srex Date of access: 7 Mar. 2014. Creswell, R. & Martin, F. 1998. Dryland farming: crops & techniques for arid regions. http://people.umass.edu/psoil370/Syllabusfiles/Dryland_Farming__Crops_&_Tech_for_Arid_Regions.pdf" http://people.umass.edu/psoil370/Syllabusfiles/Dryland_Farming__Crops_&_Tech_for_Arid_Regions.pdf Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. Combe, O. 1997. The role of farmers’ associations in commodity price risk management and collateralized commodity finance. Memoire de Fin d’Etudes, http://r0.unctad.org/infocomm/francais/academia/docs/farmers.pdf Conant, J. & Fadem, P. 2008. Community guide to environmental health. 622p. http://en.hesperian.org/hhg/A_Community_Guide_to_Environmental_Health:Marke ting_Farm_Products Curtis, M. 2013. Powering up smallholder farmers to make food fair: a five point agenda. A Fairtrade Foundation Report. http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/2009/news/2013-05Fairtrade_Smallholder_Report_FairtradeInternational.pdf Date of access: 20 Nov. 2013.
Darkoh, M.B.K. 2009. An overview of environmental issues in Southern Africa. ́ African journal of ecology, 47 (1):93–98. Darnhofer, I. 2010. Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20:212-222. Davies, W.J., Zhang, J., Yang, J. & Dodd, I.C. 2010. Foresight project on global food and farming futures. Novel crop science to improve yield and resource use efficiency in water-limited agriculture. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=803075 1 Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. Deveaux, A., Horton, D., Velasco, C., Thiele, G., López, G., Bernet, T., Reinoso, I. & Ordinola, M. 2009. Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy, 34(1):31-38, Feb. Ding, Y., Schoengold, K. & Tadesse, T. 2009. The impact of weather extremes on agricultural production methods: does drought increase adoption of conservation tillage practices? http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1088&context=ageconfa cpub Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. Dorlöchter-Sulser, S & Nill, D. 2012. Good practices in soil and water conservation: a contribution to adaptation and farmers ́ resilience towards climate change in the Sahel. http://agriwaterpedia.info/wiki/Good_Practices_in_Soil_and_Water_Conservation__a_contribution_to_adaptation_and_farmer%27s_resilience_towards_climate_chan ge_in_the_Sahel Date of access: 6 Mar. 2014. Ebinger, C., Klerkx, J., Delvaux, D. & Wuest, A. 1993. Evaluation of natural hazards in the northern part of the Malawi rift (Tanzania). Royal museum for central Africa. 83-86. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2010. Producer organisation: reclaiming opportunities for development. Policy Brief.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am072e/am072e00.pdf Date of access: 2 June 2014. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2013. Resilient livelihoods: disaster risk reduction for food and nutrition security framework programme. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2540e/i2540e00.pdf Date of access: 4 Mar. 2014. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014a. Measuring resilience: a concept note on the resilience tool. Food security information for decision making concept note. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al920e/al920e00.pdf Date of access: 3 June 2014. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2014b. Farmer field school. http://www.fao.org/nr/land/sustainable-land-management/farmer-field-school/en/ Date of access: 2 June 2014. FAO initiative on soaring food prices. 2013. Madagascar. http://www.fao.org/isfp/countryinformation/madagascar/en/ Date of access: 4 Oct. 2013. FAO Regional Emergency Office for Southern Africa (REOSA). 2011a. Food security in disaster risk reduction: CARE: rethinking and reorganising the agricultural calendar in Madagascar. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/emergencies/docs/DRR_Newsletter_vol _1_Issue_9_July_2011.pdf Date of access: 6 Mar. 2014. FAO Regional Emergency Office for Southern Africa (REOSA). 2011b. Food security in disaster risk reduction: Mainstreaming HIV and gender in ECHO DRR food security projects, volume 1, issue 5. http://www.fao.org/emergencies/resources/documents/resourcesdetail/en/c/170062/ Date of access: 6 Mar. 2014. FAO Regional Emergency Office for Southern Africa (REOSA). 2011c. Food security in Disaster Risk Reduction: Short-cycle crops to mitigate the risk of disaster by floods and cyclones, volume 1, issue 6.
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/21188_echofsdrrnewslettervol1issue6april2.pd f Date of access: 4 Oct. 2013. FAO, Resilient Livelihoods. 2013. Disaster Risk Reduction for Food and Nutrition Security Framework Programme. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/21188_echofsdrrnewslettervol1issue6april2.pd f Date of access: 4 Oct. 2013 FEWSNET (Famine Early Warning Systems Network). 2012. Madagascar Desk Review. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. 2010. Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4):20. Folke, C., Colding, J. & Berkes, F. 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social–ecological systems. (In Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., eds. Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 352–387.) Friedrich, T. 2005. Herbicides and no-till farming: Does no-till farming require more herbicides? Outlooks on Pest Management. DOI: 10.1564/16aug12. pp.188-191. Gabriel, T. 2012. Opportunities and advantages of the associative forms in agriculture. Paper presented at the 3rd International Symposium “Agrarian Economy and Rural Development - realities and perspectives for Romania", held in Bucharest in 2012. https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/76840/1/749480017.pdf Date of access: 20 Nov. 2013. GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2009. Economic vulnerability and disaster risk assessment in Malawi and Mozambique. Gunderson, L. 1999. Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management—antidotes for spurious certitude. Conservation Ecology, 3(1):7. Gyang, R. & Ayamga, T. 2012. Village saving and loans associations (VSLAs): platforms for holistic empowerment. Baobab, Sep (64):
http://www.agriculturesnetwork.org/magazines/east-africa/farmersorganisations/village-savings Hanson, J. D., Liebig, M. A., Merrill, S. D., Tanaka, D. L., Krupinsky, J. M. & Stott, D. E. 2007. Dynamic cropping systems: increasing adaptability amid an uncertain future. http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/catalog/14537 Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. He, X., and Luo. X. 2006. On the Equilibrium of the Rural Public Goods Supply. Economist (China), 1:62–69. Hellin, J., Lundy, M. & Meijer, M. 2009. Farmer Organizations, collective action and market access in Meso-America. Food Policy, 34(1):16-22, Feb. Hinkel, J. 2011. Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change. Elsevier Ltd. 21(1):198– 208. Hirst, K. K. 2013. Agricultural technique known as mixed cropping. http://archaeology.about.com/od/historyofagriculture/qt/mixed_cropping.htm Date of access: 9 Mar. 2014. Holling, C.S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 4:1–23. Howden, M., Soussana, J.F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M. & Meinke, H. 2007. Adapting Agriculture to climate change. PNAS, 104(50): 19691-19696. IFAD (International Fund for Agricultural Development). 2013. Adaptation for Smallholder Agriculture Programme. www.ifad.org/climate/asap Date of access: 5 Mar. 2014. IPA (Innovations for Poverty), 2014. Evaluating Village Savings and Loan Associations in Malawi. http://www.poverty-action.org/project/0109 Date of access: 2 June 2014 IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks). 2009. Madagascar: Just add water, better seeds and new knowledge. PreventionWeb: webarchive.
IRIN (Integrated Regional Information Networks). 2011. Malawi: farm subsidy programme shrinks. http://www.irinnews.org/fr/report/93954/malawi-farm-subsidyprogramme-shrinks Date of access: 2 June 2014. ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction). 2009. Terminology on disaster risk reduction. Jere, P. 2005. Inventory and SWOT analysis of farmer organizations in the SADC region: a regional synthesis report on Strengths, Weaknesses, capacity needs and communication needs of FOs in the SADC. Paper submitted to the Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN). http://www.fanrpan.org/documents/d00049/Inventory_and_SWOT_analysis.pdf Date of access: 20 Nov. 2013. Kaganzi, E., Ferris, S., Barham, J., Abenyako, A., Sanginga, P. & Njuki, J. 2009. Sustaining linkages to high value markets through collective action in Uganda. Food Policy, 34(1):23-30, Feb. Kienberger, S. 2012. Spatial modelling of social and economic vulnerability to floods at the district level in Buzi, Mozambique. Natural Hazards, 64:2001-2019. Klein, R.J.T., Nicholls, R.J., & Thomalla, F. 2003. Resilience to natural hazards: How useful is this concept? Environmental Hazards. 5(1):35–45. Korten, F. 1993. Correspondence to Bhuvan Bhatnagar. Kruijssen, F., Keizer, M. & Giuliani, A. 2009. Collective action for small-scale producers of agricultural biodiversity products. Food Policy, 34(1):46-52, Feb. Kumwenda, W., Botha, B. & McLean, S. 2013. Promoting empowerment and knowledge through smallholder farmers’ associations in Malawi. Paper presented at the Hunger, Nutrition, Climate justice 2013 Conference, held in Dublin, Ireland on 15-16 Aprli 2013. Laux, P., Jackel, G., Tingem, R.M. & Kunstmann, H. 2010. Impact of climate change on agricultural productivity under rainfed conditions in Cameroon-A method to improve
attainable crops yields by planting date adaptations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 150(2010): 1258-1271. Leichenko, R.M. & O’Brien, K.L. 2002. The Dynamics Of Rural Vulnerability To Global Change: The Case Of Southern Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7: 1–18. Lin, B.B. 2011. Resilience in Agriculture Through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change. Bioscience, 61(3). Lopez-Marrero, T. & Tschakert, P. 2011. From theory to practice: building more resilient communities in flood-prone areas. Environment and Urbanization 2011(23): 229249. Makurira, H., Savenije, H.H.G., Uhlenbrook, S. Rockström & J. Senzanje, A. 2009. Investigating the water balance of on-farm techniques for improved crop productivity in rainfed systems: a case study of Makanya catchment, Tanzania. http://65.54.113.26/Publication/41264558 Date of acess: 27 Nov. 2013. Malézieux, E. 2011. Designing cropping systems from nature. http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/93/04/96/PDF/hal-00930496.pdf Date of acess: 27 Nov. 2013. Maxwell, D. 2012. Resilience and Livelihoods Change in Tigray, Ethiopia. 1–46. Mayunga, J.S. 2007. Understanding and applying the concept of community disaster resilience: a capital-based approach. https://www.ehs.unu.edu/file/get/3761 Date of access: 11 Mar. 2014. McCarthy, S. 2008. Groups, associations and other horizontal linkages. USAID Briefing Paper. http://www.microlinks.org/sites/microlinks/files/resource/files/ML5813_horizontal_ linkages_briefing_paper.pdf Date of access: 20 Nov. 2013. McDonald, K. 2013. Thirty-five water conservation methods for agriculture, farming, and gardening. http://www.bigpictureagriculture.com/2013/02/thirty-five-water-
conservation-methods-agriculture-farming-gardening-323.html Date of access: 21 Nov. 2013. Mcsweeney, C., New, M. & Lizcano, G. 2013. UNDP Climate change country profiles: Malawi. http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/projects/undp-cp/ Date of access: 2 October 2013. Meinzen-Dick, R. and Reidinger, R. 1995. Participation in irrigation. Environmentally and socially sustainable development. Social development papers. Meinzen-Dick, R.S., DiGregorio, M. & McCarthy, N. 2004. Methods for studying collective action in rural development. Agricultural Systems, 82(3):197-214, Dec. Miller, G.T. JR. 2006. Environmental Science: Working with the earth. http://books.google.co.za/books?id=Og22IZEaIEC&pg=PT233&lpg=PT233&dq=types+of+interplanting+polyculture&source= bl&ots=s2D1Og357&sig=WHGowoLzlYAuPEVq1GqD8Kx_1a0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QmccU8vZFJDX7AbLl4 DwCA&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=types%20of%20interplanting%20polycul ture&f=false Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. Mohler, C.L. & Johnson, S.E. 2009. Crop rotation on organic farms: a planning manual. NRAES 177. Msilimba, G.G. 2010 The socioeconomic and environmental effects of the 2003 landslides in the Rumphi and Ntcheu Districts (Malawi). Natural Hazards, 53:347-306. Mulugeta, G., Ayonghe, S., Daby, D., Dube, O.P., Gudyanga, F., Lucio, F. and Durrheim, R. 2007. Natural and Human-induced Hazards and Disasters in sub-Saharan Africa. ICSU. http://www.icsu.org/africa/...ICSUROASciencePlanonHazardsandDisasters.pdf. Nyang, M.N, Webo, C. & Roothaert, R.L. 2010. The power of farmers’ organisations in smallholder agriculture in East Africa: a review of 5 project initiatives of the Maendeleo Agricultural Technology Fund. Farm Africa working paper, no. 13.
http://www.farmafrica.org/downloads/resources/MATF%20Working_Paper13_Farm erOrganisations.pdf. Oakley, P. & Garforth, C. 1985. Guide to extension training. Chapter1: the framework of development. http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0060e/T0060E02.htm#Agricultural and rural development Date of access: 2 June 2014. Ozawa, V.N. 1997. Information needs of small scale farmers in Africa: the Nigerian example. http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/newsletter/june97/9nigeria.html Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, W.N. & Thomas, D.S.G. 2010. Evaluating successful livelihood adaptation to climate variability and change in southern Africa. Ecology and Society, 15(2):27. Ostrom, E. 2000. “Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 14(3):137–158. Osundwa, M.A., Okalebo, J.R., Ngetich, W.K., Ochuodho, J.O., Othieno, C.O., Langat, B., & Omenyo, V.S. 2013. Influence of agricultural lime on soil properties and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield on acidic soils of Uasin Gishu County, Kenya. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 3(4):806-823. Padgham, J. 2009. Agricultural development under a changing climate: opportunities and challenges for adaptation. Joint departmental discussion paper - Issue 1: agriculture and rural development & environment departments. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/11832_climatechangecombined1.pdf Date of access: 6 Mar. 2014 Pingali, P., Alinovi, L., & Sutton, J. 2005. Food security in complex emergencies: enhancing food system resilience. Disasters, 29(1). Pool, N. & De Frece, A. 2010. A review of existing organisational forms of smallholder farmers’ associations and their contractual relationships with other market participants in the East and Southern African ACP Region. FAO AAACP Paper.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/AAACP/eastafrica/FAO_AAACP_Paper _Series_No_11_1_.pdf Date of access: 20 Nov. 2013. REOSA see FAO Regional Emergency Office for Southern Africa (REOSA). 2011c. Rockstrom, J. 2000. Water Resources Management in Smallholder Farms in Eastern and Southern Africa: An Overview. Physics and chemistry of the earth,25(3): 275-283. Sacks, W.J., Deryng, D., Foley, J.A. & Ramankutty, N. 2010. Crop planting dates: an analysis of global patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 2010(19): 607-620. Salinger, G. 2011. Five ways to get rid of pests without using chemicals. http://blogs.worldwatch.org/nourishingtheplanet/five-ways-to-get-rid-of-pestswithout-using-chemicals/ Date of access: 9 Mar. 2014. Sichali, F., McLean, S. & Botha, B. 2013. Seeds for change: a certified seed project in Malawi is boosting local incomes and supporting emerging national agricultural policy. Paper presented at the Hunger, Nutrition, Climate justice 2013 Conference, held in Dublin, Ireland on 15-16 April 2013. Siedenburg, J. Pfeifer, K. & Hauser, K. 2009. People-centred resilience: working with vulnerable farmers towards climate change adaptation and food security. Oxfam Briefing Paper. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/people-centredresilience-en-0911.pdf Date of access: 20 Nov. 2013. Sirrine, D., Shennan, C., Snapp, S., Kanyama-Phiri, G., Kamanga, B. & Sirrine, J.R. 2010. Improving recommendations resulting from on-farm research: agroforestry, risk, profitability and vulnerability in southern Malawi. International journal of agricultural sustainability, 8(4): 290-304. Stigter, C.J., Dawei, Z., Onyewotu, L.O.Z. & Xurong, M. 2004. Using traditional methods and indigenous technologies for coping with climate variability. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/40117551_Using_traditional_methods_an d_indigenous_technologies_for_coping_with_climate_variability Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013.
SFOAP (Support to farmers’ organisations in Africa Programme), 2014. http://www.sfoap.net/farmers_organizations/ Date of access: 2 June 2014. Sullivan, P. 2003. Intercropping principles and production practices. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Services. http://hcs.osu.edu/mgonline/Vegetables/pla02/21pla02.htm Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. Svendsen, M. 1992. Assessing direct effects of policy change on irrigation system performance: a case study from the Philippines. IFPRI Working Paper on Irrigation Performance Number 2. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. Tatlonghari ,G., and Sumalde. Z. 2006. Formation of social capital for common pool resource management. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 5(12):21–40. The World Bank. 2010. Convenient solutions to an inconvenient truth: ecosystem-based approaches to climate change. The World Bank. Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor,R. & Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6898/full/nature01014.html Date of access: 27 Nov. 2013. Tulane UniversityState University of Haiti. 2013. Haiti Humanitarian Assistance Evaluation. Disaster Resilience Leadership Academy: New Orleans. Turnbull, M., Sterrett, C.L., & Hilleboe, A. 2013. Toward Resilience. Practical Action Publishing Ltd: Warwickshire. UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 2002. Farmers and farmers’ associations in developing countries and their use of modern financial instruments. http://vi.unctad.org/files/studytour/sttanzania10/files/week1/tuesday16feb/Bibliogr aphy/Farmersassociation.pdf Date of access: 20 Nov. 2013.
Uphoff, N. & Wajiyaratna, C.M.. 2000. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Development, 28(11):1875-1890. Uriza-Avila, D., Rebolledo-Martínez, A. & Rebolledo-Martínez, L. 2002. Short cycle crops intercropped with pineapple: an option to increase productivity. http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=666_32 Date of access: 7 Mar. 2014. Vaitla, B., Tesfay, G., Rousenville, M. & Maxwell, D. 2012. Resilience and Livelihoods Change in Tigray, Ethiopia. http://fic.tufts.edu/assets/Resilience-and-LivelihoodsChange-in-Tigray-FINAL-30-10-12.pdf Date of access: 9 Mar. 2014. Van Zyl, K. 2008. A Study on a Disaster Risk Management Plan for the South African Agricultural Sector. Pretoria: Business Print Centre. Vermillion, D.L. 2001. Property rights and collective action in the devolution of irrigation system management. (In Meinzen-Dick, R.S., Knox, A. & DiGregorio, M., eds. Collective action, property rights and devolution of natural resource management: exchange of knowledge and implications for policy. Feldafing: DSE/ZEL. p. 182-219.) World Bank. 1993. Water resources management: a World Bank policy paper. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Zhou, P., Gwimbi, P., Maure, G.A., Johnston, P., Kanyanga, J.K., Mugabe, F.T., Manyats, A.M., Masarirambi, M.T., Thomas, T.S., Hachigonta, S. & Nelson, G. 2010. Assessing the vulnerability of agriculture to climate change in Southern Africa. Part of “Strategies for Adapting to Climate Change in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa: Targeting the Most Vulnerable”. http://www.fanrpan.org/themes/eachproject/?project=2 Date of access: 6 Mar 2014
