Browsing by Author "Andersson, Jens A."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Failing to yield? Ploughs, Conservation Agriculture and the problem of agricultural intensification: An example from the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe
    Baudron, Frédéric; Andersson, Jens A.; Corbeels, Marc; Giller, Ken E. (Routledge, 2012)
    Two agricultural intensification policies currently have a foothold in Southern Africa: intensification by plough-based, animal integrated practices and intensification by conservation agricultural practices including natural resource management. The former ideology originated from colonialism while the latter is currently promoted by nongovernmental organizations and development agencies. However, analysis on farmer knowledge relating to both of these practices reveals a predisposition towards extensification, or the farming on more land and using more resources to increase yields, instead of intensification. Other factors include limited cash, elevated risks, fluctuations in labor availability, and high input prices. Interestingly, the authors cite reliance on purely technical fixes, the disregarding of local or placed-based knowledge, and ultimately the lack of innovation on the side of researchers, development agencies, and policy-makers as the true reasons why Africa farmers are "failing to yield."
  • From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A literature review of Conservation Agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in southern Africa
    Andersson, Jens A.; D'Souza, Shereen (2013)
    The paradigm of conservation agriculture (CA), which comprises minimal tillage, permanent soil cover, and intercropping, has become a prominent fixture of discussions on sustainable intensification, climate change and climate smart agriculture. However, controversy exists over the practice’s level of adoption and universal applicability. This article addresses the controversy by assessing the extent of CA adoption by smallholder farmers in Malawi, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. The authors frame their review of adoption studies with an examination of socio-economic contexts, changing definitions of CA, and barriers to adoption. Turning to an analysis of adoption claims, it is found that ambiguous definitions of conservation agriculture adoption, varying methods for estimating adoptions, and project bias denigrate the significance of adoption figures. The authors argue that adoption of CA in southern Africa is lower than adoption figures suggest, as these reflect on short-term uptake numbers, which are often inflated by the provision of artificial incentives. It is found that the usefulness of adoption studies is compromised by bias in the selection of project participants, and by participants’ expectation of support. Additionally, it is argued that these analyses are encumbered by ignorance of project context and poorly understood relationships between adoption variables. Household economic analyses are found to be uninformative due to smallholders’ reliance on family labor. The authors conclude with a call for use of a wider range of quantitative and qualitative research methods, and for studies which focus on the wider market, institutional and policy contexts.