• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Materials and methods
 Results
 Discussion/lessons learned
 Conclusions and recommendation...
 Bibliography
 Appendix A: Zambia/ICRAF/UF CRSP...
 Appendix B: Maps
 Appendix C: Farming systems...














Group Title: UF-USAID Gender and soil fertility CRSP
Title: UF-USAID Gender and soil fertility CRSP. Main paper.
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00081807/00001
 Material Information
Title: UF-USAID Gender and soil fertility CRSP. Main paper.
Series Title: UF-USAID Gender and soil fertility CRSP
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Peterson, Jennifer Scheffee.
Publisher: University of Florida/USAID,
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: Africa -- Zambia
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00081807
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 192022586

Table of Contents
    Executive summary
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
    Materials and methods
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Results
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
    Discussion/lessons learned
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
    Conclusions and recommendations
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Bibliography
        Page 47
        Page 48
    Appendix A: Zambia/ICRAF/UF CRSP soil fertility survey
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Appendix B: Maps
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Appendix C: Farming systems analysis?
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
Full Text




Executive Summary


Introduction
Zambia has one of the highest population growth rates in the world, and was once the most urbanized country in
Sub-Saharan Africa (Celis, Milimo and Wanmali, 1991). However, with the removal of fertilizer subsidies and the
collapse of credit programs, production of the main staple crop, maize, has fallen steadily over the past 5 years.
As a result of falling production and the rising population, the food security of the country has deteriorated
(Economist Intelligence Unit, 1995).

To combat maize production constraints, The International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) and the
Zambian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) have undertaken a program to develop alternative
soil fertility systems which will allow small farmers without access to credit or fertilizer to improve their maize
production. Using nitrogen-fixing tree species including Sesbania sesban and Tephrosia vogelii in improved fallow
systems, maize yields following two year improved fallows approach those of fully fertilized fields (Kwesiga and
Beneist, 1998). From March to December, 1998 the University of Florida, under a Collaborative Research Support
Program funded by the United States Agency for International Development, conducted research in the Eastern
Province of Zambia, to map the decision making criteria farmers use when deciding whether or not to test and
then adopt this improved fallow (IF) technology. These criteria, developed into ethnographic decision trees, can
be used by researchers and extension agents to design and test more appropriate and successful improved fallow
systems, and by policy makers to help improve the soil fertility options available to farmers.

Materials and Methods
Ethnographic decision trees were created based on initial interviews with approximately 30 farmers in the Eastern
Province of Zambia in early 1998. These decision trees were then tested with 81 women and 40 men in four target
villages where ICRAF has targeted on-farm trials. Farmers were classified into three groups -- those who have
never planted an improved fallow, those who planted an improved fallow before 1995/96 and never planted
another improved fallow, and those who planted more than one improved fallow. Non-testers were selected
randomly from village lists. Testers were selected from ICRAF data, data provided by local extension agents and
from local farmers.

A questionnaire was designed based on the ethnographic decision trees, and included additional information
requested by UF and the ICRAF team (see Appendix A: Zambia/ICRAF/UF CRSP Soil Fertility Survey).
Interviews took place from July November, 1998.

Results
Description offarmers by adoption type
* IF Testers tend to be from established rather than young or mature households (Table 8).
* Women IF testers tend to be unmarried (single, divorced or widowed; Table 6, Figures 10 & 11).
* Well off farmers (20% of all testers vs 8% of non-testers) tend to try IFs, and poor farmers do not (42% of all
Non-testers, vs. 25% of all Testers). However, more very poor women who test the technology tend to adopt
it. Whereas 19% of all tester-expanders are described as "very poor", only 6% of the tester-non expanders are
classified as "very poor".
* Men are twice as likely to be classified as well off or fairly well off as women. (Fig 24 25). The reasons why
wealthy farmers are more likely to test IFs are not clear.
* Farmers with oxen tend to test improved fallows more than people without oxen (even though they don't use
the oxen to plant or manage their improved fallows), but both men and women farmers who cultivate by
hand are more likely to adopt them (Figures 27 28). This could be related to the influence of wealth on
testing, as oxen ownership is a wealth criteria.
Farmers with access to more land are more likely to test improved fallows.
Club membership encourages the testing and the expansion of improved fallows.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page i







Factors which motivate farmers to try improved fallows
* Recognition of low soil fertility as an important crop production constraint (67/81 women and 37/40 men)
* The high price of fertilizer and farmers' lack of access to cash to buy it (49/81 women and 16/40 men)
* Visual verification of the benefits of the technology
* A desire to try new things to see if they will work (4/81 women and 6/40 men)

Factors which constrain farmers from trying improved fallows
* Willingness to wait two years to realize the benefits of the technology (10/81 women and 3/40 men)
* Time, strength and access to labor (6/81 women and 3/40 men)
* Access to land (5/81 women, 1 man)

Factors which constrain farmers from planting another improved fallow
* Failure of the first improved fallow they try
* Lack of motivation/change in motivation (no longer believe in benefits, or soil fertility improves when new
fields are opened or when mineral fertilizers are acquired; two women and three men)
* Sickness/poor health (one woman and one man)
* Change in access to land (one woman)
* Lack of access to seed (two women and one man)

Factors which were thought to be motivations, but were not necessarily motivations
1. Lack of maize -- 10 farmers listed hunger as a motivation to plant improved fallows. However, 33 farmers
whose maize did not last all year did not test improved fallows (26/40 women and 7/15 men).
2. Lack of access to fertilizer -- 53/62 farmers who purchased or acquired more than 50 kgs of mineral fertilizer
did not feel that their access to fertilizer discouraged them from planting trees. However, nine farmers (15%
of farmers who used more than 50 kgs of fertilizer during the 1997-98 season) did feel that they did not need
to plant improved fallows because they had access to fertilizer, or thought they would have access to
fertilizer.
3. Availability of more fallow land -- no one mentioned their access to fallow land or uncleared land as a reason
not to plant an improved fallow. Rather, six people mentioned lack of access to more land as a constraint to
planting an improved fallow.
4. "Respect" -- no farmers who planted improved fallows did so because they bring "respect" to the family in
terms of increased visits by outsiders, or increased attention. Many (95) farmers did feel that improved
fallows bring respect, because they bring food to the family, which means the family does not have to borrow
food from extended family members, and is sometimes able to give food to extended family members. Food
surplus is definitely a sign of status in rural areas. However, it was not a direct factor in the decision to test
improved fallows.

Factors which were thought to be constraints, but were not constraints to the testing of improved fallows in the four target
villages
1. Knowledge of the improved fallow program
2. Fear of animals
3. Access to oxen
4. Borrowing land
5. Access to seeds (for first-time testers)
6. Jealousy

Conclusions
The single most important reason farmers try improved fallows is because their soil is bad. Moreover, even
farmers with moderately good soils will try improved fallows if they see the benefits of them, in order to save


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page ii







money they would otherwise use for fertilizer, or to reduce risks associated with fertilizer use. Some farmers with
adequate access to fertilizer will not try improved fallows.

The greatest constraint to the testing of improved fallows is the amount of time it takes to realize the benefits.
Older farmers are unwilling to invest in an activity which they feel they might not live long enough to benefit
from. These farmers should be encouraged to try other, faster soil fertility options. Moreover, when improved
fallows are introduced to older farmers, labor saving techniques such as intercropping and direct seeding should
be emphasized. Some farmers are under the impression that improved fallows take three years to mature. Other
constraints to testing include time, labor, and strength (again, mostly for older farmers), and land (mostly for
women). In the target villages knowledge and seeds are not constraints, but they are likely constraints in areas
where extension efforts have not been as great.

It should be pointed out that the success of the program in the four target villages is the result of over five years of
intensive on-farm research and dissemination efforts. It takes time for lessons to sink in and technologies to take
off. There are still farmers in the four target areas who are considering testing improved fallows in the future, and
there are former testers who expect to plant again when their circumstances improve.

Farmers need to be supported during the adoption phase for trouble shooting and brainstorming. It is impossible
to expect that extensionists can just say "here is how you do it, here are the seeds, here are the benefits" and go.
Improved fallows are not like improved varieties, which are often of crops farmers are used to planting. People
have no formal experience using trees or crops to improve their soil, although in some sense they have been doing
it for years.

In summary, improved fallows are a low risk, low cost option to improve soil fertility suitable for both men and
women farmers. Adopting farmers who are able to afford mineral fertilizer or who hope to be able to afford
fertilizer plan to continue to plant improved fallows, because they are never sure if they will be able to afford
fertilizer in the future. To many farmers, the adoption of improved fallows represents a risk-avoidance practice
more than simply the preference of one soil fertility method over another.

Recommendations
Policy recommendations affecting the testing and adoption of improved fallows
1. Care should be taken when proposing fertilizer subsidies and interfering in the fertilizer market. First,
decreasing the price of fertilizer would benefit men more than women. Women surveyed often felt that even
if fertilizer prices dropped by 50%, they could not afford to buy it. Moreover, seven farmers who tested
improved fallows (11 % of all testers) said that if fertilizer prices were lower, they would not continue to plant
improved fallows. However, 59 farmers said they would continue to plant improved fallows even if fertilizer
was cheaper, because the benefits of trees last more than one year, fertilizer depletes the soil whereas fallows
improve it, money (even small amounts for cheap fertilizer) is hard to come by, and because fertilizer is a
risky and unreliable way to improve crop yields. Farmers never know from one year to the next if they will
be able to find fertilizer in the market, or if it will be affordable. However, even those farmers who would
continue to plant improved fallows now that they have seen the benefits may not have tried improved fallows
originally if they would have had access to sufficient quantities of fertilizer.
2. One of the biggest constraints to the expansion of improved fallows is the failure of the first improved fallow,
especially by people who have not otherwise seen the benefits of improved fallows on other people's fields.
Failures are often caused by browsing and fire. Policies which prevented such damage would improve the
impact and the expansion of improved fallows.
3. Lack of labor and poor health are major constraints to the expansion of improved fallows, and agricultural
productivity in general. Improved rural health care and increased access to animal traction implements might
lead to increased adoption of improved fallows over several years

Recommendations to help researchers to design more appropriate soil fertility technologies for both men and
women farmers
1. Research into fire and termite resistant improved fallow species would benefit testing farmers and increase
the likelihood that farmers will succeed with their first improved fallow, and thus continue planting
improved fallows.
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page iii






2. Research into the use of Tv as an insecticide would add value to improved fallow species and contribute to
market garden production.
3. Research into both traditional and introduced fruit trees would help farmers meet their need for increased
income.
4. Continue to look for new tree species and new ways to incorporate trees into local cropping systems to
improve soil fertility and provide economic benefits to farmers.

Recommendations to help extension agents better target their training programs
1. Farmer-to-farmer extension is the most successful way to reach women farmers, who often need to see the
benefits of a technology before they are willing to test it. Men farmers will try improved technologies without
seeing the benefits first. Thus, effort should be made to include the entire family in improved fallow
extension programs (including young men who are primarily responsible for brush fires when hunting for
mice!).
2. Maximizing the number of farmer field days and farmer-to-farmer visits will increase testing rates.
3. Ensuring the success of early improved fallow testers will encourage more people to test the technology.
4. Tailor soil fertility technologies to people with different motivations and constraints (people in a hurry need
something which works quickly like fertilizer or manure; people willing to wait two years can try improved
fallows; households with more access to labor can try manure, IFs, and GM, whereas households with more
access to cash should learn how to use fertilizer efficiently; households with access to manure should learn
how to use it and market it; farmers with limited land need to use manure or fertilizer, etc.) and people with
different household characteristics (see Table XX).

Table XX: Soil fertility technologies which may be appropriate for different types of men and women farmer
HH Gender HH HH Status Wealth
Characteristics Type
Women Men FHH MHH Young Established Mature High Low
Technology CR, IF, F IF, CR, IF, All CR, M, IF, CR, M, CR, F F, M IF,
M,GM, CR,F F GM, F CR,
F

Recommendations to help more farmers improve their soil fertility, and their crop production.
1. Work with the community to control fires in improved fallows;
2. Work with the community to control grazing in improved fallows and market gardens, which are important
sources of income and food in rural areas;
3. Work with neighbors and local authorities to control theft of livestock, which are often used to purchase
fertilizer and traded for food, and which provide labor and manure;
4. Improve household food security planning so that farmers know how they will get the amount of maize they
need each year, and how they might get it in the future when they are sick or old;
5. Beware of excessive drinking, which encourages laziness and theft, and uses scarce family resources
inefficiently.

Despite the large number of people involved in agriculture, Zambia is still required to import food items,
especially maize and rice (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 1995). Food insecurity caused by El Nifio-linked
climatic changes (which have caused both drought and flooding), the high rate of urbanization and recent policy
changes have challenged the agricultural sector. Input, credit, marketing and distribution networks, which were
once heavily subsidized by the government, are now being taken over by private traders. In addition, for the past
two years the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (MAFF) has been undergoing IMF and Donor
mandated "down-sizing", and over 5,000 government employees are expected to be retired or retrenched.
Insecurity on the part of agricultural officials has made it difficult for many of them to function effectively in the
field.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page iv








1. Introduction

Zambia is one of the fastest
growing countries in the world.
From 1980 to 1990, Zambia's
population increased 38.2%, from
5,661,801 to 7,818,447. Current
(1998) population estimates
exceed 9,000,000, with an implied
growth rate of 3.2% per annum
(Central Statistical Office, 1992).
Although the country is 40%
urbanized and the population
density is a relatively low 10.7
people per km2 (CSO, 1992), more
than 2/3 of the economically
active population is involved in
agriculture (Celis, Milimo &
Wanmali, 1991). Women account
for almost 1/3 of the total
agricultural labor force, and
comprise more than 55% of rural
subsistence farmers (CSO, 1992).
Map Of Zambia from Macmillan Press, Zambia


Perhaps Zambia's greatest agricultural challenge is low soil fertility. The Kalahari sands which cover 2/3 of the
western and southern parts of the country are acidic and relatively infertile. In Eastern Province, low soil fertility
(specifically low nutrient status and low soil organic matter content) has been identified as a major crop
production problem by farmers and researchers alike (Ngugi et al, 1988; Franzel et al, 1998). Maize yields in
unfertilized fields average less than 1200 kgs/ha (Ngugi et al, 1988). In addition, many farmers are turning to
quick maturing (but lower yielding) crop varieties in order to counteract some of the uncertainties regarding the
duration and the intensity of the rainy season (personal observation). Along with the recent droughts, structural
adjustment and population increases, these environmental conditions have contributed to Zambia's food
insecurity.

To better understand the issues involved in declining agricultural production and productivity in Zambia, the
University of Florida (UF) and the International Center for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF) have joined forces
as part of a USAID-funded Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) for Gender and Soil Fertility in
Africa. For the past 10 years, ICRAF and MAFF have been designing and testing agroforestry technologies in
Eastern Province, Zambia. On-farm trials indicate that improved fallows using Sesbania sesban and Tephrosia
volgelii have considerable promise in terms of their ability to increase maize yields from 1 t/ha up to 3 5 t/ha
(Kwesiga and Beniest, 1998).


What Are Improved Fallows?
Improved fallows are systems which are based on a traditional farming practice of leaving "tired" (unproductive)
land uncultivated (fallow) for several years in order to allow it to "rest". During the fallow period, grasses and
shrubs grow, deposit leaf litter, and recycle nutrients from the soil profile. Soil organic matter increases, soil
fertility improves, and weed growth is suppressed. By improving the mix of the plants which grow during this
rest period, the quality of the fallow can be increased, and the duration reduced. Improved fallows generally use
high biomass producing, nitrogen-fixing plants to increase the amount of nitrogen in the soil, increase soil organic
matter and improve soil fertility faster than the grasses and shrubs which normally grow in fallow fields.

UF/ISAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 1







Traditional fallows require up to 20 years to improve the soil, whereas improved fallows can be as short as 2
years, depending on rainfall and the growth of the species selected.

The improved fallow (IF) system developed by the ICRAF/MAFF team in Eastern Province is based on the use of
two indigenous shrub species -- Sesbania sesban (Ss) and Tephrosia vogelii (Tv). Sesbania is grown in a nursery 3 6
weeks before the rainy season begins, and transplanted either into a fallow field, or intercropped with maize.
Tephrosia is direct seeded either into a fallow field, or intercropped with maize. Intercropping with maize, while
often resulting in lower maize yields, decreases establishment costs as farmers are not required to prepare and
weed a field of trees alone, and allows farmers to receive some benefit (maize) from the field the first year. The
fallow fields or intercropped tree/maize fields are maintained (weeded and protected from fire) for 2 cropping
seasons, then cleared and planted to maize or other cash crops. Maize yields from two year Sesbania improved
fallow fields are close to those of fully fertilized maize (112 kg N/ha) on farmers' fields (Kwesiga and Beniest,
1998). The amount of labor required to prepare a nursery, care for the seedlings, transplant the trees, and weed,
maintain and clear an improved fallow is presented below:

Table 1: Labor Requirements for Two-year Ss and Tv Improved Fallows1
TASK Ss (person days per 400m2 IF) Tv (person days per 400m2 IF
Nursery preparation 1.5 days none
Nursery Management 2.5 days (1 hour every 2 days none
for 4 weeks)
Field Preparation 1 day 1 day
Transplanting/Planting 1 day 0.5 day
Weeding/Maintenance (fire break) 2 days 2 days
Cutting 1 day 1 day
Average Yield 180 to 360 kgs (4.5 9 MT/ha) 90 to 270 kgs (2.25 6.75 MT/ha)

Although fallows are an old, traditional technology, research into improved fallows has been somewhat limited.
In the early days of agroforestry, most research focused on an agroforestry system known as alley cropping,
which unfortunately has not proven popular with farmers in many of the areas it has been extended. The work of
the ICRAF/MAFF team has been particularly innovative due to the selection of indigenous species, the constant
involvement of farmers in the development, evaluation and dissemination of the technology and the species used,
the development and testing of several different improved fallow packages, and the speed with which the
technology was taken off-station and on-farm with the development of the Adaptive Research and Dissemination
Network. For additional information on the improved fallow technology and the species involved, see Appendix
C.

The ICRAF/MAFF team is currently conducting adoption studies and household surveys to better evaluate the
impact of the improved fallow (IF) technology on household farming strategies, and on local farming systems (S.
Franzel and D. Phiri, personal communication). The University of Florida agreed to supplement these adoption
surveys with additional surveys of women and men farmers in four target areas. Using ethnographic decision
trees, these surveys hope to identify and map the criteria farmers use when deciding whether or not to test
improved fallows, and the criteria they use when deciding whether or not to adopt improved fallows (see
Gladwin, 1989 for a detailed description of ethnographic decision tree modeling). The ultimate purpose of these
decision trees will be to elicit decision criteria which will help researchers to design more appropriate soil fertility
technologies for both men and women farmers, to help researchers make policy recommendations regarding soil
fertility technologies which are appropriate for different types of men and women farmers, to help extension
agents better target their training programs, and ultimately to help more farmers improve their soil fertility, and
their crop production. The results of these ethnographic surveys are presented in this report.



1 Based on respondents' memory and visual observations in the field, and 6 hour work-days.
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 2








Research Questions
1. Why are farmers trying or not trying the ICRAF/MAFF improved fallow trials? What are the constraints
farmers face which prevent them from testing the technologies? What factors facilitate testing? What are
the characteristics of testers and non-testers? Who's testing, who's not testing, and why?
2. Of those farmers who have tested the agroforestry technologies, who's expanding the technology to new
fields, and who's not expanding (i.e. adopting)? For those farmers who expand, why did they decide to
expand? What are the factors which facilitate expansion? For those who have not expanded, why haven't
they expanded, and what are the constraints they face which prohibit them from expanding?
3. Do the factors which facilitate and constrain testing and adoption differ for men and women farmers?

Although the main questions to be considered are those outlined above, other factors are also explored such as the
relationship between tester-status and house hold type, household status and wealth, and the degree to which
other factors such as access to animal traction and additional land affect the decision to test and adopt improved
fallows.

2. Materials &
Methods


Photo 1: Dr. Christy Gladwin interviewing farmers during the preliminary design of
ethnographic decision trees in Fisi village, Katete District, Zambia


The ICRAF/MAFF team
currently works
throughout Eastern
Province, but data
collection and on-farm
trials have been
concentrated in 4 target
villages (see Table XX for
specific information
about the target villages).
Collectively, these target
villages include over 218
households. All of the
farmers in these villages
have either tried
improved fallows
themselves, participated
in farmer field days or
farmer training activities,
or know people who have
tried improved fallows.
The UF survey
concentrated in and
around these four target
villages, in 3 districts of
Eastern Province
(Chipata North, Chipata
South, and Katete).


Elaboration of the Decision Trees
An initial survey of 3 women from each of the four villages one who had planted more than 1 improved fallow
(the criteria for "adoption" or "expansion"), one who tested the technology more than three years ago and
subsequently abandoned the technology (never planted another improved fallow), and one who never tried
improved fallows was undertaken from March 16 April 9th, 1998. The results from these preliminary surveys
were used to create composite ethnographic decision trees (see Gladwin, 1989 for a discussion of methods used to
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 3







create composite decision trees; see Peterson, 1998 for a look at the initial decision trees). These trees were then
tested with an additional 18 farmers (both men and women) in June, 1998, and more detailed decision trees were
created (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below).

Design of the questionnaire
The decision trees form the basis of a structured questionnaire which was used during a more thorough survey of
121 farmers from July to November, 1998 (see Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire). The questionnaire
was reorganized and expanded upon slightly after initial interviews were conducted in the first target village.
Although the decision tree questions remained the same, some questions were added to clarify the food security,
firewood availability and land tenure situations. In general, the following types of questions were asked:

* Household description (age, number of children, HH status, travels, education, years in village, etc.)
* Description of Farming systems (crops, cropping patterns, size of fields, labor/tools, harvest data, major
problems)
* Food Security Analysis (number of months maize lasts; how maize is acquired when it runs out)
* Land tenure Analysis (matrilineal/matrilocal vs. patrilineal, widows/divorcees, amount of fallow land)
* Fuel & Firewood Analysis (difficulty, time to collect, purchase)
* Description of Soil Fertility Management (systems used, how they are practiced, and why they are used
over other systems)
* Decision Tree/Improved Fallow Adoption Questions
* Group Membership Information
* Income Opportunities/Economics questions
* Recommendations of farmers regarding soil fertility research, extension and policy
Sampling Techniques
A total of 81 women and 40 men were interviewed 41 women who planted improved fallows, of whom 23
planted more than one improved fallow, and 18 planted only one improved fallow; 40 women who never planted
an improved fallow; 25 men who planted improved fallows, of whom 16 planted more than one improved fallow,
and 9 planted only one improved fallow; and 15 men who have never planted an improved fallow.

Originally, it was hoped that all of the testers could be randomly selected from lists of farmers who tested
improved fallows before the 1995/96 planting season, and from village lists (for non-testers). In this way, farmers
would have had time to cut their first improved fallow, evaluate the benefits from it, and plant another improved
fallow. Unfortunately, this was not completely possible (especially for women testers). As is the case with many
agroforestry projects, it takes time to develop an appropriate agroforestry extension package, test it, and begin
extension. The Zambia/ICRAF project only began in 1988, and limited on-farm trials of the improved fallow
technology began in 1992/1993. Moreover, most of the early testers were men. Thus, it was impossible to find 80
women who began testing improved fallows (IFs) before 1995/96 in the four target camps. There are only XX
women in the four target camps who tested IFs before 1995/96, and some of them have passed away or moved.

We were, however, able to find 20 women in the four target camps who planted IFs before 1995/96, and have
planted only 1 IF (tester non-expanders). For women tester-expanders, we had to use some women who planted
IFs after 1995/96, but who have planted more than 1 IF. In many instances farmers are so convinced of the
success of the technology (especially after having visited farmers in other camps as part of organized field days
and farmer-to-farmer visits), that they do not wait until they have harvested their first IF before they plant
another. Thus, we interviewed every woman in the four target camps who was available and who had tested IFs
before 1995/96, as well as all other women in the four camps who planted more than one IF. There was no


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 4







DECISION TREE Motivations


(Plant improved fallow this year; don't}


plant trees to improve soil fertility?>
yes 4


no Don't
plant IF







Sy h out of fallow now? and/or you have no money for it?>
out of fallow now?
Y- no yes, fertilizer No or "yes but"
Sis expensive continue to use it?
-f In" otaLep irr Aand i^


now in fallow out of fallow,
would your maize last all
yr?>


Don't plant
IF this year


the year (May to May)? Are you
experiencing hunger? Can you afford
enough fertilizer so that your maize lasts
all year?> /


Maize doesn't last
all year; Can't
afford enough
fert; Experience
hunger

yes


Maize lasts all year;
Can afford enough
fert; No hunger


improved fallow will
bring you respect?>


Plant an IF this
year UNLESS....


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 5


Figure 1:







Figure 2: Constraints Decision to plant this year unless .....


benefits?>
yes no

worth your while to spend time -
planting trees during the busy
planting season (November -
January)?> no
yes

strength or health IF
to plant an IF?>


no

yes/ family or ganyu labor?>
yes -_ no
or too much other plant IF
work?> no
yes
direct-seed tephrosia?>

have seeds I Don't plant IF
or seedlings,
or access to
no them?> no yes plob
k yes befc


IF and wait two years to see
the benefits?>


No, wa


on't plant IF
is year


nt something faster


{Try Green Manures this year; don't)



legume?>

no
yes/

SDon't plant I
of these legumes legum
improve the soil?
Yno
y^ ^^^-A


e you willing to
v in a legume (X)
>re the beans come,


Don't plant legumes


for a small IF plot?> to improve your soil?>
yno yeno
yes __
Don't plant IF Try X as a GM Don't try GM this year
t Don't try GM this year

to early adopters of trees, and put off by it?

yes (Try rotations; don't)

y no
S
Tno
Don't plant IF Plant IF this year
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 6







selection process for women testers, as we needed every women we could find. For the male farmers who tested
IFs, we were able to limit our survey to men who planted their first IF before 1995/96.

Lists of testers and non-testers were compiled with the aide of Zambia/ICRAF data, camp officers and model
farmers in the area. All male farmers were selected randomly, as well as alternates in case those farmers selected
were unavailable. All female non-testers were also randomly selected.

We did not limit our survey to farmers in the target villages themselves. We interviewed farmers throughout the
entire camp (or at least within an 8 10 km radius of the target villages, as research was conducted on foot). An
average "camp" (the area covered by village-based extension officers) includes 20 25 villages, and 1,000
households.

Some of the techniques used by the interviewer to alleviate or to address these problems included:
* explaining the purpose of the interview as clearly as possible to directly dispel any rumors about the "hidden
agenda" of the interview
interviewing farmers alone in the field by themselves
using female rather than male interpreters or no interpreters when possible
asking questions in the past tense ("last year, why didn't you" vs. "why don't you")
returning to present the results of the survey so that farmers could review and reevaluate their answers in
light of their discovery that the survey really was about soil fertility
in some cases select farmers were appraised of the difficulties and dangers of collecting faulty information,
and those informed farmers attempted to explain to other farmers the importance of answering truthfully

With these disclaimers, the information presented here is as accurate as possible, given the constraints mentioned
above.


3. Results:

3.1 General Overview of the Population Surveyed


3.1.1 Household Description
A total of 121 respondents were interviewed. Eighty-one women were interviewed, of whom 49 (60%) lived in
female-headed households (FHH) and 32 (40%) lived in male-headed households (MHH). This figure is higher
than normal, because 40 out of the 81 households had to be tester households, and most female testers come from
FHH. Fifty-nine percent of the women in FHH were widows, while 29% were divorced. A small percentage were
dejure FHH, either single (6%), married but living separately from their husbands (4%), or married to polygamous
husbands and basically controlled the decisions made in their independent homes (6%). Of the females living in
MHH, 94% were married (19% in polygamous marriages), and 6% were either divorced or widowed young, and
living in their fathers' homes. Of the 40 men interviewed, 92% were married (15% in polygamous marriages),
while 5% were widowed and 3% divorced (see Tables 2-5 and Figures 5-9).


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 7








Table 2: Impact Villages and Their Main Characteristics2

Bio/phys. Socioeconomic Characteristics Institutional Characteristics

Village/Camp Soil Land Avail Fuelwood Ethnic Cult. Cash Livestock Access Access to Presence of Grazing
Avail Group method Crops Owners to FTC Mkts Partners Control

Kasauka Alfisol Low Low Ngoni Hoe- Soy, Low/Med Close Med Medium WV None
Oxen cotton,
Kalunga Camp Oxen cotton,
groundnut

Mshaba Alfisol Low/Med Med Ngoni Hoe Soy, Low/Med 30 km Good/Med High Controlled
Feni Camp groundnut SCAFE, LWF

Chivungwe Luvisol Med/High Low/Med Chewa Oxen- Cotton, Low 5 km Medium Low None
Kalichelo Camp Hoe tobacco

Fisi Luvisol High High Chewa Oxen Cotton High 30 km Low Low/LWF None
Mzime Camp _______


2From Donald Phiri, ICRAF/Msekt USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jcnnifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 8









Survey Sample Breakdown (n=121)


81 Women
interviewed


41 testers


40 Non
Testers
(NT)


40 Men
interviewed




25 Testers 15 NT
(NT)


23 planted
>1 IF (TE)


18 planted
only 1 IF
(TNE)


16 planted
>1 IF (TE)


9 planted
only 1 IF
(TNE)


MAP OF TARGET AREAS


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 9


Figure 4:


Figure 3:







Table 3: Respondents classified by Household (HH) type -- Male headed households (MHH) vs. Female
headed Households (FHH)


FHH 49
MHH -Total 72
Females in MHH 32
Males in MHH 40
TOTAL 121

Figure 5: Respondents classified by HH type


Respondants surveyed, by HH Type


Males in
MHH
33%


FHH
41%


Figure 6: Female Respondents classified by HH
type

Females surveyed, by HH Type


Females in
MHH
40%


FHH
60%


Females
in MHH 26%

Table 4: Female Respondents in FHH, Classified by Marital Status


FHH Divorced 14
Married (husbands away) 2
Married, Polygamous 3
Single 3
Widows 27
TOTAL 49


Table 5: Female Respondents in MHH, Classified by Martial Status


MHH Females Married 24
Married, polygamous 6
Widowed (w/dad) 1
Divorced (w/dad) 1
TOTAL 32


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 10







Figure 7: Female Respondents in FHH, Classified
by Marital Status


Widows
55%
Divorce
29%
9 ~Married
Single Married, (husband
6% Polygamo away)
us 4%
6%


Figure 8: Female Respondents in MHH, Classified
by Marital Status


Married, Widowed
polygamo (w/dad)
us 3%
19% Divorced
(w/dad)
3%
Married
75%


Table 5: Male respondents classified by Marital Status

MHH Males Married 31
Married, Polygamous 6
Divorced 1
Widowed 2
TOTAL 40

Figure 9: Male respondents Classified by Marital Status

MHH, Males, Marital Status


3% 5%
15% A"


77%


] Married

O Married,
Polygamous

* Divorced

* Widowed


In general, female testers tended to be unmarried -- 64% were either single, widowed or divorced, compared to
50% of female non-testers. This could be related to the autonomy of women to make their own soil fertility
decisions in those circumstances. However, it could also be a reflection of how the ownership of IFs is classified.
For example, the improved fallows of married women may be credited to their husbands, so married women with
improved fallows may have been less frequently included in the sampling frame. Non-testers were more often
married, and in polygamous marriages.


Table 6:


Female Testers vs. Non-testers, Classified by Marital Status


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 11


Marital Status Single Married Polygamous Divorced Widowed
Non-Testers 0 15 5 5 15
Testers 3 12 3 10 13







Figure 10: Female Non-testers, Classified by
Marital Status


Non-Testers

Widowed Married
37% 37%


Divorced
13%


Polygamous
13%


Figure 11: Female Testers, Classified by Marital
Status
Testers

Single
7%


Widowed
33%


P


Divorced
24%


Married
29%

olygamous
7%


The average age of the men interviewed was 47 years, while the average age of the women was 42. The average
age of all farmers interviewed was 44 years. There was considerable variation between camps in terms of the
average age of farmers interviewed, the average number of children per household, the average household size,
and the average educational level, as reflected in Table 8. Women were less educated than men, and had smaller
households (probably due to the number of men in polygamous marriages).


Table 8:


Average Age, Education, No. Children and HH Size, Classified by Camp and Gender


Average Age Average Education Average No. Average HH size
(years) (No. years) Children (total)

Kapita 49 5.3 5.8 6.4
Mzime 39 4.5 5.2 6.6
Feni 48 4.7 5.2 4.9
Kalunga 39 5.6 4.6 6.3


Women 42 4.7 4.6 5.3
Men 47 5.7 6.5 7.8


TOTAL 44 5 5.2 6.1

Young households were classified as those which had recently formed (new marriages), with children less than 5
years of age. Mature families had adult children (over 18 years of age, some of whom may or may not live at
home). Established families include everyone in between. As evidenced from the data below (Table 8), a
significantly higher proportion of young farmers were non-testers (especially women) rather than testers. Young
women have less secure land tenure once they are married, and generally cultivate their husbands' family fields
until they divorce or are widowed. The changes involved in moving to a new village and cultivating new fields
may make it difficult for newly married women to try improved fallows. Older, more mature farmers were also
less likely to test improved fallows, perhaps due to the labor involved or decreased maize production
requirements (fewer mouths to feed).


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 12







Table 8: Tester Status (Non Tester, Tester-Non-Expander and
Household Status (Young, Established or Mature) and Gender


Tester-Expander) Classified by


Tester Household Status
Gender Status Young Established Mature Total
F NT 9 18 13 40
M NT 2 8 5 15
NT 20% 47% 32% 55
F TE 1 15 7 23
M TE 1 12 3 16
TE 5% 69% 25% 39
F TNE 3 12 3 18
M TNE 0 6 3 9
TNE 11% 66% 22% 27
TOTAL 16 71 34 121
13% 58% 28% 121

Wealth data were collected from ICRAF for survey participants who lived in the four target villages. For
participants who lived outside of the target villages or were not included in the ICRAF wealth ranking survey,
estimates were created for wealth based on the criteria used by the ICRAF team (area under cultivation, amount
of maize harvested, household building materials, participation in ganyu labor, etc. For more information about
the ICRAF Wealth Ranking exercise, see Appendix C). However, for various reasons not all participants could be
ranked (113 out of 121 were ranked).

From the figures below (Figures 12 15), it appears that overall, well off farmers tend to try IFs (20% of all testers
vs. 8% of non-testers), and poor farmers do not (42% of all non-testers, vs. 25% of all testers). However, there is a
marked difference between the tendencies of male and female farmers in the different wealth categories (Figures
16 23). For example, although there is not much difference between the wealth status of male non-testers and
male testers, there is a difference between the wealth status of male tester-expanders and tester-non expanders.
More of the male tester non-expanders are classified as "very poor" (13% vs. 6%), and fewer are "well off" (13% vs.
31%).

In contrast, there is a marked difference between the wealth status of women testers and non-testers. More "well
off" women tend to be testers (16% vs. 3% of non-testers), and fewer testers tend to be described as "poor" (32% vs.
52% of non-testers). However, more very poor women who test the technology tend to adopt it. Whereas 19% of
all tester-expanders are described as "very poor", only 6% of the tester-non expanders are classified as "very poor".


Figure 12: Non-Testers Classified by Wealth


Non-testers


Well Off


8%
Very Poor 8
10%


Poor
42%


Fairly Well
Off
40%


Figure 13: Testers Classified by Wealth


Testers


Well Off
20%
Very Poor
11%
Poor
25%


Fairly
Well Off
44%


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 13







Figure 14: Tester-Expanders Classified by Wealth

Tester-Expanders

Well Off
24% Fairly
Well Off
Very Poor 40%
14%
Poor
22%


Figure 16: Male Non-Testers Classified by Wealth


Male Non-Testers


Well Off
21%
Very Poor
7%
Poor
14%


Fairly
Well Off
58%


Figure 18: Male Tester-Expanders Classified by
Wealth


Male Tester-Expanders


Well Off
31%


Very Poor N
6% Poor
13%


Fairly
Well Off
50%


Figure 20: Female Non-Testers Classified by
Wealth
Female Non -Testers


Well Off
Very Poor
11%







Poor
52%


Fairly
Well Off
34%


Figure 15: Tester-Non Expanders Classified by
Wealth

Tester-Non Expanders

Well Off 13%


Very Poor
8%
Poor
29%


Fairly
Well Off
50%


Figure 17: Male Testers Classified by Wealth


Male Testers


Well Off
25%

Very Poor
8%


Fairly
Well Off
54%


Poor
13%
Figure 19: Male Tester-Non Expanders Classified
by Wealth


Male Tester-Non Expanders


Well Off


Very Poor
13%
Poor
12%


Fairly Well
h Off
62%


Figure 21: Female Testers Classified by Wealth
Female Testers


Well Off
16%
Very
Poor
14%


Fairly
Well
Off
38%


Poor
32%


UF/LISAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 14







Figure 22: Female Tester-Expanders Classified by Wealth Figure 23: Female Tester-Non Expanders
Female Tester-Expanders Classified by Wealth
Female Tester-Non Expanders
Well Off
19% Fairly Well Off
Well 13%
Very Off Very Poor Fairly Well
VePoor 33% 6% Off

19% 43%
Poor Poor
29% 38%
In addition to differences in wealth as a function of testing status, there are also considerable differences between
the wealth status of the women farmers surveyed as compared to the men. Fifty-five percent of all the women
surveyed were classified as "poor" or "very poor", whereas 85% of the men surveyed were classified as "well off"
or "fairly well off" (Figures 24 and 25). Interestingly, wives of polygamous husbands had a different wealth status
than their husbands, and different status from each other.
Figure 24: Women Testers & Non-Testers, Figure 25: Men Testers & Non Testers, Classified
Classified by Wealth by Wealth
Women Testers and Non-testers,
C i. es d b et Men Testers and Non-Testers, Classified
Classified by Wealth by Wealth
by Wealth

Well off Well off
Very Poor 9% Fairly 26%
12% Well Off Very Poor Fairly
1236% Ver9 oor Well Off
SPoor 59%
Poor 6%
43%
The reasons why wealth affects adoption are not addressed in the data collected. However, part of the reason
could be related to the definition of "wealth" in most of the communities. Farmers who cultivate more land,
harvest more maize and develop savings in the form of animals are generally described as wealthy. Do "wealthy"
farmers test improved fallows because they have access to more land and labor, and can afford to take more risks,
or do they become wealthy because they take more risks, cultivate cash crops and make more money? Given that
the amount of land in cultivation is generally a function of access to labor (either family or ganyu), and
production is generally a function of the amount of land in cultivation, larger families or families in their peak
labor years, or families with animal traction are more likely to be considered wealthy. Moreover, farmers whose
families left them land in better condition, more fertile land, more uncultivated land, or animal traction
implements would be better off.
It should be made clear that the farmers who are described locally as "well-off" would not be described as wealthy
by residents in town, and certainly not by outsiders. Thus, the differential adoption of improved fallows by
farmers of different wealth status might not necessarily be considered an important issue, as everyone in the
villages surveyed would be described as poor using most "outsider" standards.
3.1.2 Description of Farming Systems
The most common crops cultivated included local (93% of farmers) and hybrid (25% of farmers) maize (Zea mays),
groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea; grown by 95% of all farmers), sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas; grown by 63% of all
farmers), squash and pumpkins (Cucurbita spp.), bambara nuts (Voandzeia subterranea; grown by 36% of farmers)
and cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata; grown by 58% of farmers) as subsistence crops. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum;
43%), soybeans (Glycine max; 17%), sunflower (Helianthus annuus; 15%), paprika (Capsicum annuun; 9%) and
tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum; 4%), are grown as cash crops.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 15







Seasonal Calendar, Eastern province, Zambia


Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept
Women Land Land prep/ Plant End Weeding Begin Harvest Harvest Shell Store Marketing Rest
clearing, ridging, groundnuts planting; clearing tobacco, maize; cut maize, grains; grains,
land prep, plant maize, & cash weeding new fields groundnut thatch; harvest cultivate cash crops
"Galousa", beans & crops, weed (hand s, cultivate sunflower & market and dimba
plant early pumpkin maize, hoe); sunflower, dimba & cotton; dimba products
maize in fertilize harvest & early cultivate veggies
dimbas early maize; cut dimba
LABOR LABOR LABOR LABOR maize; dry thatch;
PEAK PEAK PEAK PEAK relish start dimba
Men Land Prep Land Prep Land Prep Clear new Build grain Build grain Harvest Hunting Hunting Plow,
with Oxen w/Oxen; w/Oxen; fields; storage storage; cotton hunt
Ridging, Ridging, Spray Harvest
planting planting Cotton, maize
LABOR LABOR LABOR dry
PEAK PEAK PEAK tobacco
Children School School Holiday School School School Holiday, School Bum Bur Bum School
Help in Help in grass, grass, grass,
fields, fields hunt hunt hunt
harvest animals animals animals
masuku (boys) (boys) (boys)
Animals Cattle in Cattle in Cattle & Cattle & Cattle & Cattle & Cattle & Cattle & Cattle, Cattle, Cattle in Cattle in
Dambos, Dambos, goats goats goats goats goats goats goats & goats & dambos dambo
uncontrolled uncontrolled controlled, controlled control controlled controlled, controlled pigs eat pigs eat
grazing grazing; chicken diseases crop crop
chicken diseases residues residues
diseases
Health Hungary Hungary Hungary Malaria Malaria Malaria Diarrhea Diarrhea Diarrhea Diarrhea
Issues season season season
Holidays Christmas; Fishing Fishing Easter May Day Independe Farmer's
Special Fishing Ban Ban Ban nce Day Day
Events _____
Rainfall 40 mm 110 mm 240 mm 260 mm 210 mm 100 mm 40 mm 0 mm 0 mm 0mm 0 mm 0 mm
Temp 18 31 C 14 290C 14 270C 14 270C 14 270C 14 270C 12 250C 12 250C 12 250C 9 23 OC 10 230C 15-
S__________ __300C


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 16


Table XX:







The hybrid maize varieties grown include GV412, SR52, MMV 600, and MMV 604. Pool 16, a composite early
maturing variety is also grown by 26% of the farmers interviewed in the four target villages.

New land, when it is used, is cleared in March, burned from June September, plowed in October and planted in
November. However, most fields have been continuously cultivated for 10 20 years, or until productivity is low
enough to warrant new land clearing. New land is generally cleared in small parcels (less than 5000 m2), and
cleared sparingly. Farmers do not practice shifting cultivation, or the "chitemene" system which is common in
Northern Province.

Field preparation (galouza)begins in September, and dry planting of maize begins in October. Maize planting is
staggered to avoid having to weed and harvest all fields at the same time. Additional maize is planted with the
rains in November. Maize is planted together with pumpkins, squash and cowpea (intercropped). Once the rains
begin, groundnuts and cash crops are planted, usually in a monoculture system, in December. "Emergency"
weeding of maize also begins at that time. In January, additional crops such as sweet potatoes, soy beans,
sunflower and bambara nuts are planted, and maize is weeded again. In some cases these smaller acreage crops
are intercropped, whereas in other cases they are monocropped. Bambara nuts are almost exclusively planted by
women. All other crops are planted by both men and women.

Most (69%) farmers cultivate by hand, using locally made tools including hoes and axes (Table 9 and Figure 26).
Some farmers cultivate part of their fields with oxen, and other areas they cultivate by hand in order to facilitate
early dry planting of maize. Oxen users generally plant later in the season, after the rains have begun. Farmers
without oxen will sometimes pay to have their land cleared. The asking price in late 1998 was 30,000 45,000
ZKw per acre (about $12 18 USD). In some cases farmers with ox plowing implements but no oxen collaborate
with farmers with oxen who lack plowing implements, and share their tools. Oxen use varies considerably by
area and gender, as evidenced in Table 9 and Figure 26.

Table 9: Oxen Use, by Camp & Gender


Oxen Users Hand cultivation Total


Feni 4 25 29
Kalunga 19 11 30
Kapita 3 27 30
Mzime 11 21 32

Women 15 66 81
Men 19 21 40

Total 34 87 121


Figure 26: Percent Farmers Using Oxen vs. Hand Cultivation, by Gender

Percent All Farmers Using
Oxen vs. Hand cultivation

Oxen

Hand 31%
cultivation
69%


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 17







Percent Men Using Oxen vs. Hand
Cultivation


Hand
cultivation
52%


C


Oxen Users
48%


Percent Women Using Oxen vs. Hand
Cultivation


Hand
cultivation
78%


Oxen Users
S22%


In addition to variation in oxen use by camp and gender, there is also variation by test status and adoption
category (Table 10, and Figures 27 & 28). In general, men and women who own or have access to oxen tend to try
improved fallows more than men and women who do not own oxen (68% of all male oxen owners try improved
fallows vs. 57% of male hand cultivators, and 60% of female oxen users try improved fallows vs. 48% of female
hand cultivators). However, more male tester-non expanders tend to own oxen than tester-expanders (6/9 or 67%
of all tester-non expanders own oxen vs. 7/16 or 42% of tester-expanders).

The relationship between oxen use and the adoption of improved fallows could be indirectly caused by the links
between wealth status and testing which were discussed earlier. Since farmers with oxen are usually classified as
wealthy, the specific aspect of wealthinesss" which contributes to increased testing could be oxen ownership.
However, during interviews none of the farmers suggested or implied that improved fallows required oxen in
order to plant them. Moreover, few of the oxen owners actually used their oxen to plant their improved fallows.
In addition, half of all male and female hand cultivators also tried improved fallows, and 78% of all women who
test and expand their improved fallows are hand cultivators. Thus, access to oxen does not appear to be a
constraint to either the testing or the expansion of improved fallows.

Table 10: Cultivation Technique Classified by Adoption Status and Gender

Gender Adoption Status Hand Cultivation Oxen Cultivation
Women NT 34 6
TNE 14 4
TE 18 5

Men NT 9 6
TNE 3 6
TE 9 7

TOTAL 87 34

Figure 27: Percent Men Farmers Cultivating with Oxen or by Hand, by Test Status and Adoption Category


Men Who Cultivate By Hand


Testers
57%


Non Testers
43%


Men Who Cultivate with
Oxen
Non
Testers
32%
Testers
68%


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 18







Male Non Testers, Classified
by Cultivation Method


Oxen
40%


Hand
60%


Male Tester-Expanders, by
Cultivation Method

Oxen ( Han
44% Hand
56%


Male Testers, Classified by
Cultivation Method

Oxen Hand
52% ( 48%


Male Tester-Non Expanders, by
Cultivation Method


Oxen
67%


Hand
33%


Figure 28: Percent Women Farmers Cultivating with Oxen or by Hand, by Test Status and Adoption Category


Women Who Cultivate by
Hand

Testers Non
48% Testers
52%

Women Non-testers, by
Cultivation Method


Oxen
15%


Women Who Cultivate with
Oxen
Non
Testers
Testers 40%
60%
Women Testers, by
Cultivation Method

Oxen Hand
22% W 78%

Women Tester-Non expanders,
by Cultivation Method


Hand
85%


Women Tester-Expanders, by
Cultivation Method

Oxen Hand
22% 78%


Oxen
22%


Hand
78%


The area cultivated by farmers varied by camp, gender, age, house hold status, and access to labor (oxen). The
average total area cultivated in 1997 98 by all farmers in the target areas was 1.9 ha.

Table XX: Average Area cultivated (in ha) by Camp, Gender, and Oxen Ownership
Feni Kalunga Kapita Mzime Men Women Oxen Non-oxen
owners owners
Average Area
cultivated 1.6 1.7 2.1 2.2

The most common agricultural problems mentioned by farmers include low soil fertility, lack of labor (oxen), and
access to fertilizer (specifically money to buy it). Soil erosion, rainfall unpredictability (flooding and drought),
weeds and insects were also mentioned as major crop production problems, although much less often than
fertilizer, labor and soil fertility. Local farming systems are further described in Appendix C.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 19







3.1.3 Food Security Analysis
Few farmers are able to grow all of the maize they need themselves. Seventy three percent of the farmers asked
stated that they did not grow enough maize to support their families and extended families in 1997-98, and 84%
did not believe this year's harvest would meet next year's harvest. Few farmers were selling maize or using it for
piece work on a regular basis. Some maize trading went on soon after harvest, for vegetables and other locally
available food stuffs. The average farmers' maize ran out in December of 1998.

Strategies to get though the hungry season include buying maize with money from the sale of cash crops such as
cotton and tobacco, selling "ganyu" or day labor in exchange for maize, borrowing maize from family members,
selling or trading livestock such as pigs and goats for maize, selling or exchanging vegetables including tomatoes
and cabbage for maize, and planting fast maturing maize in gardens during the dry season to harvest early. Most
people begin harvesting early maize in March, in order to meet their current subsistence needs. Most farmers
stated that they only eat one hot meal a day during the rainy season, usually at night. During the day they eat
fruit and remain in their fields to keep up with weeding and to protect their crops from animals. Many farmers
expressed interest in learning to grow other crops such as cassava, which they could eat during the hungry period
from December to March.

3.1.4 Land Tenure Analysis
Unlike in neighboring Malawi, there does not appear to be any shortage of land in Eastern Province. The average
farm size is 3.14 ha, although the area in cultivation is approximately half of that, or 1.9 ha (roughly estimated
using farmer recall and visual verification), mostly because farmers have neither the labor to cultivate larger
areas, nor the inputs (fertilizer) required to make them productive. Men hold almost twice as much land as
women (Table 11).

Twenty-eight percent of the farmers interviewed had fallow land, which ranged in age from 1 year to over 20
years of fallow. Sixty percent of the farmers had uncleared land they were holding for their children, or which
was unsuitable for agriculture. Ten percent of the farmers interviewed rented or borrowed land at one time or
another, usually rent-free. In some cases farmers borrow land in order to give their maize fields a rest, or they
borrow land which is better for a particular crop, such as maize or cotton. Some farmers actually borrowed land
to cultivate maize, and planted improved fallows on their own land.

Table 11: Average farm size, by Camp & Gender (as estimated by farmers)


Camp Average Farm size
(m2)

Feni (Mshaba) 29,362
Kalunga (Kasauka) 31,534
Kapita (Chivungwe) 32,387
Mzime (Fisi) 35,903

Men 44,064
Women 26,681

Total 31,360


Forty-five percent of all farmers interviewed claimed ownership of a dimba area for gardening. However, not
everyone used them. Fifty percent of the women and 65% of the men interviewed had gardens.

Farmers were also asked if they had access to more land if they needed it, in addition to their fallow land,
uncultivated land and land in cultivation. Sixty-two percent of the farmers believed they could get more land if
they needed it. Twenty-five percent of all men interviewed did not believe they could get more land if they
needed, compared to 44% of all women interviewed.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 20








Women farmers with access to more land were twice as likely to test improved fallows. Women without access to
more land were twice as likely not to test improved fallows. There was no clear difference in adoption due to lack
of additional land access, although women with additional land were more likely to adopt improved fallows than
not to adopt.

In the case of male farmers, men without access to more land were equally likely to test or not to test improved
fallows. However, men with access to land were twice as likely to test improved fallows. Moreover, men without
access to more land were more likely not to adopt improved fallows (40% non-expanders vs. 10% expanders), and
men with access to land were more likely to adopt improved fallows (54% expanders vs. 13% non-expanders).

Figure 29: Access to Additional Land by Gender and Adoption Category

Farmers with Access to More
Land
SNo
YES 38%
62%


Testers
33%


Testers
64%


Non
Testers
67%


Land No
Non
Testers
36%


Testers 0
50%


Women Without Access to More Land, by
Adoption Category


17% 1 NT
66%

Women With Access to More Land,
by Adoption Category

TNE NT
27% 36%

TE
37%
Men Without Access to More Land, by
Adoption Category


Non
Testers
50%


TNE
40%


NT
50%


10%


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 21


Women Without Access to More
Land


Women with Access to More


Men Without Access to More
Land








Men with Access to More Men with Access to More Land, by
Land Adoption Clategory
Non
Testers TNE
33% 13% NT
Testers T3 333%
67%
TE
54%

In Chewa and Ngoni culture, women are given land by either their husband's family, or by their parent or oldest
brother. Many people also receive their land from their grandparents, or, in some cases, from the headman or the
Paramount Chief. Young married women cultivate their husband's family land, which, if they are divorced or
widowed, they could loose. This could be an impediment to younger married women in terms of their motivation
to test improved fallows. In the case of the 28 widows interviewed, seven stayed with their in-laws after their
husbands passed away, whereas 17 returned to their parents land.

3.1.5 Fuel and Firewood Analysis
Forty-three percent of the farmers described their firewood source as "close", whereas 50% described it as "far".
Seventeen percent of the farmers reported purchasing their firewood on occasion, especially farmers in Kapita
and Kalunga Camps. The average amount of time people spend collecting firewood is one hour per week.

The exploitation of "communal" forest land has begun to be regulated to some extent by Paramount Chiefs in the
two areas, who have forbidden farmers from cutting new trees for firewood. Farmers are required to locate
firewood which has fallen naturally, or which has been trimmed off of wood used for construction. Many farmers
find firewood in their fallow or uncultivated fields. Although the collection of firewood has traditionally been an
activity for women and children, as firewood becomes more difficult to locate and more commercialized (in areas
where it is sold), men are using ox carts to locate, cut and transport firewood. One ox cart of firewood (about 1
m3) usually lasts about two months.

3.1.6 Description of Soil Fertility Management Practices
Almost all of the farmers interviewed (86%) described their soil as "tired." The main soil fertility techniques used
by farmers include "galouza" (plowing crop residues into the field in ridges), crop rotations (92%), the use of
chemical fertilizers (88%), the creation of soil conservation structures, and green manures. Thirty-five percent of
the farmers used manure at some time in their fields.

Sources of Cash for Fertilizer Only 12% of the farmers interviewed had never used chemical fertilizers before,
(frequency counts) and 14/15 of them were women. The main reasons given by these farmers for not
1. Trading animals (17) using chemical fertilizers included the cost/lack of money to buy it, use of other
2. Cotton sales (13) soil fertility techniques, lack of need, and the belief that fertilizer "kills the soil."
3. Family members (10) The main crop to which farmers apply chemical fertilizer is local and hybrid maize.
3. eFamilymembers (71) Lesser crops include tobacco, cotton, and vegetables (especially cabbage, tomatoes
4. Vegetable sales (7)
5. Maize sales (5) and rape).
6. Groundnut sales (4)
7. Piecework (3) Thirty percent of all farmers interviewed stopped using fertilizer in the early
7. Pece of mc neos 1990's, and other farmers decreased fertilizer use at that time. When farmers
Se mse es decreased or stopped using fertilizer, they altered their crop production patterns in
many ways, including decreasing the size of their maize fields, decreasing the
amount of land in cultivation, decreasing the maize planting density, increasing crop rotations, dropping hybrid
maize production, and cultivating other cash crops such as cotton and tobacco.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 22







Forty-nine (40%) farmers have used small bags of fertilizer in the past, usually for market garden production. In
most cases farmers purchase small (less than 50 kg) bags of fertilizer because they can't afford a large bag. Small
bags of fertilizer are applied to rape, tomatoes, onions, cabbage and maize.

Seventy-four (61%) farmers were aware of opportunities to barter either crops, goods or labor for fertilizer.
However, many felt that the terms of exchange were not beneficial, and they generally preferred to sell their
goods and services for cash than to trade them for fertilizer.


Table 12:


Fertilizer Use, by Camp & Gender


Camp & Ever Used Used Fertilizer 1997/98 Total KG used
Gender Chemical Fertilizer last year



Yes No Yes No

Feni 28 1 21 8 2589
Women 19 1 13 7
Men 9 0 8 1


Kalunga 29 1 23 7 3029
Women 19 1 14 6
Men 10 0 9 1


Kapita 29 1 24 6 5178 (due to
Women 20 1 15 6 tobacco
Men 9 0 9 0 production)


Mzime 20 12 1 31 10 (!)
Women 9 11 1 19
Men 11 1 0 12


Men 39 1 26 14 224
Women 67 14 43 38 117


TOTAL 106 15 69 52 158


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 23







Figure 30: Percent Men & Women Who Have Ever Used Chemical Fertilizers, And The Percent Who
Used Chemical Fertilizers During The Last Planting Season


Men Who Have Used
Fertilizer


Women Who Have Used
Fertilizer
No 17%.


Yes
83%


Yes
97%


Men Who Used Fertilizer
1997/98
No
35%
Yes
65%


Percent All Farmers
Who Have Used Fertilizer


No
12%,


Women Who Used
Fertilizer, 1997/98


No
47%


Yes
53%


Percent All Farmers Who
Used Fertilizer 1997/98


No
43%


Yes
88%


Yes
57%


Ninety four farmers (78% of the farmers interviewed) said they would not buy fertilizer if the price doubled.
However, 50 farmers (41%) said they could buy fertilizer if the price was cut in half. Forty farmers (33%) could
not afford fertilizer, even if the price was reduced 50%. Farmers' opinions of credit were split. Sixty-four farmers
(53%) said they would accept credit for fertilizer if it was offered, whereas 53 (44%) said they would not accept
credit under any circumstances. Four farmers said they might accept credit to purchase fertilizer, depending on
the terms offered.

Eighty-five percent of all women interviewed and 63% of all men said they would not be able to afford to
purchase fertilizer and/or would not want to purchase fertilizer if the price doubled. However, 41% of the 70
women questioned compared to 20% of the 30 men questioned would not be able to afford fertilizer, even if the
price was cut in half. This indicates that fertilizer subsidies are more likely to benefit male-headed households
rather than female-headed households, and men rather than women within male-headed households.

Women were equally split on the issue of credit. Only 39 (50%) of the women interviewed indicated that they
would accept credit for fertilizer, even if it was offered. Another 39 said they would not accept credit for fertilizer.
Women from female-headed households were equally split, with 25 women saying they would accept credit, and
23 women refusing it. In contrast, 25 (63%) of the men interviewed said they would accept credit for fertilizer if it
was available.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 24







Table XX: Farmers opinions on credit and the price of fertilizer3
NT TE TNE
Response to question FHH F MHH MHH FHH F MHH MHH FHH F MHH MHH
Able to purchase fertilizer 4 4 7 1 1 6 0 2 2
if price doubled
Not able to purchase 21 13 6 8 7 16 15 5 3
fertilizer if price doubled
Able to purchase fertilizer 8 5 8 3 4 15 1 4 2
if price was cut in half
Not able to purchase 10 8 0 6 4 5 5 2 1
fertilizer if price was cut
in half
Willing to accept credit 9 7 10 9 2 12 7 5 3
for fertilizer
Not willing to accept 16 8 3 0 6 9 7 2 2
credit for fertilizer


In terms of the wealth and commitment to soil fertility improvement of testers vs. non-testers, 12 out of the total
66 testers felt they could afford fertilizer if the price doubled (18%), whereas 54 tester farmers could not afford
more expensive fertilizer (82%). Fifteen non-testers could afford fertilizer if the price doubled (27% of all non-
testers), compared to 40 non-testers who can not (73%). This would indicate that non-testers may be more
committed to the use of fertilizer, or have more secure access to fertilizer, either through increased wealth or
through other avenues (such as children or pensions).

3.1.7 Access to Knowledge
Work with Camp Officers
Most (85%) of the farmers interviewed worked with the camp officer in some capacity, and most (64%) belonged
to clubs. Sixteen percent of the women interviewed do not work with their local camp officer, compared to 13%
of the men interviewed. All of the women who do not work with camp officers are non-testers (33% of the total
number of non-testers).

Club Membership
The types of clubs found locally include agriculture clubs set up by Camp Officers, women's clubs set up by local
NGOs and churches including the Lutheran World Federation (LWF), soil conservation clubs set up with the
assistance of SCAFE, and area growers associations (cotton, tobacco, etc.). Both men and women Tester-
Expanders are commonly members of clubs. Many clubs encourage the testing of new agricultural technologies,
and provide organized training, seeds and encouragement to their members. Membership in a club appears to be
significantly correlated to both the decision to test, and to adopt improved fallows.


Figure 31: Club Membership


Club Membership

No
36% ( ,
36% Yes
64%


Figure 32: Work with Camp Officers

Work with CAMP OFFICER


No
15% .


Yes
85%


3 Answers to the question "able to buy fertilizer if price drops 50%" do not add up to 121 because the question
was added to the questionnaire after the first village was surveyed.

UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 25







Figure 33: Club Membership by Gender and Adoption Category


Women Non Testers by
Club Membership


Women Tester-Expanders by
Club Membership


Women Tester-Non Expanders, bi
Club Membership


Yes No
45% 55%
55%


No
M17%


Yes
53%


Male Non Testers by
Club Membership
No
Yes 40%
60%


Yes
83%
Male Tester-Expanders, by
Club Membership
No
7%



O
Yes
93%


Male Tester-Non Expanders by
Club Membership

No
25%

Yes
75%


Knowledge of Improved Fallow Species
In the four ICRAF target villages, all of the farmers were aware of the improved fallow technology. Moreover,
only seven of the 121 farmers interviewed could not name or visually identify at least one improved fallow
species. Sesbania sesban was by far the most recognized of the improved fallow species (by 112, or 93% of all
farmers interviewed), followed by Tephrosia vogelii (97 farmers; 80%), Cajanus cajan (60 farmers; 50%), Leucaena
leucocephala (23 farmers; 19%), Gliricidia sepium (17 farmers; 14%), Faidherbia albida (3 farmers; 2%), and
Sesbania macrantha (2 farmers; 2%). The seven farmers who were unable to name any improved fallow species
were relatively equally distributed among camps, and by gender.

Interestingly, although many farmers were able to identify improved fallow species, not all of them were aware
that certain species could be direct seeded. Thirty percent of the women interviewed and 32% of the men were
not aware that certain improved fallow species could be direct seeded and do not require nurseries. Of the 36
farmers who were not aware that some improved fallow species could be direct seeded, 44% were non-testers,
39% were tester-expanders, and 17% were tester-non expanders.

Table XX: Knowledge of Direct Seeding on Improved Fallow Species, Dissagregated by Gender, Tester Status
and Camp
Lack Knowledge NT TE TNE T Feni Kalunga Kapita Mzime
Women 24 13 5 5 1 6 5 6 7
Men 12 3 8 1 0 5 3 3 1
Total 36 16 14 5 1 11 8 9 8
Aware of Direct Seeding ____
Women 57 27 18 10 2 14 15 15 13
Men 27 12 8 7 1 4 7 6 11
Total 85 39 26 17 3 18 22 21 24

All farmers who tested improved fallows claimed they knew how to plant improved fallows, and all non-testers
said they did not know how to plant improved fallows, even if they had participated in formal training programs.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 26


No
47%








This is explained by farmers' perceptions that knowledge comes with practical hands-on experience, not
theoretical exposure alone.

Channels of Knowledge about Improved Fallows4
The majority of farmers who practice improved fallows in the target areas learned how to plant them from their
camp officers (49 farmers, or 74% of all testers). Six farmers said they learned directly from ICRAF, seven learned
from other farmers, and five learned from club members. Two farmers learned from their spouse or other close
relative, and one learned about improved fallows during a village meeting. There is some indication that women
are more likely to learn about improved fallows from club members, local farmers and family members than men,
although there is not a large enough sample of men who tested improved fallows to be sure. Moreover, 95% of
the men who tested improved fallows and 75% of the women learned how to plant improved fallows from their
camp officers. This data may indicate that informal extension mechanisms (word of mouth from club members,
friends and family) are more effective in reaching women than they are in reaching men, who seem to rely more
on formal extension mechanisms including contact with camp officers and research teams.

Table XX: Channels of Knowledge about Improved Fallows, Dissagregated by Gender


Female


- F -e l 5


Male


Club

5


0


Farmer

6
1


Camp
Officer
30


Figure XX: Percentage Use of Different Channels of
Knowledge about Improved Fallows by Women

Friends ICRAF
4% 4%Relative or
fC ClUbSpouse
Camp 11% 4%
Officer Farmer
13%


Friends

2
1


Relative or ICRAF
Spouse
2 2
0 4


Village
Meeting
0
1


Figure XX: Percentage Use of Different Channels of
Knowledge about Improved Fallows by Men


s ICRAVillage
Friends I Meeting
4% 15% 4%

Farmer
4%
ffi 4%
73%


4 Total number of responses was 66; some farmers learned about improved fallows from more than 1 source

UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 27


I-


1 19


Male







3.1.8 Income Generating Opportunities


T~n~nip (rpnipr~tin Activities Listed by Farmers


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 28


... Baking and selling buns or fritters A total of 25 different income generating activities were
. Performing and s selling buns or fritters mentioned by farmers in the four target villages. Farmers

3. Selling animals (cattle, pigs, chickens, goats) generally divided their activities into "small money"
4. Selling crops such as cotton, maize, groundnuts, Irish activities, "medium-sized money" activities and "big
potatoes, sweet potatoes, beans, tobacco, soybeans, money" activities. Small money activities such as selling
sunflower seeds, bananas, sugar cane or vegetables buns or fritters, sewing, selling sugar cane or bananas,
(mostly rape, cabbage, tomatoes and onions) buying and reselling oil and other items from town, and
5. Pressing sunflower seeds into oil and selling the oil piece work pay for grinding maize and purchasing soap
6. Brewing beer (when there is enough maize) and salt. "Medium sized" money activities such as
7. Exchanging maize for kapenta, and selling kapenta gardening, brewing beer, selling goats, chickens or pigs, or
8. Asking for money from children or spouses who selling crops such as sweet potatoes, soybeans, sunflower
work in town and groundnuts pay for school fees and medical expenses.
9. Buying oil, paraffin (kerosene), sugar, cigarettes, "Bi money" activities such as producing cotton or tobacco
soap, or sweets in town and selling them in the m a
village allow farmers to purchase luxury items such as clothes,
10. Sewing and knitting blankets, and shoes, to invest in livestock, and to purchase
11. Making pots fertilizer for the following year.
12. Regular employment such as teachers, health
workers or farm laborers at large commercial farms In order to acquire maize, farmers often barter either
13. Traditional healer commodities, such as vegetables, salt, meat or fish, or
14. Temporary work repairing feeder roads labor. Labor which is commonly bartered for maize
15. Selling grass for thatching includes piece work to build houses, repair roves, cut
16. Rent homes in town (if retired to village) thatch, build granaries, or plow, weed or harvest fields.
17. Pensions
18. Making bricks For example, in 1998 one farmer used a goat to pay school
19. Building homes fees and purchase uniforms, used gardening income to
20. Rent oxen for plowing
21. Selling firewood purchase daily household needs, sold cotton to buy
22. Buying items in the village to trade in Malawi, fertilizer for maize, and performed piece work in exchange
purchasing dried fish in Malawi and selling it in for maize. She also sold groundnuts to purchase items
Chipata or exchanging it in the village for maize such as oil, soap and salt to sell locally. Another farmer
23. Fixing bicycles used income from cotton to purchase kapenta, beans, soap
24. Repairing shoes and sugar to exchange locally for maize. One farmer
25. Selling milk in town actually sold an entire cow to acquire enough maize for his
family in 1998.

Few farmers in the target areas had non-farm sources of income. It was more common for farmers to have
children or family members in town who sporadically assisted with cash and goods, than to have household
members with off-farm employment.

3.1.9 Recommendations of Farmers Regarding Soil Fertility
Quotable Quotes
Not everyone had recommendations regarding soil fertility techniques, or
They open our minds, we are suggestions to facilitate the improvement of soil fertility in their area.
sleeping. Keep up the good work" However, most of the suggestions revolved around teaching. In general,
"It is good now, they bring seeds, people would like to see more training activities, farmer seminars and
they are helping; they bring others farmer-to-farmer visits. The subjects farmers mentioned for training
to see what we are doing so they included:
start doing different ways to improve their soil (not just trees and fertilizer); they
"They teach us well but we don't need more soil fertility options and to learn how to analyze the costs
follow their advice because of and benefits of different options;
drinking; we need to follow it"
how to make more money (for example, selling honey, milk or trees for
"Teach people with your hands, not planks) so they can afford fertilizer, and increase their access to
your mouth" fertilizer;







* how to use their land better;
* how to study the market;
* how to make compost;
* different ways to increase crop yields (to harvest more);
* how to plant cassava and other drought survival strategies and food security strategies;
* how to plant and market bananas and fruit trees;
* how to plant blue gum trees (Eucalyptus) to build houses;
* how to read and write (especially women);
* how to use manure;

Farmers also requested that camp officers and researchers introduce more tree species including improved fruit
trees, inform people how to get improved fallow seeds (who to contact) and show more people about improved
fallows. Farmers encouraged their camp officers to continue to distribute seeds after drought and disease
outbreaks; visit farmers more often and help them solve problems in the field. Of course, there were a few (5)
farmers who requested credit for fertilizer, or free fertilizer.

In general, farmers were pleased with the work of the camp officers in the four target areas. More than 50% of the
farmers said they are satisfied ("nakuta") with the work of their camp officers, and had no suggestions for
improvement. Farmers mentioned the assistance of the camp officers in distributing seed like Pool 16, and
teaching them about improved fallows, contour ridges and how to use manure as specific examples of activities
they appreciated. They encouraged their camp officers not to become discouraged, and to continue with their
efforts. Farmers consistently emphasized the benefits of farmer-to-farmer visits and farmer-to-farmer training as
the most effective extension approaches. Farmers in Mzime specifically requested that they be given another
camp officer to replace their former officer, who was transferred.

3.2 The Testing of Improved Fallows
A total of 152 improved fallows on 7 ha were planted by the 66 farmer testers interviewed, for an average of 2.3
improved fallows per tester, of 200m2 each. Interestingly, 40% of the farmers had never planted any kind of tree
before planting their improved fallows, including 44% of the women interviewed and 32% of the men.

Maize was overwhelmingly the main crop following improved fallows (in 44 cases). Moreover, most farmers
stated that they would have planted maize in their improved fallow field if they had not planted an improved
fallow. Other alternatives include groundnuts, sunflower, beans, soybeans, sweet potatoes and traditional grass
fallows.

3.2.1 To Test Improved Fallows or Not to Test Improved Fallows
According to the first decision tree, if a farmer is aware of the improved fallow program, if the farmer has "tired
soil" (nthaka yosira), and if the farmer doesn't have fallow land ready to come out of fallow, the farmer will be
motivated to try improved fallows. In addition, if the farmer does have land ready to take out of fallow but that
land would not produce enough maize to last all year, a farmer would still be motivated to try improved fallows.

If a farmer does not have tired soils, and can not afford mineral fertilizer, the farmer would also be motivated to
try improved fallows. However, if the farmer can afford mineral fertilizer but does not produce enough maize to
last all year, or if the farmer thinks planting an improved fallow will bring "respect", the farmer will be motivated
to try improved fallows.

The first decision tree attempts to map the motivation criteria -- the factors which generate interest in testing the
technology. Unfortunately, this tree resulted in a very high error rate. Twenty-one people who planted improved
fallows shouldn't have been motivated to plant them according to the criteria outlined in the decision tree,
because they had land in fallow which, if used, would have produced enough maize for them to last all year.
Many farmers were not willing to use the land they had in fallow, either because they didn't have the labor to
clear and prepare it, or they wanted to save it for their children. However, these types of questions were not


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 29







included in the questionnaire. As a result of these errors, the tree was modified (see Figure XX) to more
accurately reflect the motivation criteria expressed by farmers themselves during the survey -- namely, poor soil
fertility, the price of fertilizer and visual verification of the benefits of the technology.

Figure 34: Decision Tree (Motivations to plant improved fallows)-- n=121; FHH = 49; MHH = 725

(Plant improved fallow this year; don't)

trees to improve soil fertility?> improved fallow
yes


(one person couldn't answer, she just moved there last year)

yes, n=104 no, n=16


of fallow now?>


yes, n=76
yes, n=76 Yes,fertilizer



tallow out ot tallow, would
your maize last all year?>

yes, n=29



Don't plant an
improved fallow
this year

3 MNT
7 M TE (error)
2 M TNE (error)
3 FHH NT
2 F in MHH NT
5 FHH TE (error)
I F in MHH TE (error)
2 FHH TNE (error)
4 F in MHH TNE (error)
21 errors (testers predicted as
non-testers)


no, n=47


and/or you have no money for it?>


No,fertilizer is not
expensive or it is
expensive but continue to
use it n=12


(May to May)? can you afford enough
fertilizer so that your maize lasts all
year? Are you experiencing hunger?>


N no


will bring you respect?>





Don't plant an
improved fallow
this year

1 FHH NT


Plant an improved fallow this
year unless...

n=91

5 MHH = Male headed household; F in MHH = female in male-headed household; FHH = female headed-
household; M = male; NT = non-tester; TE = tester-expander, and TNE = tester, non-expander


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 30


Yes, maize doesn't
Ints rnn't afford


ferilizer;
Experienced
hunger; n=3

yes, n=8







Figure 35: Decision to plant this year unless ..... (Constraints to planting improved fallows) n=91


yes, n=63 no, n=28


while to spend time planting trees during the
busy planting season (the end of November
through the second week of January)? Do you
have time to plant an IF, or too much other farm
wnrk?>


Soil is not no, n=14
yes, bad but can
n=65 find time to
v vlant: n=8 Don
to plant trees?>
4 FH
yes, 3 M
n=59
yes, n=12 Piece w


seedlings, or access to
them?>


Syes, n=6


no, n=2
9


yes,
n=24
4


't plant an improved
w this year

HNT, 6 F in MHH NT
NT. 1 M TNE (error)


fallow and wait two years to see the
benefits?>


SNo, want something
faster: n=4

Don't plant an improved
fallow this year

2 FHH NT
1 F in MHH NT
1 MNT


u have help from family, or
ork?>

no, n=2

Don't plant an improved 1 FHH NT
fallow this year 1 FHH T (error)


land for a small fallow this year
improved fallow
plot?> n=6


yes, n=63


' IDon't plant an improved 1 FHH NT, 2 F in MHH NT, 1 FHH TE
fallow this year (error), 1 FHH TNE (error), 1 M NT


adopter, and put off by it?>
no, n=63
yes, n=3
--

N no, n=60
yes, n=21 no, n=60


yes, n=24 no, n=39


Don't plant an
improved fallow
this year


Error rate = 47%


Borrow: 1 FHH NT, I M TE (error), Plant an improved
1 F in MHH TE (error). Animals: 2 fallow this year
FHH NT, 2 F in MHH NT, 5 FHH
TE (error), 4 FHH TNE (error), 1 F in
MHH TNE (error), 2 M NT, 3 M TE
terror) 7 M TNFE (trror)


2 FHH T, 1 F in MHH T, 4
FHH TE, 6 F in MHH TE, 2
FHH TNE, 5 M TE, 1 M T, 3
M TNE, 4 M NT (error), 4 F
in MHH NT (error), 7 FHH
NT (error)


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 31







The second decision tree maps the constraints which prevent farmers from testing and adopting improved
fallows. These constraints include:
* previous visual verification of the benefits of the technology (28 out of 91 farmers had never seen benefits of
the technology either before they tried it, or before the last planting season, depending on their testing status);
* willingness to wait two years to see the benefits-- a constraint for two women in a FHH, one woman in a
MHH and one man;
* the degree to which soil fertility is degraded to the point it is worth finding time to plant an improved fallow -
a constraint for four women in FHH, six women in MHH, and 3 men, as well as an erroneous constraint for
one man who tested improved fallows despite the fact that he felt his soil was not seriously degraded;
* the capacity (strength and health) of a farmer to plant trees, or access to family labor to plant trees -- a
constraint for one woman in a FHH, and erroneously classified as a constraint for a woman tester;
* access to seedlings -- a constraint for one man and one woman in a MHH
* access to enough land -- a constraint for one woman in a FHH, two women in MHHs, one man, and two
erroneously classified women testers in FHHs
* jealousy -- not mentioned as a constraint by anyone
* renting or borrowing of land -- mentioned as a constraint by one woman in a FHH and one man, and
erroneously classified as a constraint for one woman tester in a MHH
* fear of animals -- mentioned as a constraint by 6 NT (two women in FHH, two women in MHH and two
men), and erroneously classified as a constraint by 15 testers.

Obviously, this decision tree was also fraught with errors. Seventeen people who did plant trees shouldn't have
planted trees, and 15 people who didn't plant trees should have planted trees. What went wrong? Basically, most
of the questions were right, but some of them were in the wrong order. Moreover, some of the questions simply
didn't identify constraints recognized by the farmers themselves (or which they were willing to accept), such as
the jealousy question. Some farmers who borrowed land were willing to plant improved fallows on their old
land, and wait two years for those fallows to improve their soil while they used someone else's land. They
accounted for two "Do not plant" errors. In addition, 15 farmers who tested improved fallows did so even
though they were worried about animals destroying their fallow fields. They accounted for most of the errors in
the "Do not plant" category. Basically, none of the farmers interviewed mentioned presence of fallow land,
availability of food, or respect as motivations, and few farmers mentioned the ability to find time, jealousy,
renting or borrowing land or animals as constraints to testing. Thus, this tree was also modified to try to better
capture farmer identified constraints (see Figure XX).


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 32








Figure XX: Revised Decision Tree Motivations n=121; FHH = 49; MHH = 72


(Plant improved fallow this year; don't)

trees to improve soil fertility?> improved fallow
yes



yes, n=104 \ no, n=17


bag of fertilizer?> n=117


yes, n= 13 , fallows in other people's fields?>




^ no, n=62
yes, n=55 no,
Plant an improved
because you are able --- fallow unless .....


to arfora rertnzer, ao
you think you don't
need to plant an
improved fallow?>

yes, n=10

Don't plant an 3 F
improved fallow Ml


no,
n=45


no, n= 4

yes, n=l
improved fallows, just to see if
they will improve your soil?>


no, n=3


HH NT, 3 F in MHH NT, 3
NT. 1 M TNE (error)


Don't plant an
improved fallow

2 FHH NT, 1 M NT


UFIUSAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 33


*'e ''


J







Figure XX: Revised Decision Tree Constraints n= 108


benefits of improved fallows in your fields?>
no = 13


fallow in December or January?>


yes, n=88 no =7


plant an improved fallow?>


yes, n=73


seedlings, or access to them?>


yes, n=86


't plant improved fallows; try
Lal manure, green manure or
rotations


5 NT FHH (4 mature), 5 NT F in MHH (1 mature), 2
NT M (1 mature), 1 TNE FHH (error)

ware you can direct-seed Tephrosia, and
iaize with the trees?>


es, n=4 no=
no = 15
fields from family or piece work?> fallow


3


t plant an improved
v this year


2 NT FHH, 1 NT F in MHH


yes, n=13

no = 0
no =0


no = 6


Don't plant an improved
fallow this year


plant a small improved fallow plot?>


yes, n=80 =6


1 NT F in MHH, 1 NT FHH
(mature), 1 M TNE (error), 2 TNE
FHH (error), I TE M (mature; error)


Plant an improved
fallow this year

14 FHH TE, 8 F in MHH TE, 16 M
TE (all of them!), 8 FHH TNE, 6 F in
MHH TNE, 7 M TNE.
22 errors = 8 NT FHH, 6 NT F in
MHH, 8 NT M (all said either didn't
see benefits or "didn't think about it")


Error Rate = 30/121, 25%


Don't plant an improved
fallow this year


1 NT FHH, 2 NT F in MHH, 1 NT M, I TE
FHH (error). 1 TNE FHH (error)


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 34


yes, n=95


-----








In the revised decision tree, the main factors which motivate farmers to try improved fallows include tired soil,
inability to afford adequate quantities of chemical fertilizer, visual verification of the efficacy of the technology,
and an interest in testing the technology, just to see if it works. Although this tree resulted in fewer errors, it
failed to reflect the main reason why most non-testers said they didn't plant improved fallows mainly, lack of
benefits. Only three farmers were stopped at that question, when in reality many more farmers (23) listed it as
one of the main reasons they didn't plant improved fallows (see Table XX). Moreover, many farmers who did test
said the main reason they tested was because their soil was bad -- nothing more, nothing less. Thus, the
motivation decision tree revised again and simplified, looks like this:

Figure XX: Revised Decision Tree #3 -- Motivations

(Plant improved fallow this year; don't)


trees to improve soil fertility?>--
yes = 121

fallows in other people's fields?>


yes = 82


Plant an improved
fallow unless .....


Don't plant an
improved fallow


o = 39

tired (yoguga, yosira)?>


yes = 35


=4


bag of fertilize
yes = 17


to afford fertilizer, do
you think you don't
need to plant an
improved fallow?>

yes 1


Don't plant an improved
fallow this year


no =


e to afford at least one
er?> n=117


imprc


\ = they\
no=18
yes =


16 Plant an improved
fallow unles .....


you interested in trying
ved fallows, just to see if
vill improve your soil?>


-1


no=3


Don't plant an improved
fallow this year


Following the logic of this decision tree, if you have seen the benefits (pindu) of the technology, you will be
motivated to try improved fallows (82 farmers). This implies that the most effective way to motivate farmers to try
improved fallows is by using extension techniques which involve demonstrations and farmer-to-farmer visits. If you have
not seen the benefits of the technology but you have tired soil and cannot afford adequate quantities of fertilizer,
you will also be motivated to try improved fallows (18 farmers). This implies that adoption of improved fallows will be
greater in areas with low soil fertility, and in areas where farmers are unable to afford or access adequate quantities of mineral
fertilizer. If you have not seen the benefits of improved fallows and do not have tired soil, you will not be


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 35






motivated to try improved fallows (3 farmers), unless you are interested in testing the technology, just to see if it
will work (1 farmer).

One point to make here is that inside the question "Because you are able to afford fertilizer, do you think you
don't need to plant an improved fallow?" there is an additional question lurking -- if a farmer can afford enough
fertilizer, why would he or she want to test improved fallows? Although it is not apparent in this decision tree,
the reasons farmers gave for testing improved fallows even when they could afford fertilizer was to see if
improved fallows would work, to save money otherwise spent on fertilizer, and to reduce their risk in years when
they are not able to afford fertilizer. These questions would need to be added to future questionnaires, to more
accurately predict and reflect the decision making process.

As mentioned before, the main motivation criteria for improved fallows include having tired soil, the inability to
afford chemical fertilizer and visual confirmation of the technology's efficacy. Interestingly, 23 (out of 66) farmers
tested improved fallows without having seen their benefits. Of those 23 testers, 14 were men and nine were
women. It would appear that men are more willing to test the technology "sight unseen" than women, as 14/40
or 35% of the total number of men interviewed, and 14/25 or 56% of all men testers, tried the technology without
having seen the benefits of it before hand, compared to 11% of all women (9/81), or 22% (9/41) of all women
testers. This data implies that farmer-to-farmer visits are a particularly effective way of encouraging women to test
improved fallows. Moreover, it implies that men are more likely to be "early adapters" of a technology when it is
first introduced into an area, before visual verification is possible. One potential way to encourage more women
farmers to adopt early may be to find men who are willing to try an improved fallow, and then work as closely as
possible with their wives as well, or to promote improved fallows to groups of women. The number of women in
MHH and FHH who tried improved fallows without first seeing the benefits was roughly the same (see Table
XX).

Table XX: Importance of the "benefits" motivation criteria to testing, by HH status (n-121)
Test HH Status Saw benefits of improved fallows Did not see benefits of improved
Status before testing, or before the last fallows before testing, or before last
planting season (for non-testers) planting season (for non-testers)
NT FHH 15 7
F in MHH 14 4
MHH 10 5
TE FHH 6 3
F inMHH 6 2
MHH 12 10
TNE FHH 9 3
Fin MHH 5 1
MHH 5 4
TOTAL 82 39

3.2.2 Why are farmers trying or not trying the ICRAF/MAFF improved fallow trials? What are the constraints
farmers face which prevent them from testing the technologies? What factors facilitate testing? What are
the characteristics of testers and non-testers? Who's testing, who's not testing, and why?

Why farmers try improved fallows
The main reason given by farmers for trying improved fallows was because their soil is bad (27 farmers, or 41% of
all testers). Other reasons include:
the high price of fertilizer (mentioned by 24 farmers, or 36% of all testers)
visual verification of the technology seeing the benefits (mentioned by 19 farmers, or 29% of all testers)
because they heard about improved fallows and wanted to test them to see if what they heard was true (18
farmers, or 27% of all testers)
to produce more maize/end hunger (mentioned by 14 farmers, or 21% of all testers)


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 36







* because it required no cash to try it (mentioned by 4 farmers, or 6% of all testers)
* and because their friends or club members encouraged them to try it (mentioned by 3 farmers, or 5% of all
testers)

What constrains farmers from trying improved fallows
The main constraint to testing was lack of motivation. Eighteen non-testers said they didn't see the benefits of
improved fallows (in many cases they meant "profits"-- increased incomes -- as well as benefits such as increased
maize), and six said "they just didn't think about it" or consider it as an activity. Other constraints include:
* lack of land, or preference to use all available land for other more profitable activities, such as producing
ground nuts, which don't require fertilizer (mentioned in 11 cases, by 20% of all non-testers)
* benefits of other soil fertility options such as fertilizer and manure over improved fallows (mentioned by nine
farmers, or 16% of all non-testers)
* lack of time (mentioned by three farmers who were taking care of sick people, had full time employment or
were attending funerals out of town) and the amount of work required to plant and maintain improved
fallows (mentioned by 2 farmers)
* lack of strength (mentioned by three women from female headed, mature households) and inability to wait
two years to get the benefits (mentioned by three non-testers from mature households)
* incorrect information regarding improved fallows -- three farmers thought you had to wait three years to get
benefits, they didn't know about intercropping trees and maize, and one woman was told she would die if she
planted an improved fallow (??)
* three farmers said that once they saw the benefits of improved fallows and were ready to plant them, they
didn't have access to seeds or a teacher to encourage them
* two farmers said they were just too lazy to plant an improved fallow
* two farmers were new to the area (one just married and one retired) and they didn't try improved fallows
because they were just getting settled, but they are thinking of trying them in the future
* two women farmers said their husbands discouraged them from planting improved fallows, and since their
husbands control the land, they had no recourse

Characteristics of testers and non-testers
Testers tend to be middle aged (from 30 45 years old), wealthy, active club members, work closely with their
camp officers, have access to animal traction, cultivate larger land areas, and have larger households (largely due
to their age bracket). Women testers tend to be unmarried (either single, widowed or divorced) and in FHH.
Polygamous males were split equally among testers and non-testers. Non-testers tend to be very old or very
young, poor, lack access to animal traction, cultivate smaller land areas, and have smaller households (less access
to labor).

CASE STUDY: NON-TESTER Ruth Mwale, Kapita
characteristics
factors which facilitate
constraints

CASE STUDY: NON-TESTER Dominic Banda, Mzime
Characteristics
factors which facilitate
constraints

3.3. To Expand Improved Fallows or Not to Expand (Abandon) Improved Fallows
If a farmer is motivated to plant an improved fallow and is able to overcome any constraints to planting an
improved fallow one year, he or she will continue to plant improved fallows unless factors which influence
motivation or constraints change. For example, changes in farmer access to fertilizer could change the motivation
required to continue planting improved fallows. The condition of the soil could also change if, for example, a


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 37







farmer moves to a new village with better soil. In addition, if constraints which were overcome in the past are not
overcome in the current year, the farmer may also decide not to plant another improved fallow at the current
time. Poor health, lack of access to seeds, or changes in land ownership or access could constrain a farmer from
planting another improved fallow. Finally, if the farmer did not see any benefits of the improved fallow and has
not yet seen the benefits of improved fallows on other people's fields, the farmer could become discouraged and
fail to plant another improved fallow.

In the case of the farmers interviewed, 36 farmers who tested improved fallows received benefits from their first
improved fallow, while 21 farmers' trees died, 6 never cut their improved fallow (despite it's maturity), and 3
received no benefits from their improved fallows. Of the 36 farmers who benefited from their first improved
fallow, 27 are tester-expanders, and nine are tester-non expanders.

Problems with improved fallows, After initial testing, five farmers claimed they no longer had a reason
mentioned by farmers in the (motivation) to plant improved fallows. Two farmers (M TNE) now get
survey fertilizer from alternate sources (children, cotton production), and feel fertilizer
* Termites (26; 39%) and manure are faster soil fertility options than improved fallows. Moreover,
* Fire (17; 26%) both farmers would rather use their land to plant cotton than improved fallows.
* Beetles (17; 26%) Another farmer (M TNE) said he can now exchange his animals for maize, and
* Drought (17; 26%) feels his soil does not require any soil amendment. He has time but no interest
* Cows (14; 21) to plant another improved fallow, even though he realized benefits from the
* Goat (5; 8%) first one. Two women (TNE in MHH) also lacked motivation to plant an
* Weeds (2; 3%) additional improved fallow. One said she can get money to buy maize from
renting a house in town, and that crop rotations and fertilizer are faster soil fertility options. Basically, three of
these farmers did not see any benefits, and three preferred other soil fertility methods.

Eight other farmers had reasons to plant additional improved fallows but were constrained by various factors
including poor health (1 F TNE in MHH, 1 M TNE), lack of land (1 FHH TNE), lack of seed (2 FHH TNE and 1 M
TNE) and repeated fires (1 F TE). Fifty-three farmers (38 TE and 15 TNE) felt they had the motivation and lacked
constraints to planting additional improved fallows. Of the TNEs in this group, five had no problems with their
improved fallows, and five others that had problems had seen the benefits of the technology on other people's
fields. All felt they could afford to plant another improved fallow -- they had the time, land and were willing to
wait two years to see the benefits. Basically, they plan to try improved fallows again in the future.

Table XX: Problems cited by farmers as having affected establishment and growth of Ss, Tv and CC in
improved fallows during the first 12 months after establishment, from on-farm trials (ICRAF data)6


Percent of farmers having the species who
Problem mentioned the problem
Ss Tv Cc
Drought 68 80 72
Beetles 80 0 1
Browsing 16 36 78
Termites 48 32 50
Poor 0 20 33
germination
Other 28 8 12
No. of cases 25 25 18


Despite the fact that beetles were mentioned as a problem by 80% of the Ss farmers in 1996/97, beetles do not
appear to cause considerable long-term damage, as the plants are often able to recover from beetle damage, which
may actually lead to increased leaf production (Franzel et al, 1997).


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 38


6 From Franzel et. al., 1997







3.3.1 Of those farmers who have tested the agroforestry technologies, who's expanding the technology to new
fields, and who's not expanding (i.e. adopting)? For those farmers who expand, why did they decide to
expand? What are the factors which facilitate expansion? For those who have not expanded, why haven't
they expanded, and what are the constraints they face which prohibit them from expanding?

Expanders tend to be
Non-expanders tend to be

CASE STUDY: TESTER/EXPANDER Martha Daka Kalunga
characteristics
factors which facilitate expansion
constraints

CASE STUDY: TESTER/Expander Harrison Chongwe, Kapita
characteristics
factors which facilitate
constraints

CASE STUDY: TESTER/NON-EXPANDER Gamitu Chiruwa, Kalunga
characteristics
factors which facilitate expansion
constraints

CASE STUDY: TESTER/NON-EXPANDER Mainess Mwale, Mzime
characteristics
factors which facilitate expansion
constraints

Factors which facilitate expansion
Constraints to expansion

3.2.4 Do the factors which facilitate and constrain testing and adoption differ for men and women farmers?

One of the factors which constrain women more than men in terms of their ability to test improved fallows has to
do with their decision making authority within the home. Whereas single men, married men, polygamous men
and widowed men all test improved fallows equally, women in FHH tend to test improved fallows more than
women in MHH.

In addition, as discussed earlier wealthy farmers tend to test (although not always to adopt) improved fallows
more than poor farmers. Since more men than women tend to be classified as well off or fairly well-off (85% vs.
45%), it would appear that women's' adoption may also be differentially affected by their access to resources.

Table XX: Women Testers and Non-Testers X HH Type


Non-testers Testers
FHH 22 27
MHH 18 14
Total 40 41

Females N = 81


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 39







Figure XX: Female Non-Testers, by HH Type


Female Non-Testers, by HH type


MHH
45%



FHH
55%


[NfJ


Female Testers, by HH Type


MHH
34%


[I.FH-1


Table XX: Women Tester-Non Expanders and Tester-Expanders X HH Type (n=41)


Tester Non-Expanders Tester -Expanders
FHH 12 15
MHH 6 8
Total 18 23


Figure XX: Female Tester Non Expanders, by HH Figure XX: Female Tester Expanders, by HH
Type Type


MHH
33%


In addition to decision making authority within the home and wealth status, there are several factors which could
affect men and women's ability to test and adopt different soil fertility technologies, including knowledge, land
tenure, cash requirements of the technology, labor demands and risk. These factors are considered in the table
below:

Only secure access to land and security of land tenure can be considered a problem which is exclusive to women
(but which is shared with Senga men, who cultivate their wives' families land). Most other constraints (labor,
capital, inputs, equipment, information and riskiness) are gender neutral, in the sense that both men and women
share them. However, the degree to which they affect men and women differs. Ox carts, plows and oxen tend to
be owned by men, as all marital property is considered to be owned by the husband. Moreover, constraints on
women's time are more severe, in general, than those placed on men. Whereas both parties are expected to
cultivate, only women are expected to cook, clean, care for children and collect firewood and water. In addition,
access to capital, while a constraint to both men and women, is more pronounced for women, as men tend to
cultivate and extract most of the benefits from cash crop production. With the current extension emphasis on
women's groups and clubs and men's traditional access through camp officers, access to information does not
appear to be a constraint for either gender.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 40


Figure XX: Female Testers, by HH Type







Table XX: Constraints to the use of different soil fertility technologies for all farmers

IF Manure Green Manure Crop Rotations Fertilizer
Knowledge X X X
Land X
Equipment Ox cart Plow
Resources Seeds Animals & Oxen Seeds Seeds
Lack of money to buy resources X (if no animals) X
Labor 5 3 (w/access to an 4 1 1
1 = easiest; ox cart)
4 = most difficult
Time (to see benefits) 5 2 4 3 1
1 = fast
4 = slow
Risk X

Table XX: Women's Access to Resources Required for Different Soil Fertility Options(X = constraint)

IF Manure Green Manure Fertilizer
Access to land X X
Security of land tenure X X
Access to labor/time X X X
Access to capital X (if purchased) X
Access to non $ inputs seeds cows seeds shops
Access to equipment oxen for transport oxen for plowing
Access to information
Risking X
Values/norms X X

Values and norms are, of course, different for men and women and constrain them in different ways. Women
generally do not own cattle, and do not plow with them. Thus, the use of manure and green manure (which
require the use of ox carts and oxen for plowing) entail more cultural constraints for women than improved
fallows or fertilizer. However, fertilizer is the most risky soil fertility amendment for both men and women,
because if there is a bad year in terms of rainfall or illness, all benefits are lost and the cash cost of fertilizer is
much higher than the labor costs of the alternative technologies.

Women's access to and control over the resources required specifically for the testing and adoption of improved
fallows does not appear to be a constraint, except in the case of land. Although women's access to dambo land for
nurseries is somewhat limited, they can and do borrow land for nurseries, and can also make nurseries close to
home or by the well. Their access to land to plant trees can be fluid, as they move more often than men due to
marriage, divorce and widowhood (again, except perhaps for Senga men), and sometimes they are required to
share land with a co-spouse. The type of labor required to plant and maintain IFs is fairly gender neutral, as
women are experienced in nursery production, and are already responsible for cutting firewood. The time to
plant and maintain improved fallows, especially if intercropped and direct-seeded, is not great. No credit or
equipment are required for either testing or adoption. The benefits of the technology also appear to be gender
neutral, as women generally derive the benefits of crops planted on "their" fields, even in polygamous
households. In the long run, everyone benefits from more maize!

4.0. Discussion/Lessons Learned
In the preliminary report, several reasons were given as to why some women may not test improved fallows.
These reasons were given by testers and other key informants, as it was somewhat difficult to elicit criteria from
non-testers themselves. Below those criteria are reviewed, in light of the survey data :


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 41







Reasons why some farmers might not test improved fallows, according to farmers who tested the technology,
and other key informants (including extension specialists):
1. People are lazy (only two informants actually admitted to being lazy, and it was not a question which
was included in the questionnaire).
2. People don't like the first person who tried the technology in the area they feel that person "owns" the
technology (the jealousy question, to which no-one identified as a constraint during the survey).
3. The delayed benefits of the technology discourage people from choosing that option (mentioned by
thirteen farmers).
4. No land is available to test the technology (mentioned by 6 farmers).
5. Women who are alone with no one to help them would be less likely to test the technology (contradicted
by the fact that more female-headed households test and adopt improved fallows).
6. Some farmers don't see the benefits of the trees and consider improved fallows a waste of time
(mentioned by 19 farmers, some of who expect to see more benefits than just improved maize yields --
they want to see adopters lives improve before they consider the technology worth adopting!).
7. Some farmers receive incorrect information regarding the technology (thought they required excessive
weeding, take three years to mature, require fencing, didn't know about direct seeding or intercropping;
this is supported by survey findings).
8. The amount of labor required to weed and cut the trees is sometimes unavailable (labor and strength
were generally constraints mentioned by nine people during the survey).
9. Mineral fertilizer is easier and faster for those with money and/or access. Nine farmers felt that other
options, including manure and fertilizer, were easier and may have more benefits than planting
improved fallows. However, some farmers with access to fertilizer adopted improved fallows as a risk
minimization strategy in case they are not able to afford fertilizer in the future.

Most of these hypothesis and inferences are supported by the data in this report. However, other conclusions can
also be drawn:

1. It appears that the improved fallow technology is equally suited to women in resource poor conditions, as
it is for women who have access to sufficient quantities of chemical fertilizers and/or animal traction.

2. Four women mentioned that they were not sure if the improved fallows could be used to improve the
yields of traditional varieties. They mentioned that if they did not have access to or interest in hybrid
varieties (which were used for the Type 2 trials), they weren't sure if the technology was appropriate for
them. This is an issue which should be considered by extension staff when training farmers.

3. It is not common for farmers to plant trees in the target villages. Only 54% of women had planted any
kind of tree in their life. This might have implications for future tree planting activities, such as the
development of traditional fruit tree orchards and woodlots.

4. Life changes, such as marriage, pregnancy, divorce, and widowhood constrained women from expanding
their improved fallows. Thus, improved fallows may be more difficult for young, recently married
women and old divorced or widowed women to adopt.

Policy Implications
Gladwin et. al. outlined eight policy options which could facilitate women's ability to improve their soils,
including
1. Fertilizer vouchers (fertilizer for work)
2. Providing fertilizer in small bags in local markets
3. Enhancing microcredit options
4. Providing free grants of fertilizer
5. Promoting the use of organic materials


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 42







6. Promoting biological N2 fixation technologies (such as improved fallows, crop rotations and green
manures)
7. Promoting combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers
8. Improving women's access to cash crop markets

Of those options, small bags of fertilizer are already readily available in the Zambian marketplace (including rural
markets), and organizations including MAFF, SCAFE, LWF, ICRAF and soon World Vision are promoting the use
of organic materials and N, fixation technologies. Moreover, ICRAf is currently conducting research into the
combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers. However, given the limited cash access of most farmers, they
are more likely to use organic solutions in certain parts of their fields and inorganic solutions in others, than to
combine both resources in one area, as few farmers have the resources to apply both organic and inorganic
amendments to their entire cultivated area (even focusing only on the area cultivated with maize).

The free bag option was targeted more for women who may not know the value of fertilizer. That does not
appear to be the case in Zambia, where both men and women farmers have considerable experience with the use
of both fertilizers and hybrid varieties (see Table 12). Moreover, free fertilizer does not appear to be sustainable
nor promote long term development. It is a temporary solution to prevent starvation, which is already being
addressed with food donations organized by NGOs such as the Hope Foundation, and UN organizations
including the World Food Program.

The most sustainable solutions appear to be those which increase farmers' (especially women farmers) access to
cash. As women are primarily responsible for food crop production in the household, their number one priority is
to make sure they have enough food (specifically maize). Cash income needs are more often the main
responsibility of men farmers, except in the case of female-headed households. Paradoxically, in order to assure
adequate maize production, women need access to fertilizer, and in order to get fertilizer, they need cash. Credit
options are no longer available in the target villages, and most women indicated that they are hesitant to accept
credit, even when it is offered, except in the case of credit for cotton production. Many farmers were not able to
repay their fertilizer loans following the drought, and they still feel the sting of that failure. Fertilizer credit,
especially in a non-irrigated environment without access to crop insurance, is a very risky business. Women
farmers interviewed are more interested in increasing their access to cash, to purchase small amounts of fertilizer
along with other household necessities, than in fertilizer credit. Microcredit options are currently being explored
by the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA), and women's access to cash crop markets will be explored in the
new Integrated Agroforestry Project implemented by World Vision.

Fertilizer vouchers, however, appear to be one way to target low-income farmers, especially women (who are
more frequent participants of food for work programs) with an opportunity to increase their access to fertilizer.
However, again farmers had practically unlimited access to credit, hybrid seeds and fertilizer for several years in
the 1970's and early 1980's, and they were not able to sustain the economic gains generated with these activities
after those credit programs collapsed. Unless some drought insurance program is tied into fertilizer credit
schemes, they are unlikely to succeed. One of the major problems with the development of a fertilizer voucher
system would be implementation. In the past it has proven difficult to distribute subsidized fertilizer equitably,
and to prevent leakage of subsidized fertilizer into other uses (such as use by large commercial farms) or into
other countries (such as bordering Malawi, where fertilizer is $3 5 USD more expensive per 50 kg bag).

In general, fertilizer is available in the Eastern Province of Zambia, although sometimes not as close as people
would like, especially older farmers who were exposed to the local fertilizer storage opportunities available
during the 1970's and 1980's. In addition, different types of fertilizer are available, in different sized bags.
Farmers know how to use fertilizer, although they don't always follow recommended application rates or
recommendations regarding the timing of application for economic reasons. The main reason farmers do not use
fertilizer is because they don't have the cash to purchase it. Increasing their access to cash should lead to an
increased amount of fertilizer use (and increased maize production and food security), once other household
priorities are satisfied.

The data in this report underscores the linkages and ties between the different soil fertility packages available to
farmers, especially those between mineral fertilizer prices and the use of organic soil fertility options. Pinstrup-


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 43







Andersen described six factors which make it difficult for African, as opposed to Asian, entrepreneurs to freely
compete in an open fertilizer market, including the small amount of fertilizer that most African countries import
(which reduces their ability to negotiate lower prices), higher transportation costs, higher storage costs,
unpredictable government policies regarding fertilizer, the ease with which African governments have
traditionally acquired fertilizer as part of foreign aid packages, and the tendency of governments to release
fertilizer stocks at any time and at any price. Pinstrup-Andersen concluded that governments should privatize
distribution in a way that assures competition, or the private sector system may prove no more efficient than the
public sector it replaces (Pinstrup-Andersen, 1992). In Zambia, many of the factors listed above affect the
fertilizer distribution system, especially government intervention in the fertilizer market, which has changed
every year for the past 5 years. Although the overall goal of government policy since 1991 has been privatization
of fertilizer distribution networks, the approaches the government has used to reach that goal have changed, and
include the use of private credit and lending institutions (which contributed to the collapse of the LIMA Bank),
government subsidized purchases of fertilizer, and this year, government brokered loans of fertilizer to farmers'
groups.

5. Conclusions & Recommendations
This report represents findings based on 121 respondents' views of improved fallow technologies. Based on
initial findings, composite decision trees were created using "emic" decision criteria. These preliminary decision
trees indicate that interest in soil fertility improvement (if poor soil fertility is one of the most important crop
production problem a farmer faces), limited access to cash to purchase fertilizer, and visual verification of the
efficacy of the technology are factors which encourage farmers (both men and women alike) to try improved
fallows. A willingness to wait two years for the benefits of the technology, time and labor to manage the
technology, access to seeds and labor are required for the successful implementation of an improved fallow.

Farmers whose original improved fallow fields did not do well also appear less likely to expand their use of the
technology. Termites and fire were the most commonly mentioned causes of IF failure. However, in some cases
farmers who were not successful with their original improved fallows continued to plant more improved fallows,
mostly because they were convinced by visiting other farmers that the technology works. Other constraints
include lack of seeds or seedlings to plant another improved fallow, poor health, and lack of land.

Both testers and non-testers come from a wide range of age groups and ethnic groups, and have differing
education levels and life experiences. However, in general improved fallow testers appear to be better off
financially than non-testers, although more poor and very poor farmers tend to expand and adopt improved
fallows. Women from female-headed households test and adopt improved fallows more than women from male-
headed households.

The Zambia ICRAF improved fallow program has been remarkably successful especially for an agroforestry
program --for the following reasons:
The technology addressed a felt need on the part of local farmers (declining soil fertility, declining access to
mineral fertilizers, "no fertilizer, no food").
The team developed a simple (planting Tv is like planting maize), effective (yield increases comparable to
those achieved with chemical fertilizer), relatively short term (2 years) solution to a serious problem.
The technology used species which were relatively known (Tv is widely grown in Northern Province but less
so in Eastern; Sm is a common weed along rivers and streams, Cc is fairly well known although not widely
cultivated).
The team adapted the technology from monocrops of trees which were grown in pots in nurseries, to bare
root and/or direct-seeded, intercropped trees to cut down on labor and management.
The team actively involves farmers in the testing, evaluation and dissemination process.
The team encourages farmers to grow their own seed, and purchases seed from farmers (which provides
farmers with an additional cash-based incentive to plant trees).
The team encourages farmer innovation, and makes attempts to capture it and report on it.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 44







* The team has shared the technology with a wide audience, both locally (training and supplying seed to local
camp officers, women's groups & NGOs), regionally (in workshops and seminars) and internationally
(through publications).
Recommendations

Policy recommendations affecting the testing and adoption of improved fallows
1. Care should be taken when proposing fertilizer subsidies and interfering in the fertilizer market. First,
decreasing the price of fertilizer would benefit men more than women. Women surveyed often felt that even
if fertilizer prices dropped by 50%, they could not afford to buy it. Moreover, seven farmers who tested
improved fallows (11 % of all testers) said that if fertilizer prices were lower, they would not continue to plant
improved fallows. However, 59 farmers said they would continue to plant improved fallows even if fertilizer
was cheaper, because the benefits of trees last more than one year, fertilizer depletes the soil whereas fallows
improve it, money (even small amounts for cheap fertilizer) is hard to come by, and because fertilizer is a
risky and unreliable way to improve crop yields. Farmers never know from one year to the next if they will
be able to find fertilizer in the market, or if it will be affordable. However, even those farmers who would
continue to plant improved fallows now that they have seen the benefits may not have tried improved fallows
originally if they would have had access to sufficient quantities of fertilizer.
2. One of the biggest constraints to the expansion of improved fallows is the failure of the first improved fallow,
especially by people who have not otherwise seen the benefits of improved fallows on other people's fields.
Failures are often caused by browsing and fire. Policies which prevented such damage would improve the
impact and the expansion of improved fallows.
3. Lack of labor and poor health are major constraints to the expansion of improved fallows, and agricultural
productivity in general. Improved rural health care and increased access to animal traction implements might
lead to increased adoption of improved fallows over several years

Recommendations to help researchers to design more appropriate soil fertility technologies for both men and
women farmers
1. Research into fire and termite resistant improved fallow species would benefit testing farmers and increase
the likelihood that farmers will succeed with their first improved fallow, and thus continue planting
improved fallows.
2. Research into the use of Tv as an insecticide would add value to improved fallow species and contribute to
market garden production.
3. Research into both traditional and introduced fruit trees would help farmers meet their need for increased
income.
4. Continue to look for new tree species and new ways to incorporate trees into local cropping systems to
improve soil fertility and provide economic benefits to farmers.

Recommendations to help extension agents better target their training programs
1. Farmer-to-farmer extension is the most successful way to reach women farmers, who often need to see the
benefits of a technology before they are willing to test it. Men farmers will try improved technologies without
seeing the benefits first. Thus, effort should be made to include the entire family in improved fallow
extension programs (including young men who are primarily responsible for brush fires when hunting for
mice!).
2. Maximizing the number of farmer field days and farmer-to-farmer visits will increase testing rates.
3. Ensuring the success of early improved fallow testers will encourage more people to test the technology.
4. Tailor soil fertility technologies to people with different motivations and constraints (people in a hurry need
something which works quickly like fertilizer or manure; people willing to wait two years can try improved
fallows; households with more access to labor can try manure, IFs, and GM, whereas households with more
access to cash should learn how to use fertilizer efficiently; households with access to manure should learn
how to use it and market it; farmers with limited land need to use manure or fertilizer, etc.) and people with
different household characteristics (see Table XX).


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 45







Table XX: Soil fertility technologies which may be appropriate for different types of men and women farmer
HH Gender HH HH Status Wealth
Characteristics Type
Women Men FHH MHH Young Established Mature High Low
Technology CR, IF, F IF, CR, IF, All CR, M, IF, CR, M, CR, F F, M IF,
M, GM, CR, F F GM, F CR,
F

Recommendations to help more farmers improve their soil fertility, and their crop production.
1. Work with the community to control fires in improved fallows;
2. Work with the community to control grazing in improved fallows and market gardens, which are important
sources of income and food in rural areas;
3. Work with neighbors and local authorities to control theft of livestock, which are often used to purchase
fertilizer and traded for food, and which provide labor and manure;
4. Improve household food security planning so that farmers know how they will get the amount of maize they
need each year, and how they might get it in the future when they are sick or old;
5. Beware of excessive drinking, which encourages laziness and theft, and uses scarce family resources
inefficiently.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 46








Bibliography


Central Statistics Office (CSO). 1992. Country Profile. Lusaka, Zambia.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). 1995. EIU Country Report, Second Quarter, 1995. London, UK.
Gaisie, Kwesi, Anne R. Cross and Geoffrey Nsemukila. 1993. Zambia Demographic and Health Survey, 1992.
University of Zambia, Central Statistics Office/Zambia and Macro International, Inc., Columbia, Md.
Celis, Rafael, John T. Milimo, and Sudhir Wanmali (eds). 1991. Adopting Improved Farm Technology: A Study
of Small-holder Farmers in Eastern Province, Zambia. Rural Development Studies Bureau/University of
Zambia, National Food and Nutrition Commission, Eastern province Agricultural Development Project and
the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC.
Franzel, Steve, D. Phiri and F.R. Kwesiga. 1997. Participatory On-Farm Research on Improved Fallows in Eastern
Province, Zambia. Paper presented at Southern Africa Agroforestry Network Planning Workshop, 1 5 July,
Harare, Zimbabwe.
Franzel, Steve. 1997. Socio-Economic Factors Affecting the Adoption Potential of Improved Tree Fallows in
Africa. Paper presented at the International Symposium on the Science and Practice of Short Term Improved
Fallows in Humid and Sub-Humid Tropics, 11 15 March 1997, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Franzel, Steve, Donald Phiri and Freddie Kwesiga. 1998. "Assessing the Adoption Potential of Improved Fallows
in Eastern Zambia", in Trees and Farmers: Assessing the Adoption Potential of Agroforestry Practices in
Africa. S. Franzel and S. Scherr (eds).
Gillet, J. B. 1963. Sesbania in Africa (excluding Madagascar) and southern Arabia. Kew Bulletin 17:91-159.
Gladwin, Christina, Robin D'Arcy, Robert Uttaro and Deirdre Williams. 1998. Using Ethnographic Decision
Trees to Predict African Women's Adoption of Agroforestry Innovations. Unpublished paper presented to .....
Gladwin, Christina, Ken Buhr, Abe Goldman, Clifton Hiebsch, Peter Hildrebrand, Gerald Kidder, Max Langham,
Donna Lee, Peter Nkedi-Kizza and Deirdre Williams. 1997. "Gender and Soil Fertility in Africa" in
Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa. SSSA Special Publication no. 51. American Society of Agronomy and
Soil Science, Madison, WI.
Gladwin, Christina H. 1989. Ethnographic Decision Tree Modeling. SAGE Publications, London.
Kwesiga, F. and R. Coe. 1994. Potential of short rotation Sesbania fallows in Eastern Zambia. Forest Ecology and
Management 64:161-170.
Kwesiga, F, Steve Franzel, Frank Place, Donald Phiri & C.P Simwanza. Sesbania Improved Fallows in Eastern
Zambia: Their Inception, Development and Farmer Enthusiasm. 1997. Unpublished
Kwesiga, F & J. Beniest. 1998. Sesbania Improved Fallows for Eastern Zambia: an Extension Guideline.
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi.
Moore, Henrietta L. and Megan Vaughan. 1994. Cutting Down Trees: Gender, Nutrition, and Agricultural
Change in the Northern province of Zambia, 1890 1990. University of Zambia Press, Lusaka.
Ndiaye, Serigne and Andrew Sofranko. 1988. Importance of Labor in Adoption of a Modem Farm Input. rural
Sociology 53(4):421-432.
NFTA (Nitrogen Fixing Tree Association). 1989. Perennial Sesbunia Species in Agroforestry Systems, ICRAF-
NFTA International Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, March 27 31, 1989. NFTA, Hawaii.
NFTA. 1990. Perennial Sesbania Production and Use: A Manual of Practical Information for Extension Agents
and Development Workers. NFTA, Hawaii (now in Arkansas).
Ngugi, D. (ed). 1988. Agroforestry Research Project for the Maize-Livestock System in the Unimodal Upland
Plateau (Chipata and Katete) in Eastern Province of Zambia. AFRENA Report No. 10. ICRAF, Nairobi.
Phiri, Donald, Steve Franzel, Paramu Mafongoya, Isaac Jere, Roza Katanga and Stanslous Phiri. 1999. Who is
using the new technology?: a case study of wealth ranking and improved tree fallows in Eastern Province,
Zambia. CITATION INFO!!


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 47







Pinstrup-Andersen, P. 1992. Fertilizer subsidies: Balancing short-term responses with long-term imperatives.
p.93-99. In N. Russell and C. Dowswell (ed.) Policy options or agricultural development in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Center for Applied Studies in International Negotiations (CASIN)/Sasakawa Global 2000. Airlie
House, Va.
ZARD (The Zambia Association for Research and Development). 1994. The Situation of Women in Zambia
During the Decade 1985 1994. Non-Governmental Organizations Coordinating Committee, Lusaka.
ZARD. 1996. Zambia Today: A Gender Perspective. Analysis of the public's views. Co-op Printing, Lusaka,
Zambia.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 48







Zambia/ICRAF/UF CRSP Soil Fertility Survey

"I am not a teacher, I do not work for ICRAF, I am not here w/credit or fertilizer. I am a student, here to learn about agriculture. You are
my teacher. Like all good students, when you talk, I must write down what I learn. Otherwise I will fail my exams..

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1 Farmer #
2 Type of farmer NT T/NE TE
3 District Chipata North Chipata South Katete
4 Village
5 Zina lanu ndi ndani? (name)
6 Akazi/Amuna (gender) Male Female
7 Kodi wokwatiwa/wokwatila? (married/single) Sing Married Divorced Widow Polyg
8 Kodi muli ndi ana? Angati? (# children)
9 Anthu angati akhala mu nyumba yako/yanu? (# in hh)
10 Woyangila pa nyumba/akulu pa nyumba? (HH head) YES NO
11 Type of household (FHH or MHH) FHH MHH
12 HH status (young, established, mature) Young Established Mature
13 Munabadwa kuti? Where were you born?)
14 Liti? (when)
15 Munaphunzira nthawi yayitali bwanji mu sikulu?
How long did you study in school?
16 Munakhala apa zaka zingati?
How long have you lived in this village?
17 Mukhala ku mudzi kwa ndani? (amai, bambo, amuna)
Whose village do you live in? (mom, dad, spouse)
18 Kodi ndiwe mtundu wanji? (ethnic group)
19 Wealth status (ICRAF data) very poor poor fairly well off well off

20. FARM DESCRIPTION
20 a. How many fields do you have? 20 b. How long have you been cultivating this field?

Mbeu Ikulu Fertilizer Yotani? Nthaka ili Unakolola Kudia/
Crops bwanji Angati? bwanji? bwanji? Kugulisa
Size Type/Qty Soil type Harvest Eat/sell


UFIUSAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 49









DIMBA

20 c. Mulima na manja kapena na ng'ombe? Do you cultivate by hand or with oxen?

20 d. Muli ndi mabvuto bwanji mu munda? What are your major crop problems?


FOOD SECURITY QUESTIONS

21 a. Chimangal munakolola chaka chapita, kodi munadia chaka conse? Simunagula chimangal chaka
chinu? Did the maize you harvested last year last until you harvested this year? You did not have to
buy maize this year?
21 b. Chaka chinu mudzasediza chimangal liti? What month did the maize you harvested last year finish?
21 c. How did you get the rest of the maize you needed to last all year?
21 d. How much did you have to buy?
22 a. Chimangal munakolola chaka chinu, kodi mukwanisa kudia chaka chonse? Simufuna kugula? Do
you think the amount of maize you harvested this year will last you until you harvest maize next year?
22 b. Muganiza mudzasediza chimangal liti? If no, when do you think it will finish?
22 c. How will you get the rest of the maize you need to last all year?
23 a. How much maize do you need to last all year?
23 b. How much fertilizer would you need to get that much maize?

LAND TENURE SECURITY

24 a Kodi muli ndi chisala (munda munalima kale kale koma lomba
simulima?) Do you have a fallow field?
24 b Chisala cako, cili ndi zaka zingati?
How old is the fallow (how many years does it have)?
24 c Chisala cako, cili caikulu bwanji? How big is the fallow?
25 a Kodi muli ndi 'tengo kapena sanga (munda simunalimapo)? Do you
have land that has never been cultivated?
25 b Tengo/sanga ili yaikulu bwanji? How big is the uncultivated area?
26 Chifukwa chiani simunalima chisala chaka chinu ? Why didn't you to improve the soil
cultivate the fallow field this year?? lack labor to culitate
lack seed
weeds
other

27 Minda zonse ndi cisala ili zikulu bwanji?
How big are all your fields plus your fallows?
28 Kodi munakubwerekapo munda? Have you ever borrowed land?
29 Munda mulima lomba inali munda ya ndani? How did you get the
land you cultivate now? (father, mother, headman, etc.)


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 50








30 a Ngati mufuna munda yaikula, kodi mukwanisa kupesa? If you
wanted a larger field, could you get it? (If someone offered to give
you a tractor if you could find XX ha to cultivate, could you find it?)
30 b Bwanji? How?
31 a. Ngati makolo ako kapena amuna ako afwa, kodi mudza kukuka?
If your parent or spouse died, would you move?
b. Mudza yenda kuti? Where would you go?
FIREWOOD AVAILABILITY

32 Mupeza nkuni kuti? Pafupi, wotali yaing'ono, kapena wotali Close Not far Far
kwamberi? Where do you get firewood? (close, not far, far?)
33 Ngati mu choka kunyumba pa 6 koloko, mupita kupeza nkuni,
mujuwa, mudza fika kunyumba ntawi bawangi? If you leave your
house at 6 o'clock to get firewood, you go, you cut, you will arrive
back at the house at what time? (hours)
34 Ndani amapeza nkuni? Who collects firewood in your family? adult men adult women
(women, men, children) male children female kids

35 Kodi munagulapo nkuni? Zingati? Do you ever buy firewood? How
often/for how much money?

36. Kodi musewenzapo ndi camp officer? Nchito bwanji? Do you ever work with the camp officer here?
Which activities?

mbeu yoyamba kubweletsa nthaka kubiala mitengo na chisala
improved crop varieties soil conservation improved fallow
* agriculture groups or cooperatives zoweta other
animal husbandry

37. GROUP MEMBERSHIP

37 a Kodi muli mebala wa kilabu? Are you a member of a club?
37 b CLUB ILI BWANJI?
37 c DESCRIBE THE CLUB.
Kodi ndi kilabu yotani? What kind of club?
37 d Muli mebala angati? How many members are there?
37 e Kodi mukalabu muli amuna ndi akazi? Are both men and women
in the club?
37 f Kodi mulipila kuti mukhala mebala mu kalabu? Zingati? Do you
37 g pay a fee to join the club? What/How much?
Munthu aliyense angatha kukhala mebalawa kalabu? Can anyone
37 h join the club?
37 Kodi kalabu iyi igwirizana ndi chipenpezo? Is the club associated
with a religion?
37j Chifukwa ciani munakhala mebala wakalabu? Why did you join?
37 k Mucita zitu zotani mu kalabu? What kinds of things do you do?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 51







SOIL FERTILITY PRACTICES


38.
used?


Munasewenzapo banjira bwanji na kubweleza nthaka? Which soil fertility practices have you ever


galaouza (ridging) kusintasinta (crop rotation)
chisala (fallow) fertiliza (mineral fertilizer)
manuwa (manure)


* mitengo (trees)
* manuwa ya matepo (gm)
* other (specify)


39 a. Mumasewenza manuwa bwanji? Describe how you have used manure (how long used, how often
applied, how much is applied, application method, application rate, type of manure, source of manure,
purchased or collected, costs associated with use, benefits seen). OR


39 b. Ngati simunasewenzapo manuwa, chifuka chiani/ninshi? If you have never used manure, why not?
Have you ever thought about using manure?

40. Chifukwa munasewenza manuwa zaka zapita, kodi munaganiza kuti simunafune kubiala mitengo na
kubweleza nthaka mu munda? Because you used manure in the past, did you feel that you did not need
to plant trees to improve your soilin your field?

41. Mumasintasinta mbeu bwanji mu minda? Describe your crop rotation practices:


42. Chifukwa munasintasinta mbeu mu munda chaka chapita, kodi munaganiza simunafune kubiala
mitengo ya kubweleza nthaka mu munda? Because you rotated your crops last year, did you feel you
did not need to plant trees to improve your soil?

Chemical Fertilizer Questions

43 Kodi munasewensapo fertilizer inu kapena amuna/akazi anu?
Have you or your spouse ever used chemical fertilizers?

44 Ngati ai, chifukwa ciani? If no, why not? Have you ever thought
about using fertilizer?

45 Zaka zingati? If yes, for how long have you used them (years)?
46 Munasewenza fertilizer na mbeu zotani? On which crops have you
used chemical fertilizers?
47 Pamene munasewenza fertiliza maningi, munasewenza basac ya
fertilizer zotani? What is the most fertilizer you have ever used?
48 Kodi munachepetesa kusewenza fertiliza? In the past few years,
have you decreased fertilizer use?
49 Kuchokera kg angati kufika kama kg angati? From how much to
how much?
50 Chifukwa ciani munabwezako kaikidwe ka fertilizer? Why did you
decrease the amount of fertilizer you use (check increase in price vs.
decrease in access to cash, market access,family change, etc.)?
51 Kodi mwasiyanisa zobiala zanu kapena njira yobialilamo chifukwa
chogwiritsa nchito fertilizer? Have you changed the crops you plant
or the way you plant your crops because you use less fertilizer?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 52







52 Mwasiyanusa motani? How? changed spacing
changed amount of land
planted to maize
changed amount of land
cultivated
rotate more/less
changed varieties
changed crops
other

53 Kodi mwaona kasiyanidwa kotani pa zokola zanu mulibe fertilizer?
Have you noticed changes in your crop yields without fertilizer?
54 Ngati inde, munga ndipatseko manabala yakasiyana kwa zokolola
zanu? If yes, can you give me an example of how your yields have
changed (quantify)?
55 Kodi munagulapo mathumba tingono tingono ya fertilizer? Do
you ever buy small (<50 kg) bags of fertilizer?

56 Ngati inde, chifukwa chiani? If yes, why do you buy small bags?

57 Kuzobiala zotani mumagulila mathumba ag'ono a fertilizer? For
which crops do you buy small bags?
58 Kodi mugula kathumba kwag'ono ka fertilizer mu dimba mwanu
chifukwa muka gwiritsa nchito chaka conse? Do you buy a small
bag of fertilizer for your dimba because you need less than 50 kgs for
the whole season?
59 Kodi mugula kanthumba kakg'ono kafertilizer mu dimba yanu
chifukwa simukonda kuwononga ndalama yanu mu sack mosi kuti
dimba yanu linga ume, conco simudzafune 50 kg?
Does your dimab dry up? When? Do you buy a small bag for your
dimba because you do not want to invest your money in a large bag
in case your dimba dries up and you will not need 50 kgs?
60 Kodi mugula kathumba kakag'ono/patonto patonto chifukwa
mulibe ndalama yokwanitsa kugula nthumba ya 50 kg? Do you buy
a small bag for your maize field or your dimba because you have
some money but not enough to buy a 50 kg bag?


61 Pamene munabiala (mitengo), kodi munakonda kapena munakwanisa
kugula fertilizer ngati mutengo ya fertilizer anadula awiri, anakwela na
50,000 ZKw (or 70,00 this year)?
When you planted (trees/crops), did you want or were you able to buy
fertilizer if the price of fertilizer doubled and increased to 2X ZKw?
62 Pamene munabiala (mitengo kapena mbeu chaka chapita), kodi
munakonda kapena munakwanisa kugula fertilizer ngati mutengo ya
fertilizer anagwa na 10,000 ya sac?
When you planted (trees/crops), would you have wanted or been able to
buy fertilizer if the price of fertilizer dropped to 1/2 X ZKw?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 53







63 Ngati mutengo ya fertilizer anagwa na 10,000 ZKw chaka chapita, kodi
munakonda kugula fertilizer chimodzi modzi? Basac angati?
If the price of fertilizer was 1/2 X last year, would you have increased the
amount of fertilizer you bought? From how much to how much?

Improved Fallow Questions

A) Decision to (Plant improved fallow trees this year; don't)

64 Kodi munabialapo mitengo mu munda chifukwa/kuti kubweleza nthaka?
Have you ever planted trees in your fields to improve your soil fertility
65 Kodi munabiala mitengo mu minda maningi? Mu minda zingati?
Have you planted trees in many fields? How many?

B) Pamene munayamba kubiala mitengo kapena pamene munabiala mbeu chaka chapita munaganiza
bwangi? (When you started to plant trees or when you planted crops last year, what were you thinking?)

66 Na ntawi munabiala munda ako chaka chata, kodi munamverapo program
ya kubiala mitengo? At the time you planted your field, had you ever
heard of the program to plant trees?
67 Pamene munabiala munda ako chaka chata, munaziwa mitengo chiani Sesbania Tephrosia
(sesbania, tephrosia, cajanus, gliricidia)? When you planted your fields last Gliricidia Cajanus cajan
year, you were knowing which trees?
68 Pamene munabiala munda ako chaka chata, kodi munaziwa kubiala
mitengo chifukwa kubweleza nthaka (kukonza mbeu;
kukonza/kulima/kubiala nursery; kubiala mumunda; kutema liti; zaka
zingati mufuna mitengo mu munda)? When you planted your fields last
year, did you know how to plant trees to improve your soil fertility?
69 Pamene munabiala, kodi munabialapo mitengo monga banana, mango,
lalanje, guava, etc? At the time you planted, had you ever planted a tree
like banana, mango, orange, guava, etc.?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 54







Please describe your improved fallow(s):


Motivations or reasons to plant trees:


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 55


Information Fallow Fallow Fallow Fallow
#1 #2 #3 #4
70. Munamvera mitengo bwanji? (FTC, village meeting,
field day, word of mouth) (How did you hear about IFs?)
71. Ndani anakuphunzitsa kubiala mitengo? (CO, family,
another farmer) (Who taught you to plant trees)
72. Munabiala mitengo liti? (When did you plant the
trees)
73. Munabiala mitengo chiani mu munda? (Which trees
did you plant in the field)
74. Munda ya mitengo ili ikulu bwanji? (How big is the
area of trees)
75. Mbeu, munapeza kuti? (Where did you find seeds)
76. Munabiala mbeu bwanji? (How did you plant the
seeds)

77. Nursery ako, inali kuti? (Where is the nursery, and
what type of nursery was it?)

78. Pambuyo munatema mitengo, munabiala chiani mu
munda? (After you cut the trees, what did you plant in
the field?
79. Ndani anasanka (khwaphukira) kubiala mitengo?
(Who chose to plant the trees)
80. Ngati simunabiala mitengo mu munda, munakhonda
kuchita chiani? (If you did not plant trees here, what
would you have done)


81 Chaka chapita (kapena pamene muna yamba kubiala mitengo mu munda),
kodi nthaka mu munda, yoguga? Did you have tired soil in your field in
the field you planted last year?
82 Kodi munali ndi chisala chaka chapita (kapena chaka munabiala mitengo)?
Did you have new soil from a fallow filed last year (or the year you planted
trees)?
83 Ngati nde: Pamene munabiala (mitengo), ngati munalima chisala, kodi
mukwanisa kubiala chimangal ndi kukolola ngako kuti mukwanisa kudia
chimangal iyi chaka chonse?
If yes, when you planted (trees), if you had cultivated your fallow land,
would you have been able to plant maize and harvest enough maize to eat
that maize all year?
84 Pamene munabiala (mitengo kapena munda), kodi munaganiza fertilizer CODE IN CHEWA
inali WODULA NGAKO? When you planted (trees) did you think
fertilizer was too expensive?







85 Pamene munabiala (mitengo kapena munda) kodi munagula sac mosi ya
fertilizer? When you planted (trees) did you buy at least one sack of
fertilizer?
86 Chifukwa munagula fertilizer (chaka munabiala mitengo kapena chaka
chapita), kodi munaganiza simunafune kuyesa mitengo? Because you
bought fertilizer, did you think you didn't need to try trees?
87 IF THE PERSON HAS TRIED TREES: Ngati mutengo ya fertilizer
anagwa na XXX ZKw, kodi munakonda kubiala mitengo futi?
If the price of fertilizer had dropped to 1/2 price, would you still have
planted trees?
88 Pamene munabiala (mitengo kapena mbeu), kodi munakonda kugula
fertilizer na nkongole? When you planted (trees or crops), would you have
wanted to buy fertilizer if you had to use credit?

89 Pamene munabiala, kodi munapese nkongole? When you planted, could
you find credit?

90 Kuti (kapena bwanji?)? Where/how?

91 Kodi muganiza ili wochepa na kugula fertiliza na ndalama, kapenda
kutenga nkongole? Do you think it is cheaper to buy fertilizer with money
or to take credit?

92 Pamene munabiala (mitengo kapena mbeu), kodi mungapese ndalama ya
kugula fertilizer? When you planted (trees/crops), were you able to find
money to buy fertilizer?

93 Kuti/bwanji? Where/How?

94 Pamene munabiala (mitengo kapena mbeu), kodi munaonapo anthu ya
kusinta fertilizer na mbeu kapena nchtio? When you planted (trees or
crops), were you able to barter/to exchange work or crops for fertilizer?

95 Bwanji/na ndani? With who/how?

96 Pamene munayamba kubiala mitengo kapena pamene munabiala mbeu
chaka chata, kodi munamerva njala? [Kodi munali ndi chimangal
kunyumba chaka chonse? ]
When you planted (trees or crops) were you feeling hungar? [Did you have
maize all year?]
97 Pamene munabiala (mitengo kapena mbeu), kodi munaganiza kuti kubiala
mitengo, mitengo abwela ulemu? When you planted (trees), did you think
trees would bring you respect?
98 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munali ndi anzatu kapena
anzanga/abwenzi, ndi anabiala mitengo? Did you have friends who have
planted trees?
99 FOR TESTERS: Chifukwa chiani munayesa kubiala mitengo chaka
choyamba? Why did you decided to try trees the first time?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 56







Constraints to planting trees:


100 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munaonapo pindu ya mitengo?
When you planted (trees/crops), had you already seen enough benefits to
encourage you to plant the trees?
If you saw benefits, what benefits did you see? Where did you see them?
101 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi mungayembekeze zaka ziwiri
na kuona pindu ya mitengo mu munda ako? When you planted
(trees/crops), were you able/willing to wait 2 years to see the benefits of
the trees in your field?
102 Kodi nthaka yako inali yosira ndi yoipa maningi ngako kuti munafuna
kubiala mitengo? Kodi mungapese nthawi ya kubiala mitengo mu munda?
Were your soils so bad that you needed to plant trees/it was worthwhile
for you to spend time planting trees during the busy planting season
(December/ January)? Could you find time to plant trees in your field?
103 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munamverapo mukwanisa
kubiala Tephrosia kapena nyamundolo mu minda, ndi safune nursery?
When you planted (trees), had you ever heard you could plant Tephrosia or
Cajanus cajan in fields, and they don't need a nursery?
104 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munali ndi mpamvu na kubiala Lacked strength/help
mitengo? Simunadwala? When you planted (trees), did you have Had strength/help
strength to plant trees? You were not sick?
105 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munali ndi wothandiza na family help
makolo ako kubiala mitengo, kapena kodi munalupila ganyu? When you
planted (trees/crops) did you have help from your family to plant trees, or ganyu
were you able to pay ganyu? no help
106 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munali ndi mbeu na kubiala
mitengo? When you planted trees, did you have seeds to plant trees?
107 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munali ndi anzanga, makolo
kapena anthu, ndi anali ndi mbeu anakwanisa kupatsa, kapena kugulisa
(ndi munali ndi ndalama ya kulupila)? When you planted (trees/crops)
did you have friends, family or someone, and that person had seeds he was
able to give, or sell (and you had money to pay)?
108 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munali ndi munda yai ikulu, ndi
mungalime munda yaingono chifukwa kubiala mitengo? When you
planted (trees/crops) did you have a large piece of land, and you were able
to use a small part to plant trees?
109 Pamene munabiala (mitengo/mbeu), kodi munamvera mantha kuti
ng'ombe kapena mbuzi adzalowa mu munda? When you planted (trees),
were you scared that cows or animals would enter the field (so you didn't
want to plant trees?)
110 Pamene munabiala (mitengo), kodi munabwereka munda, conco
sunakonde kubiala mitengo?
When you planted (trees), did you pay for land or borrow land (so you
didn't want to plant trees there?)


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 57







111 Panthawi uja, kodi munanbva kaduka po ona nthandizo yimene anthu
anabyala khale mitengo apatsidwa, muna kalipa? Kapena munali ndi
kaduka ndi munthu amene anabiala mitengo, kapena m'kazi muzanu?
Kodi munamvera nsanje na anthu anabiala mitengo choyamba? (Jealousy
question)
112 FOR NON-TESTERS: What discouraged you the most from trying trees?
Did you ever think about planting trees to improve your soil fertility?

FOR TESTERS ONLY: EXPANSION DECISION (Expand land in trees; don't}

113 Kodi ndi ubwino wotani munaona pambuyo munadula mitengo ndi zomela
zanu? What benefits did you see after you cut your trees and planted
crops?
114 Kodi munapeza zokolola zabwino? Did you get good yields?
115 Kodi zokolola zanu zinapililila? Did your yields double?
116 Kodi munali mabvuto mu munda ya mitengo monga mvula, ngombe,
mbuzi, moto, etc. ndi mufuna kuyesanso mitengo na kuona bwino bwino
ngati mitengo idzabweleza nthaka?
Did you have problems with the improved fallow plot (such as problems
with cows, drought, beetles, fire, etc.)
(so that you want to try it again to see if it will work?)
117 Kodi munali kapena muli ndi chifukwa cimene munga bialile munda ya have a good reason
mitengo ina? Did you, or do you now, lack a good reason to plant another
lack a good reason
plot of trees?

Kodi izi zikhuza inu? Inde kapena ai.
Check each one of the following criteria to see if it applies (tell me if this is true):

118 Ndiri ndi chisala, ndi nthaka iyi ali bwino ndi mpanvu, ndi milisi tidzabiala mu true
munda iyi idzakhala chaka conse. false
I have land coming out of fallow so soils are stronger, and maize grown in the
new soil will last all year.
119 Ndiri ndi njira yolengelamo fertilizer kapena manuwa yamene ndi funa. true
Sindifunanso kubiala mitengo. (Bwanji?) false
I have a way to get all of the fertilizer or manure I need, so I don't need to plant
more trees (HOW?).
120 Ndiri ndi njira yotengelamo chimanga chabanja langa pa chaka cimodzi. true
Sindifunanso kubiala mitengo. (Bwanji?) false
I have a way to get all of the maize the family needs for one year, so I don't need
to plant more trees (HOW?).
121 Ndiri ndi njira yayifupi yokonza nthaka kuposa mitengo (Bwanji?). true
I have a shorter, faster way to improve soils than trees (HOW?). false
122 Kulibe pindu ya chinamga cambiri, chikhala chaka chonse. true
There is no need for more maize; it already lasts all year. false


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 58








123. Kodi mungathe kubiala munda yina ya mitengo? Could you, or can you now afford to plant another
plot of trees?

Kodi muli ndi/munali ndi (Do you have/did you have):
(Check each of the criteria to see if it applies. Write yes if they had it, no if they did not)

124 mpamvu ndi umoyo kuti mubiale mitengo noka, ndithandizo kuchokera ku
banja kapena ganyu? the strength, power and health to plant trees myself,
help from the family or ganyu?

125 ng'ombe ku biala mitengo? oxen to plant the trees?

126 nthawi kubiala Sesbania mu nursery ndi kubiala mu munda, kapena kubiala
Tephrosia kapena Cajanus kapena Gliricidia mu munda pamene mubiala
zomena zanu? the time to plant a nursery and transplant Sesbania or to
direct seed Tephrosia, Cajanus cajan or Gliricidia in the busy season?
127 nthawi kuyembekeza pazaka ziwiri kuona ubwino wa mitengo? the time to
wait 2 years to see the benefits of the trees?
128 munda ya kubiala mitengo? more land to take out of production for two
years to plant another plot of trees?

129 malo yobialailamo mitengo yig'ono? land for a nursery?

130 mbeu kapena tumitengo ta n'gono? seeds or seedlings?

131 muziwa kuti mukwanisa kubiala mitengo monga Tephrosia, Cajanus kapena
Gliricidia mu munda ndi sulifune kubiala mu nursery? knowledge that you
can direct seed other tree species like tephrosia, cajanus or gliricidia?

132 mabvuto (yotani?) other constraints? (WHAT?)

133 What encouraged you to plant more trees or what discouraged you from
planting more trees?
DECISION TO PLANT A LARGE ENOUGH IMPROVED FALLOW TO PRODUCE ENOUGH MAIZE TO
LAST ALL YEAR

134 Kodi munayikila malo a mitengo (kuchora kuti, kufika kuti)?
Did you increase the size of the plot of trees (from what to what)?
(Included in IF table, Q29 39).
135 Mungafune malo yayakulu bwanji kuti mubiale mitengo yokwanila
kuti mupese ya chimanga chanu?
How much land would you need to plant enough trees to fertilize
your maize so that it produces enough maize to last all year?

136 Kodi mungabiale mitengo yambili? Could you plant that many trees?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 59






Check each one of the criteria to see if it applies:


137 Kodi munali ndi mphamvu ndi umoyo wabwino kuti mubiale
mitengo noko, kapena ndi nthandiza kubanja lanu, kapena ganyu?
Did you have the strength, power and health to plant that many trees
yourself, or help from family, or ganyu?
138 Munali ndi ng'ombe kuti zimuthandiza kubiala mitengo yambiri?
Did you have oxen to help you plant that many trees?
139 Munali ndi nthawi kuti mubialenso mitengo yamiri?
Did you have time to transplant that many seedlings or to direct seed
trees during the planting season?
140 Kodi munali ndi nthawi kuyembekeza pazaka ziwiri kuti mupeze
ubwino?
Did you have time to wait 2 years to get the benefits of the trees?
141 Kodi munali ndi (not rent or borrow) malo wonakwanila ikuti
mubiale mitengo yambiri pa zaka zawiri?
Did you own (not rent or borrow) enough land (space) that you were
able to plant that many trees for 2 years? (to take that much of it out
of production for 2 years to plant that many trees?)
142 Kodi munali ndi malo yobialila timitengo to ting'ono kuti
mupezaemo mitengo yambiri yotere?
Did you have land for a nursery to produce that many trees?
143 Kodi munali ndi mbeu zambiri kuti mubiale mitengo yambiri?
Did you have enough seeds or seedlings to plant that many trees?
144 kodi munali kuziwa kuti mungapeleke Tephrosia, Gliricidia kapena
nyamundolo?
Did you have knowledge that you could direct seed Tephrosia,
Gliricidia or Cajanus cajan?
145 Kodi munali ndi kufuna chimanga cambiri kuti chikhale chaka conse
cathunthu?
Did you have a need for more maize so that it lasts all year?
146 Kodi sufune mitengo yambiri chifukwa muli ndi chisala, ndi Have fallow land to open this
mudzalima mu chisala anga chaka chinu? year;
No need for that many trees because you have land that is coming do not have fallow land to
out of fallow this year? open this year
147 Kulibe kubiala mitengo yambiri chifukwa muli ndi njira yogululamo Can buy all the fert needed
fertilizer kapena manuwa. Njira yotani? Can not buy all the fert needed
Can not buy all the fert needed
No need for that many trees because you now have a way to buy all
the fertilizer or manure you need? (What way?)
148 kulibe kubiala mutengo yambiri chifukwa munga gule chimanga Can buy all the maize needed
chokwanira banja chaka conse? Cant buy all the maize needed
Can't buy all the maize needed
No need for that many trees because you now have a way to buy all
the maize the family needs for the year? (What way?)

UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 60








149 Kulibe kufuna kubiala mitengo yambiri chifukwa muli ndi njira Have shorter faster way
yayifupi yokonselamo nthaka yanu koposa mitengo (njira yiti?) Don't have a shorter way
No need for that many trees because you have a shorter, faster way
to improve soils than trees? (What is it?)
150 What is the main reason you have not yet planted an improved
fallow large enough to give you all the maize you need to last all
year.

Sub-decision to plant a green manure or legume. Take out bags of legume seeds to show the informant.

151. Panthawi ija, kodi munalileuziwa pa zomela? At that time, did you know any of these legumes?


* soy beans
* niemba
* nkasi


* kalongonda
* Tv, Ss, Cc, Gs, Ll


152. Pali mbeu zimene muziwa, kodi munaziwa nso ngati imodzi ya mbeu iyi ipanga nthaka kukhala
bwino? Of those you know, did you also know (at that planting time) if any of these plants improve the
soil?


* soy beans
* niemba
* nkasi


* kalongonda
* Tv, Ss, Cc, Gs, LI
* other


153. Panthawi ija, kodi munali kufuna kulima zobiala zimene zinga khalitse nthako bwino musanabiale
kaela, ndi kufukila masamba kuti nthaka ikhale bwino ndi kukolola chimangal cabwino? Musamba
ani? At that time, were you willing (needing) to plow in those plants which improve the soil before the
beans came, and bury the green leaves, just to improve the soil or to make maize grow better? Which
plants?


nshaba
ziama
kaiela


* soy beans
* niemba


nkasi
kalongondo


154. Mu munda ako, kodi munda ili ya bwino maningi, kuti sulifune manuwa, fertilizer, mitengo kapena
kusintasinta? Where you grow maize, do you have the kind of fertile soil that needs nothing -- neither
manure, nor fertilizer, nor trees nor green legumes nor rotations -- in order for maize to grow?

155. Na banjira zonse na kubweleza nthaka -- chisala, galaouza, fertiliza, manuwa, chisala cha mitengo,
manuwa ya matepo -- muganiza njira bwanji ili bwino ku nyumba ako kapena mu banja? Chifukwa
chiani munakonda njira iyi? Out of all the soil fertility techniques we discussed fallows, ridging,
mineral fertilizer, manure, improved fallows with trees, green manures which soil fertility technique is
best for you and your family? Why?

156. Kodi mudzakonda kulima zomela monga tonje kapena fodya maningi chifukwa kupeza ndalama na
kugula fertiliza zonse mufuna? Would you be willing to grow more cash crops so you can buy all the
fertilizer you need?

Ngati ai, chifukwa chiani? Ngati nde, zomela bwanji ndi mufuna kulima malo yai ikulu bwanji na
kupeza ndalama na kugula fertiliza zonse? If no, why not? If yes, which crop and how much would
you need to plant to get enough money to buy all the fertilizer you need?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 61


nshaba
ziama
kaiela


nshaba
ziama
kaiela







INCOME STREAM QUESTIONS


157 Kodi mutenga bwanji ndalama? How do you get money? cotton, tobacco, animals, garden,
ganyu, maize, sweet potatoes, GN,
sugar cane, bananas, milk, bricks,
buns, beer, traditional medicine, tuck
shop, matts, pots, sew, sell firewood,
charcoal, kids in town,
salary/allowances

158 Kodi amuna kapena akazi anu atenga bwanji ndalama? How
does your spouse get money?
159 Kodi kuli amene sagwira nchito yaulimi mubanja lanu? Kodi
acita ciani? Does anyone in the household work outside
farming? What do they do? (List all sources from all family
members)

160. Tikwanisa kuweruza anthu ku BOMA ndi anthu ya agriculture. Mufuna kuweruza anthu ku BOMA
ndi anthu ya agriculture bwanji na kubweleza nthaka? We can advise policy makers and agriculture
personnel. What advice would you give to policy makers and extension officers to improve soil fertility?


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 62







Maps of Zambia and Eastern Province


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 63


Appendix B:






Climate Map


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 64







Vegetation Map


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 65






Soils Map


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 66







Agroecological Zones and Farming Systems Map


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 67







District Map


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 68







Appendix C:


Farming Systems Analysis7


Photo #: Scenery, Eastern province
Location
The Eastern Province of
Zambia is located between 10 -
150 S Latitude and 30 330 E
longitude, and covers a total
area of 70,000 km2, or about
9% of the total land area of
Zambia. It borders Malawi to
the east, and Mozambique to
the south.

Topography
Eastern Province is
characterized by gentle to
moderate slopes interspersed
with hills, ridges and minor
escarpments. The province is
divided into a high altitude
plateau area (from 900 1500 m asl) and the Luangwa River valley (300 600 m asl). The Luangwa River is part of
the Great Rift Valley system, and feeds into the Indian Ocean via the Zambezi River. In addition to the Luangwa
River system, there are several seasonally waterlogged, low-lying areas known as dambos (the singular form is
dimba), which form a unique micro-climate and are exploited locally for dry season gardens. Rock outcroppings
are also common features of the landscape.

Climate
Eastern province enjoys a tropical to sub-tropical climate with three distinct seasons: a warm wet season from
November to April; a cool, dry season from May to August, and a hot, dry season in September and October.
Rainfall averages 960 mm per year, with most of the rain (85%) falling from December to March. During the rainy
season, rainfall exceeds evapotransporation. However, over the past 10 years Eastern Province has experienced
several droughts, where rainfall averaged less than 600 mm/year. The length of the growing season varies from
139 155 days.

Average daily minimums and maximums vary from 18 310 C during the hottest month (October), to 9 23 O C
during the coldest month (July). The driest month (August) experiences no rainfall, whereas the wettest month
(December) averages 231 mm rainfall.

Soils
Soils in Eastern Province are a combination of medium textured alluvial soils in the valley, and sandvelt soils on
the plateau. The most common soil types are yellowish- red to light yellowish-brown, loamy sands or sands
(acrisols; FAO/UNESCO Classification). These soils are moderately leached, well drained and relatively fertile.
They are suitable for both rain-fed and irrigated crop production, and are used for maize, groundnuts, cotton,
sunflower, tobacco and soybean production. However, they have a low water and nutrient-holding capacity, and
suffer from excessive leaching during the rainy season. Soils in the four target villages are predominately loamy-
sand to sand alfisols (in Kasauka and Mshaba) and clay and loam luvisols (in Chivungwe and Fisi).

Gray-brown, loamy sands or sands are found in dambo areas or other poorly drained sites, as well as
hydromorphic gleysols. In areas in and around Chipata, red clays and red-brown loams (ferric luvisols:
FAO/UNESCO classification) are common, whereas shallow, gravely soils (lithosols) are found on hillsides and
escarpments. Clays are 1:1 kaolinite clays on the upland soils, and 2:1 non-expanding illites in dambos and hilly
areas. These are non-sticky clays which make them relatively easy to hoe or plough.


7From Celis, Milimo & Wanmali, 1991; Ngugi, 1988 and the Central Statistics Office, Lusaka, Zambia.
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 69








Table XX:


Seasonal Calendar, Eastern Province, Zambia


J F M A M J J A S N ID

CLIMATE

* Rain

* Temp

LABOR

* Men

* Women

* Children

ECONOMY

* Expenses

* Income

HEALTH

FOOD AVAIL.

SPECIAL EVENTS


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Sclhffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 70









Figure XX: Land Use Transect


M aize
C o tto n
G ro u nd nu ts

D am bo G ard ens
Early M aize
Sw eet potatoes
B ananas, S u g ar Cane
Vegetation
Eastern Zambia retains large tracts of natural forest cover, mainly miombo and mopane woodland. Miombo
forests are dominated by species of the genus Brachystegia, Julbernadia and Isoberlinia. Mopane woodland
(concentrated in the Luangwa River valley) is dominated by Colophosperum mopane, which is also a common
browse species, and host to an edible caterpillar. Common grasses include Andropogon spp., Brachiaria spp., Chloris
spp., Echinochloa spp., and Panicum spp..

Photo #: Children in XX Village, Eastern Province Population
The total population of the
province is estimated at
974,000 (1990), which
represents 11% of the total
Zambian population. The
provincial capital, Chipata,
has an estimated 250,000
people. However, the
province is largely rural
(only 8.8% of the
population live in urban
areas), and the population
density averages a low 14.1
persons per km2 (from 2.1
in Chama to 26.6 in Katete).
The average annual growth
rate from 1980 1990 was
4.0%, which is the second highest in the country after Lusaka. The fertility rate for Eastern Province was 6.9 in
1980, which was less than the national average of 7.2 (CSO, 1992).

There are approximately 93.4 males per 100 females in Eastern Province, and 20% of the households are headed
by women (CSO, 1992). This represents a significant change from 1985, when there were 88 males for every 100
females, and 38% of the households were headed by women (CSO 1985 as quoted in Celis, Milimo and Wanmali,
1991). Many of the men who formerly left the area in search of work in the Copper Belt mining area have since
returned, and others are no longer attracted to the area, as copper prices have hit a 10 year low, and the mines are
in the process of privatization.

There are many different ethnic groups living in Eastern Province, including Chewa, Ngoni, Tumbuka, Nsenga,
Lala, Yao and Kunda. However, the main ethnic groups found in the target villages include the Chewa, who are
matrilocal, and the Ngoni, who are patrilineal. Ngonis emigrated north from South Africa in the 1800s, and are
traditional warriors. Chewa and Ngoni have also settled in neighboring Malawi and Mozambique.

Most villages represent groups of related families. The average village includes approximately 100 households,
although some are quite larger. Village size is partially a legacy of government sponsored village regrouping
programs.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 71






Religion
Zambia is officially a Christian nation, and most Zambians belong to an officially recognized church. The most
common churches in Eastern Province include the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformed Church of Zambia, and
the Seventh Day Adventist Church. There are also two mosques in Chipata, which serve the Indian population.

Education
Although there are 479 primary schools in the province the second highest number in the country Eastern
Province has one of the lowest educational levels in Zambia (Celis, Milimo & Wanmali, 1991; CSO, 1992). In 1980,
54.1% of the population of Eastern had never attended school of any kind. Only 43.7% had attended primary
school, and 6.6% had some secondary education (Celis, Milimo & Wanmali, 1991). By 1991, 95% of primary
school age children were enrolled in school, although only 20% continued on to secondary school. The
Pupil:Teacher ratio in primary schools is 44.1, whereas for secondary schools it is 27.9 (CSO, 1992).

Although at one time the disparity between men's and women's educational levels was quite high, that disparity
has been reduced (but not eliminated). In 1988, 95.4% of primary school-age boys and 88.0% of primary school-
age girls were enrolled in primary school nationwide (CSO, 1992). The participation of girls in secondary school
education has increased in the last 10 years, partly as a result of the establishment of lower entrance qualifications
for girls (ZARD, 1996). Currently, 40% of the students enrolled in their first year of secondary school are female,
although only 37.8% of those remain enrolled to Grade 12. Female education at the university level remains low
(21%; ZARD, 1994).

Whereas in 1969 61.8% of the men and 36.3% of the women were literate, by 1980 75.4% of the men and 53.1% of
the women were literate (CSO, 1992). The current national illiteracy rate is estimated at 27%; 19% for men, and
35% for women (EIU, 1993/94; ZARD, 1994).

Controversy still exists as to whether girls who have left school because of pregnancies should be allowed to
return to school after giving birth. Expelling pregnant girls (and even women in teacher training colleges) is an
administrative practice of the Ministry of Education, although it has not been codified into law. Lack of money
for school fees and uniforms and unplanned pregnancies are major causes of lower female enrollment in primary
and secondary school (ZARD, 1994 & 1996).

Health
There are 9 hospitals, 93 health centers, and 1 Leprosaria in Eastern Province, and 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000
people. Major illnesses include diarrhea, malaria, malnutrition, measles and pneumonia (CSO, 1992).

AIDS is one of the country's leading health problems. By mid-1993, 36% of expectant mothers attending ante
natal clinics at the country's largest hospital, the University teaching Hospital in Lusaka, tested HIV positive. A
study of the capital's prostitutes estimated that 90% were infected with the virus. The UN currently estimates that
1.1 million Zambians will die of AIDS by the year 2005. Zambia is the fourth worst infected country in the world,
following Uganda, Zaire and Tanzania (EIU Country profile, 1993/94).

The percentage of men and women infected with the disease is relatively equal, reflecting the predominantly
heterosexual transmission of the disease in Zambia (ZARD, 1996). Although 80% of all infections are caused by
heterosexual intercourse, the main high risk groups are 0 4 year old children (as a result of perinatal
transmission from other to child), followed by 13 39 year olds. The prevalence of the disease is much higher in
young women than young men (13:87 in the 15 19 year old age group), due to the high numbers of young
women engaged in sexual activities with older men (an activity which has increased with the advent of HIV-
AIDS, as older men seek "safe" sex with young virgins).

The disease is having a marked impact on households throughout the country. By the end of 1993,40% of the
households in Zambia had one or more orphans in their care, half of whom were orphaned as a result of HIV-
AIDS. The total number of orphans was expected to rise to 151,500 by 1998 (ZARD, 1996). Many grandparents,
expecting to reply on their children for comfort and support in their old age, are now providing care to their
dying children, and raising their grandchildren. Investment in education and the training of professionals is


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 72







wasted as people die at the peak of their careers. The impact of AIDS on food production is also anticipated to be
significant (ZARD, 1996).

Despite the advent of HIV-AIDS, average life expectancy has increased from 40 years in 1964 to 49 years in 1991.
There has been a corresponding drop in infant and child mortality rates, from 121 children per 1,000 live births in
1965, to 106 children per 1,000 in 1991 (EIU Country Profile, 1995). Malaria is still the leading cause of death of
Zambians over the age of 15 (ZARD, 1996).

Farmers surveyed mentioned that more and more women are leaving their husbands because of the fear of being
infected by the disease, and some men said they are not interested in polygamous marriages for the same reason.
In some cases fathers are also discouraging their daughters from staying in relationships where the husband is a
known philanderer, because they are worried about HIV-AIDS. Although this was all anecdotal information
based on informal conversations, it was interesting that farmers were comfortable discussing the problem, and
were proposing solutions which represent major life style changes in the culture (personal observation).

Administration
The Province is divided into six administrative districts: Chadiza, Chama, Chipata, Katete, Lundazi and Petauke.
Each district is administered by a District Council, and agricultural activities are coordinated by a District
Agricultural Coordinator (DACO). The four target villages are located in Chipata South (2 villages), Chipata
North, and Katete District (see maps, Appendix A).

There has been considerable donor activity in Zambia over the past 30 years. In Eastern province alone, the EEC,
SIDA, the World Bank, Irish Aid, UNDP, USAID, NORAD, IFAD, SADCC and the Netherlands Government have
all donated or loaned money, initiated projects or otherwise offered support to the government and local
population. The amount of donor activity varies by location and sector, but the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries (MAFF) has been a major partner in most local development initiatives (Celis, Milimo & Wanmali,
1991).

MAFF has technical specialists (veterinarians, fisheries agents, crop specialists, etc.) at the district level, and
general extension agents at the camp (or village) level. Each camp officer is responsible for approximately 250
households. The Training & Visit System of agricultural extension was initiated with the support of the World
Bank in the mid-1980s, and has since been supplemented with Applied Research/Farming Systems teams.
Approximately 6% of all extension officers in MAFF are women (ZARD, 1994).

Photo #: Bicycles are the main form of transportation at the village level in Eastern Province Transportation
There are 1,876 km of roads
in the province (Celis,
Milimo & Wanmali, 1991).
The longest paved road is
the Great East, which links
Lusaka to the Malawi
border. Most other roads are
degraded tarmac, gravel or
graded dirt. There is an
international airport in
Mfuwe (which provides
tourists with access to the
game parks), and a national
airport in Chipata.

Buses travel daily to Malawi
and Lusaka. A train which
was scheduled to link
Chipata to Malawi has never
been completed, and there is

UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 73







no train access to Lusaka. Large lorries frequently transport goods and supplies from ports in Mozambique.
Commercial links with Malawi are in some ways stronger than those with Lusaka. Mini-buses, pick-up trucks
and lorries constitute the major form of transportation within the province, supplemented by bicycles and ox
carts. Although there are some women who own and ride bicycles, most cyclists are men, and men drive (if not
necessarily own) all the ox carts (personal observation).

Economic Activities
There are three major sub-sectors in the Zambian economy -- the formal sector, the informal sector, and the
agriculture sector. The formal sector employs less than 20% of the labor force, and its potential for future
absorption appears very limited. In fact, between 1991 1994 over 34,000 workers were officially declared
"redundant" during the shift from a socialist to a capitalist economy, and even more have been retired or
retrenched. In 1994, approximately 421,973 men and 78,427 women were employed in the formal sector (ZARD,
1996).
In contrast, the informal sector shows remarkable dynamism, and large numbers of independent, unregulated
trading has sprung up all over the country. The labor force has been growing at an estimated 3% per year, while
the economy has been stagnating (especially in the last year or two following another drop in copper prices). The
country is also burdened with $6.3 billion dollars of external debt (ZARD, 1996).

Agriculture
Eastern Province has approximately 3.8 million ha of arable land (out of 6.9 million total ha), although only 35% of
that arable land is currently utilized. Almost 3/4 of the total labor force in the province is involved in agriculture,
forestry and fishing.
Main agricultural products include maize, groundnuts, cotton, tobacco, sunflower and livestock. Eastern
Province is the largest producer of groundnuts, one of the three largest producers of maize and the fourth largest
producer of livestock in the country (Celis, Milimo & Wanmali, 1991). Paprika was introduced this year as a cash
crop, but did not do well. Some farmers in Mshaba provide day labor to local commercial farmers.

Industry
Zambia's major imports include machinery and equipment, fuel, chemicals, and manufactured goods. Major
exports include minerals, namely copper, zinc, lead and cobalt. In 1990, copper accounted for 86.2% of total
exports in terms of value. Agricultural products accounted for less than 1% of export value, although recently the
export value of cash crops such as tobacco, cotton, cut flowers and paprika has increased (EIU, 1995).

Food processing is the major industry in the province. Several maize mills, a food oil processing plant and a new
cotton gin provide local employment opportunities. Other industries are mostly small-scale private initiatives,
including construction businesses, shops, and artisanal work. Many of the local shopkeepers and entrepreneurs
are of Muslim Indian origin, but employ local Zambians in their shops.

The rural economy is obviously quite different from that found in large cities and towns. Farmers make money
selling cash crops, including cotton, tobacco, groundnuts, maize, sunflower, soybeans, paprika and vegetables
(mostly onions, tomatoes, rape and cabbage). They also sell livestock, including chickens, pigs, goats and cattle.
Occasionally, they hunt rats, rabbits, and small antelope. Individuals often sell important subsistence items from
their homes, including paraffin, sugar, soap, salt, medicine (especially aspirin and malaria medication), dried fish,
batteries, razors and bicycle parts. Sometimes they will trade items such as dried fish or cloth for maize, grind the
maize, sell it in town, and then buy more items to trade. A few farmers in Kasauka would ride their bicycles to
Malawi, sell sugar or fertilizer, buy dried fish, and sell it in Chipata. An overview of village resource flows in the
four target areas, and a (most rudimentary) comparison of the traditional village-based income generating
activities are presented in Figure XX and Table XX.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 74







1


manure
labor


Forest products Fields & Gardens
Fields & Gardens
honey, labor labor >^ fertilizer
medicine, ood, chemicals
construction money food seeds
materials,
fruit, Labor & food
firewood,
hunting, wn
mushrooms, supplies, money from kids,
money Labor money from selling, items to
food sell or exchange
S / meat, milk, leather, xch for labor, drought power,
ceremonies, money


food


Livestock!
Credit
Agricultural credit was once available for even small-scale cultivators, through both public and publicly-
subsidized private mechanisms. The Credit Organization of Zambia, The Cattle Development Bank, the
Agricultural Finance Company, the Eastern Province Cooperative Union, the Zambia Agricultural Development
Bank, Barclays Bank, Zambia National Commercial Bank, and the now defunct Lima Bank all supplied
agricultural credit to farmers in the 1980s (Celis, Milimo & Wanmali, 1991). However, unrecovered and
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 75


4107_


Dkn(n ft TmA;t;nnnt mnrClrt XX Ilillnnr Fnct~m Dmlivtr~


Marketing
Although at one time all
agricultural products were
sold to national marketing
boards at fixed prices, all
produce is now sold on the
open market. Most of the
agricultural goods produced
in Eastern Province are sold
within the province itself.
Agricultural products make
up the majority of the goods
traded within the province
and between the province
and the rest of the country.

Farmers bring produce from
outlying areas to Chipata in
lorries, ox carts or by bicycle. Buyers also pass through villages during the cold season and purchase agricultural
products, or barter for them with used clothes or other scarce commodities. In Chipata there is a twice-weekly
"Malawi market" specializing in cross-border trade, and several smaller daily markets. Within each district there
are a few "tuck shops" which sell common medicines, soap, canned food items, dried fish and toiletries. There are
also large open markets selling groundnuts, fruits and other produce. Within villages goods are traded among
households for cash, labor or exchanged for other food items. In some cases, small shops are found close to
villages (such as those found near Chivungwe and Kasauka), but in most cases people sell out of their home, or
from a bicycle.

Figure XX: Village Resource Flows, Eastern Province, Zambia


5:p






unrecoverable loans were common, forcing many creditors (including the government) to cease agricultural
lending (and some to fold entirely). Moreover, drought, erratic input supplies and low purchase prices for cash
crops made credit less appealing to small-scale farmers. Many farmers are hesitant to take loans now, for fear of
being jailed or loosing their possessions (personal observation).

The main form of credit currently available for small-scale farmers comes from cash crop companies such as
Lonrho Cotton and Clark Industries, which provide farmers with cotton seeds and cotton inputs on credit, and
purchase cash crops such as cotton, tobacco, and paprika at fixed prices upon harvest. Senegalia Farm loaned
farmers paprika seed and fertilizer this year, without much success in terms of loan repayment (mostly because of
the lack of success farmers had in growing the crop). The Tobacco Growers Association loans fertilizer and
tobacco inputs to farmers with good credit ratings, although interest rates and credit terms result in farmers
paying twice the cash market rate for their fertilizer purchased with credit (personal observations).

Unmarried and widowed women appear less likely to qualify for credit (which often requires either a collateral
deposit or the signature of a male relative), although credit organizations widely recognize their superior rate of
repayment. Recent studies have recommended that collateral requirements should be more flexible, loan
application procedures simplified, and training provided in bookkeeping and credit management. The same
study also recommended that credit funds be earmarked for women, that the Women's Finance Trust be
strengthened, and that women be able to hold titles to land more easily in order to facilitate their access to credit.
The study also recommended that farmers create an insurance fund to cushion the effects of crop failures during
drought years (ZARD, 1996).


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 76





Table XX:


Market Survey


Item Source (where is # times resold Who's Who's selling Quantity sold How it is sold Cost/unit
it produced) since source of buying (per day, wk or
production month)


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 77







Table XX:


Comparison of Village-Based Income Generating Activities


Activity Season Gender Labor required/ Degree Difficulty Cost/unit Gross Profit/unit
unit output production income/unit production
production

Charcoal

Brick making

Gardening

Aquaculture
(traditional)
Fish project

Fish capture

Beer making

Maize prod.

Groundnuts

Beans

Chickens

Goats

Cows

Small scale
trading &
marketing
Government
workers


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scleffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 78







Land & Tree Tenure
There are two types of land tenure systems in Zambia State land systems and traditional land systems. The
government controls 4% (or 280,000 ha) of the land in Eastern province. State land is controlled by the President,
who arranges leases and titles through the Commissioner of Lands. State land is often used by townships, or for
resettlement schemes. State land was originally land appropriated by the British colonial government and given
to white settlers, so it is often some of the most fertile land, located next to major markets.

Traditional land is under the control of Paramount Chiefs, or village headmen. Main land use rights are given to
the family which first cleared the land, although land can also be given to an outsider by the Chief or headman.
Individuals who cleared land can also transfer their land use rights to another person without consulting the
chief. Most land is either inherited from parents or other relatives, or given to the occupant by the village
headman. However, traditional land can not be bought or sold. Few people have title deeds to their land,
although most enjoy relatively secure land tenure (Celis, Milimo & Wanmali, 1991).

Although everyone who needs and can use land has access to it, women do not inherit land or receive the first
gifts of land from their parents or mother's brothers (depending on the system of inheritance). If a woman needs
land, a close male relative (or husband) will give her part of his own land. This is often the case in female-headed
households. In matrilocal areas this system could pose a difficulty for women whose husbands pass away, and
who then return to their family village. Traditionally women were expected to stay in their husband's village
after the husband passes away, usually marrying one of the husband's brothers. This practice allowed the
children in Ngoni culture to stay with the family of their father (ZARD, 1996). However, in reality this system is
rarely practiced today, except in the case of very old women who plan to stay in their husband's villages when
their husbands pass away (personal observation).

Women from matrilocal ethnic groups may remain for some time in their parents' village even after they are
married, and are not required or expected to move immediately to their husband's village upon marriage. The
husband is often expected to cultivate the fields of his in-laws for a few years, in order to prove his worth
(personal observation).

Traditional inheritance practices resulted in widows loosing most (if not all) of their family possessions to the
husband's family, including livestock, clothes, electronic equipment, farm equipment, and land. Inheritance law
has recently been changed, so that people can make wills outlining the appropriate division of their property. In
the absence of a will, a widow or widower is now entitled to 20% of the family property, children of the deceased
are entitled to 50% of the property, the deceased's parents 20%, and 10% to any other dependents of the deceased.
The family house, household property and personal items go to the widow/er and children. However, the
"enforcement" of these rights has proven problematic and difficult (ZARD, 1996).

Despite traditional restrictions in terms of women's land tenure status, tree tenure status is unrestricted and
secure. Women are not prohibited either politically or culturally from planting trees, and "ownership" of trees
belongs to the person who plants the tree, regardless of their gender. Moreover, tree planting brings "respect" to
the family of the person who plants the tree, because anyone who wants to use a product from that tree has to ask
permission of the owner (personal observations/discussions with farmers).


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 79







Natural Resource/Land Use Systems


FICI'UK Uf LUKUrs UKI A riCLU Crop Production Systems
Unlike other areas where
increasing population
pressures have led to
decreased fallow periods,
farmers in Eastern Province
have been continuously
cultivating their fields since
the mid-1970's. Easy
access to credit, mineral
fertilizers and hybrid seed,
as well as a guaranteed and
stable market for maize
(which was purchased by
the government)
encouraged farmers to
grow hybrid maize as a
cash crop in one field for
many years. For almost 20 years, few farmers rotated their crops, and they planted large (>5 ha) fields of maize.
Unfortunately, with the switch to a market driven economy and after several very devastating drought years,
loans for fertilizer are difficult to find, and the purchase price for maize varies considerably from month to month
and year to year.
As fertilizer use has decreased, farmers devote less of their land to hybrid maize production, and have begun to
cultivate other cash crops. In the plateau area (where all the target villages are located), local and hybrid maize,
groundnuts, sunflower, beans, tobacco and cotton are important crops. Cowpeas and pumpkins are planted for
relish (leaves) as well as bean and fruit production. Sweet potatoes, sorghum, finger millet and cassava are
sometimes grown on a very small scale. The majority of farmers cultivate less than 5 ha.

PICTURE OF a dambo Dambos (seasonally
flooded wetlands) are
often planted with maize
during the rainy season,
and vegetables (rape,
tomatoes, onions), sugar
cane and bananas during
the dry season. The area
cultivated is usually less
than 1 ha, and only 50%
of households have access
to a dimba area.

Hand cultivators begin
clearing new land in
March, and continue
through September. In
October the previous
season's crop residues are placed in between existing farrows. Old farrows are then destroyed, and new farrows
are created incorporating the previous season's crop residues, in a system known as galaousa. Galouza literally
means dry planting, and most hand cultivators plant maize (often mixed with pumpkin and cowpea) in October,
before the rain begins.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 80








PICTURE OF OXEN CULTIVATION, cultivation methods, galouza Ox cultivators prepare land in
October/November. However,
less than half of the farmers in
Eastern province practice ox
cultivation. Most weeding is
done by hand, and labor for
weeding often determines how
much land is cultivated. A
calendar of general cropping
activities is presented in Table
XXX.

The main source of labor is from
the family. Hired labor is
sometimes used during critical
periods, such as cultivating,
planting, weeding and
harvesting. Some farmers also
barter their labor for maize once their maize stocks run out. Communal labor parties can be organized in
exchange for traditional beer. However, communal labor parties are more often reserved for land clearing (for
widowed or divorced women), house building or school construction. Labor availability from December -
January is a major constraint to increased crop production.

Most agricultural land in the
province is continuously cultivated, Photo #: Fallow field, XX Village, Eastern Province, Zambia
although most farmers have access to
land that has never been cleared
(personal observation). Only limited
fallowing is practiced. Most fallow
land is de-facto fallow land, left
fallow because there was not enough
labor to plant it. Short grass fallows
are sometimes used to restore soil
fertility and/or decrease weeds.
Crop rotations with groundnuts are
the most common soil fertility
practice, followed by the use of
chemical fertilizers (sometimes less
than 50 kg/ha), and manure. Crop
residues are usually incorporated
into fields during cultivation.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 81






Table XX:


Crop Calendar


Crop Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec


H = HARVEST


M = MARKET


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/lennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 82


C = CLEAR


P = PLOW


S = SEED


W = WEED







Table XX: Activities Calendar


Month Women's Tasks Men's Tasks Kid's Tasks

January



February



March



April



May



June



July



August



September



October



November



December


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 83






picture of cattle Livestock Production Systems
Chicken, goats, cattle, pigs
and sheep are common
components of local farming
systems. Most households
keep at least a few chickens,
although they are plagued
by disease and predators. In
1984, there were 215,727
cattle, 122,225 goats, 10,023
sheep and over 1,000,000
chickens in the province
(Ngugi, 1988). Ducks,
rabbits, pigeons, rabbits and
guinea fowl are also kept on
a limited basis. The average
number of cattle per
household ranges from 1.5 to
3, depending on the district (from Franzel et al, 1998)..

During the main cropping season, cattle are herded away from fields and goats and sheep are confined to the
village. Main grazing areas are dambos, stream edges and woodlands. Local browse species include msole
(Pseudolachnostylis maprounefolia), mtowa (diplorhynchus condilocarpon), mkulo (Diospyros kirkii) and msekese
(Piliostigma thonningii) (Ngugi, 1988). All animals are kraaled at night, in locally made shelters.

During the dry season animals browse freely without herding, except in areas where the Chief has ordered
controlled herding on a year-long basis. They benefit from crop residues available during the early part of the dry
season, but feed quality decreases considerably as grasses mature during the end of the dry season.

Cattle are an important symbol of wealth & status, as well as a source of draught power, milk and (less often)
manure. Young boys are sometimes kept from school or have their schooling delayed while they herd cattle
during the rainy season. They also manage milk production (personal observation). Thirty percent of the farmers
in Eastern Province keep cattle (Ngugi, 1988).

Goats and sheep are also tended by children (usually young boys). They are slaughtered for special occasions,
and infrequently sold for cash or bartered for other household needs. Chickens are kept by women, and
occasionally fed kitchen scraps. They are slaughtered for special visitors, and kept for egg production.

Pigs are fed grain waste and other kitchen scraps by women. They are more commonly sold to meet household
needs than goats or cattle. Pigs are also widely bartered in exchange for both labor and fertilizer in the four target
areas surveyed. Older, widowed women rely on these animals to provide them access to labor for difficult tasks
such as land preparation, as well as for the fertilizer required for them to harvest enough food. Pigs have been
banned from Chief Saidi's area, due to their association with chiggers (a real problem where most people are bare
foot).

Forest Production/Use Systems
Some forest cover is usually found around each village, to provide shelter against wind and as a source of tree
products (Ngugi, 1988). Forest cover is also found around cemeteries and burial areas. Common tree products
include fuelwood, poles, timber, fruits, fencing materials, medicine and browse. Traditional food and fruit trees
include baobab (Adansonia digitata), mtema (Strychnos cocculoides), msuku (Uapaca kirkiana), mfifya (Vitex doniana),
chipembele (Xeromphis obvata) and musawu (Ziziphus abyssinica).

Although women are usually responsible for collecting fuelwood, the felling of trees is a man's job. As firewood
has become more difficult to collect (requiring walks in excess of 6 km, and an ox cart for transport), it has become
commercialized. In such areas men are now collecting firewood for the family. Men are also responsible for


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 84







building fences around the homestead, and around dambo gardens (to protect them from dry season animal
herds).

The Forestry Department has encouraged the planting of trees for domestic and industrial use, the most common
ones including Gmelina arborea and Eucalyptus spp. Fruit and shade trees are often planted around villages and in
dambo areas.

Water Management Systems
Dams and artificially deviated waterways are loosely regulated by the Department of Water Affairs. The
province includes over 250 small reservoirs, which are used for fishing and to provide access to water during the
dry season. In some areas communities have built simple farrows to bring water from a source to a village. These
farrows also supply water to gardens and fish ponds. They are managed at the village level by users and
Headmen, and annual repairs are organized using communal labor. Drinking water sources are regulated and
managed by women.

Rivers and streams are protected by the Department of Fisheries, which imposes a fishing ban from December to
February each year, to allow stocks to replenish. Common fish species include breams (Oreochromis andersonii,
Oreochromis macrochir and Tilapia rendali) and catfish (Clarias spp.). Women fish in small streams, while men fish
in the Luangwa river (which is heavily silted and full of hippos and crocodiles!). Most streams dry-up after the
rains.

Village picture Specific Information
Regarding ICRAF Target
Villages
Kasauka is a relatively small
village including 33
households. Many houses
have metal roves, and there
are lots of domestic animals
and ox carts. The soils are
sandy and depleted. There
are not many trees in the
area, and the Chief has
prohibited tree cutting. It is
a rocky area. People use
small (less than 50 kg/ha)
quantities of fertilizer on
their maize fields. There is a
large grain storage building
nearby (in Jerusalem), and a large clinic. The headman is not actively planting improved fallows (he tried them a
few years ago, but the trees died). Men, women and children are involved in agriculture. LWF has encouraged
women to plant velvet bean fallows for green manure.

Mshaba is a slightly larger village of 46 households, and is inhabited by one main family the Mphanzas. The
headman has planted an improved fallow, but is not an adopter. The chairman of the local farmers' association is
very involved with the improved fallow program, and organizes local IF seed distribution. Twenty five out of the
46 households in the village are involved in the soil conservation club and tree nursery. LWF, SCAFE and other
development organizations are quite active in the village. There is also a Catholic Church in the village. Most
people have dimbas, and market gardening is a major source of income. Men did not seem as active in the
subsistence crop fields here as in other villages, and few cash crops were grown outside of vegetables. Some
people in other villages in the camp are starting to grow cotton and tobacco.

Fertilizer use is high (perhaps because of the proximity to Chipata), and women use large bags of fertilizer rather
than the smaller bags of fertilizer used in Kasauka. There are lots of animals, and several cattle corrals in the
village. Mshaba is very close to Chipata. The Paramount Chief, Mpezene, has outlawed charcoal production in

UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 85






the area, and controls the use of forest resources for firewood and housing construction. Many farmers have
uncleared agricultural land they are holding for their children.

Chivungwe is a larger village of 58 households, with a high number of female-headed households (38). Men
work actively in both cash and subsistence crop fields. They grow paprika, cotton, tobacco and soybeans. The
area is known as a major groundnut producer. Most of the village was working on the feeder roads project in
March, which pays ZKw 3,000/day for road maintenance. There is lots of available land in Chivungwe, even
though it is close to Chipata and relatively more urban than the other villages. Relatively few people are involved
in groups or clubs, and few people cultivate gardens. The area is predominately cultivated by retirees and people
who have recently moved back to the area after working in town. The soils are mostly various types of clay
luvisols.

The largest of the four target villages, Fisi (which means hyena in Chewa) includes 81 households spread out over
a large area. The village has nice loam soils and more available land than the other target villages. Cotton is an
important cash crop. Katete district has the highest cotton production in the country, and a new cotton gin is
being built at the district center. Animals are a common problem in Fisi chickens die of disease, and animals
destroy crops in fields. There are two churches in the village the Reformed Church of Zambia and the Catholic
Church. Some farmers cultivate dimba gardens, and there are many bicycles in the area. It is approximately 80
km from Mozambique. The head man in Fisi is very active with the improved fallow program

Table XX presents the total number of households in each village based on household type (MHH or FHH). The
percentage of testers in the four target villages varied from 11% in Fisi to 52% in Mshaba (Phiri et. al., 1999).
Additional information on the ICRAF target villages was presented in Table 1, in the main report.

Table XX: Proportion of Male-Headed Households and Female-Headed Households in the Four Target
Villages (percentages are in parentheses) 8

Village MHH FHH Total Number of HH
Mshaba 33 (72) 13 (28) 46
Kasauka 25 (76) 8 (24) 33
Chivungwe 58 (62) 23 (38) 81
Fisi 58 (72) 23 (28) 81
Total 152 (70) 66 (30) 218


8 From Phiri et. al., 1999
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 86







Appendix C:


ICRAF Project Background and Data


Introduction
The Zambia/ICRAF program in Eastern Province began in 1987, with an initial micro diagnosis and design
(D&D) exercise. The D&D team identified limited cash and, to a lesser extent, limited food supply as the major
problems facing small-scale farmers in the area. Both cash and food supply resources are dependent on crop
production. However, crop production in Eastern Province is limited by the small area of land in cultivation, and
low productivity per unit land area. Crop areas are small because of limited access to labor and draught power
for land preparation and weeding. Land productivity in the region is limited by low soil fertility, limited organic
matter and poor soil management.

Based on this assessment, technologies which improve soil fertility, crop management, cropping patterns, labor
efficiency, livestock productivity, economic opportunities, and infrastructure were identified as appropriate
strategies to meet local needs. Recommended agroforestry interventions included live fences, alley cropping,
fodder banks, fruit trees, poles and timber trees (Ngugi, 1988).

Improved Fallows
Before the introduction of chemical fertilizers and hybrid maize varieties in the 1970's, farmers in Eastern
Province cultivated land for a few years and then left it uncultivated or "in fallow" for up to 20 years, in order to
allow soil fertility to be restored via the decomposition of natural grasses, shrubs and trees. Improved fallows
build upon that traditional practice, by incorporating fast growing, nitrogen-fixing vines, shrubs and trees into the
fallow, in order to speed up the natural soil regeneration process. There are also secondary benefits of improved
fallows, such as the provision of firewood, medicine, fodder, erosion control, weed suppression, and shade.

Improved fallows are a relatively under-explored and under-researched agroforestry system. Initially, most
agroforestry research concentrated on a system known as "alley cropping", where trees and crops were cultivated
together in a permanent cultivation system. However, for various reasons (labor, plant competition, etc.), alley
cropping systems have not been widely adopted. Thus, the success of improved fallow systems in the Zambian
context is particularly exciting and important, as it represents one of the few "introduced" (as opposed to
traditional) agroforestry systems which have been widely adopted by farmers.


Species Backgrounds
Sesbania sesban
Sesbania sesban (L.) Merrill
is a perennial shrub of the
Family Leguminosae,
subfamily Papilionoidae
and is thought it have
originated in Africa and
Asia. Over 30 species of
Sesbania are recorded in
Africa, which is
considered the center of
genetic diversity for the
species. Five varieties of
Sesbania sesban are
recognized botanically
(var. sesban, var. bicolor,
var. zambesiaca, var.
punctata, and var.
nubica), but the significance of these differences to their agricultural value is not widely known. Seed
provenances vary considerably in their characteristics, including the quantity of biomass produced, resistance to
pests and diseases, coppicing ability, leaflet size and stem and flower color.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 87







Sesbania grows in tropical and subtropical, frost-free areas. It grows to a height of up to 4 meters. The life span of
Sesbania sesban varies with climate and management, but it is thought to be less than 10 years. Sesbania sesban
prefers seasonally wet areas, although it tolerates both drought (including Zambia's seven month dry season) and
flooding. It grows in a wide range of soils, from loose sands to fine textured, acidic clays.

Sesbania sesban is a deciduous, short-lived shrub, with reddish-brown to green bark. It has compound leaves
appx. 12 cm long, with leaflets appx. 2 cm long (depending on the variety). The flowers are yellow, and the
young shoots are pubescent. Seeds are small, olive green to brown, and cylindrical. Their seed coat is hard, and
they must be scarified (treated with hot water or sand paper) before planting. In Eastern Province, seeds are
produced from July to October.

Technical Specifications Sesbania sesban is attacked by several pests and diseases, including root-knot
* Trees are planted at a density of nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.), leaf eating insects (Mesoplatys ochroptera,
0.9 m x 0.75 m, or 14,763 trees Mylabris dicincta), termites, ants, and fungi (Fusarium, Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia
per ha, whether in pure stand or and Pythium spp.). In Zambia, the mesoplatys beetle and termites have been
intercropped with maize the biggest pest problems. However, the degree to which these attacks lower
* Maize is planted at a the quality of improved fallows has not been measured.
recommended density of 75 cm
X 30 cm, giving a density of Although Sesbania can be direct seeded, it is usually planted first in a nursery,
44,444 plants per ha to improve germination and field survival. By planting Sesbania in a nursery
* Fertilizer is applied at first, the trees are able to grow in a protected environment, so they grow faster
recommended rates of 112-40-20 than when they are directly seeded into a field. Moreover, farmers are able to
kg N-P-K/ha select only the best trees with the most vigor to transplant into their fields.
* Survival rates of 60% or more Most importantly, when the trees are planted in a nursery they are older and
are considered high, and 30% is more mature when the rainy season ends, and so are better able to survive the
required to achieve expected dry season.
fertility benefits.
Intercropping reduced tree However, nursery production is a costly affair. Farmers must prepare a
seedling survival 9 13% raised bed, add some soil from an existing Sesbania field to the bed to
(VERIFY 10 21& in Kwesiga facilitate inoculation by the appropriate Rhizobium bacteria, and water and
et al 1997?) and maize yields 18
28% (VERIFY 29a 39 in K et care for the trees for 3 6 weeks. Sesbania grows quite quickly, however, and
al 1997) in drought years, but can attain a height of 25 cm in as few as 3 weeks. Some farmers have taken
not in years with average advantage of the quick growth of sesbania by creating a nursery within the
rainfall. field where the trees will be planted, early in the rainy season. Thus, farmers
are still able to monitor and care for the trees when they are young and select
the healthiest trees for transplanting, but they are not required to water them as frequently (as the rains have
already begun), and transplanting is easier. However, the trees will not have the advantage of being older and
more mature at the end of the rainy season.

Sesbania is the work horse of the ICRAF improved fallow research program, and has been one of the most
successful trees in terms of its effects on maize yields after only two years of cultivation (despite its low biomass
production and low leaf:stem ratio). On-station and on-farm trials have recorded yields in excess of 5 t/ha, more
than three times more than unfertilized maize.

For more information on the biology and culture of Sesbania sesban, see Gillet, 1963; Evans and Rotar, 1987; NFTA,
1989; or Kwesiga and Benist, 1998.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 88








Tephrosia vogelii
DONALD -
BACKGROUND INFO!!

Other species tested by the
project include Cajanus
cajan, Leucaena leucocephala,
Gliricidia sepium, Calliandra
calothyrsus, Flemingia
macrophylla Leucaena
diversifolia, Senna siama,
Senna spectabilis, and
Sesbania macrantha

On-Farm Trials
Initially, on-station research
focused on the evaluation
of appropriate tree species
and provenances. During
that time, over XX (HELP
HELP DONALD!) species of Sesbania, Gliricidia and Tephrosia were evaluated and screened. However,
promising results using Sesbania sesban, Tephrosia vogelii and Cajanus cajan as improved fallow species prompted
researchers to quickly begin on-farm trials. Between 1992 and 1994, researcher designed and managed improved
fallow trials (also called Type 1 trials) were conducted on 23 farms and 4 Farmer Training Centers (FTCs). In
1993/94, five farmers established farmer-designed, farmer-managed trials (Type 3 trials). Based on the initial
results of these trials, 113 Type 2 (researcher-designed and farmer-managed) and 37 Type 3 trials were conducted
in 1994/95 During the 1995/96 season, 657 additional farmers planted Type 3 trials, and in 1996/97, over 1000
farmers independently tested improved fallow technologies (Franzel, Phiri and Kwesiga, 1997).

Table XX: Summary of ICRAF On-Farm Research Program, 1988 1998

Number of Trials
Year Type of Trial Number of Women Number of Men On Total
Station/FTC

92/93, Type 3 2 3 5
93/94
93/94 Type 1 0 21 6 27
94/95 Type 2 28 85 113 (157)
Type 3 37
95/96 Type 2 9 (31% of 31) 22 31 (35)
Type 3 322 (49%) 335 (51%) 657 (800)
96/97 Type 2 no new trials established no new trials none
Type 3 1092 (2800)
97/98 Type 2 20 30 50

Type 3 10039



9 excluding NGOs
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 89






Since 1996, the on-farm research team has begun collecting tree survival and technology adoption data. Initial
adoption surveys indicate that more and more on-farm trials are being initiated by women. Although only 22% of
the 113 Type 2 trials were initiated by women during the 1994/95 season, by 1995, 31% of the 31 Type 2 trials and
49% of the 657 Type 3 trials were initiated by women.

Species Comparison Data10 However, men tend to have bigger plots than women (649m2
vs. 326m2). Women tend to plant directed-seeded Tephrosia
* On-farm mean survival in low rainfall years was vogelii more than men (41% of women vs. 24% of men), and
highest for Tv (74%), 68% for Cc, and lowest for Ss vogelii more than men (41% of women vs. 24% of men), and
highest for Tv (74%), 68% for Cc, and lowest for Ss
(58%). women have a slightly higher survival rate for Sesbania sesban
than men (47% of women and 29% of men had survival rates
* In on-farm trials sesbania ranked highest in its above 75% of trees planted). Surveys also indicate that 39%
ability to withstand the long dry season. On the
ability to withstand the long dry season. On the of men had seen ICRAF improved fallow trials at Farmer
farms with the highest survival rates, survival of men had seen faow s at Farmer
dropped from 81% at 3 months to 63% after one Training Centers (FTCs), whereas only 25% of women had
year. Survival of Tv dropped from 91% to 51%. visited such trials (although this difference was not
In on-farm trials Tv and Cc were less able to statistically significant). Forty-two percent of women and
survive the dry season on Alphisols than Luvisols, 37% of men choose to intercrop their trees with maize rather
perhaps because Alphisols retain less moisture.. than to plant the trees alone. The main problems farmers
Ss r i G i t s encountered with the technology were beetles (on Sesbania),
* On station results indicate Gs is the second best
improved fallow species after Ss, producing 3.8 termites, and poor germination. These differences did not
6.1 t/ha of maize in the first and second years vary by gender (from Donald Phiri and Steve Franzel, ICRAF
after the fallow (increase in Y2 is partially due to internal communication; and Franzel et al, 1998).
rainfall effects)11
rainfall effects)11 IIn 1998, project staff assessed the adoption potential of
improved fallows in the area, evaluating the feasibility (the degree to which farmers are able to manage the
technology), profitability, degree of farmer interest, and the institutional support available to support the spread
of improved fallows. They found that the technology was feasible Type 3 farmers were able to plant and
manage nurseries and improved fallow fields on their own without supervision, and to cut the fallow trees
(Franzel et. al., 1998).

Moreover, they found that the technology was Profitability of Improved Fallows12
profitable. Research indicated that a family Over a 5 year period (two years in fallow and three years
manually cultivating 1.2 ha would need to plant in cultivation), a ha of IF required 11% less labor than a
a 0.27 ha improved fallow each year (a little ha of unfertilized maize, and 32% less labor than
more than 1 lima), assuming that they would fertilized maize.
crop for three years after cutting the improved IFs improved total maize production over 5 years 87%
fallow. Planting a 0.27 ha improved fallow of Ss over unfertilized maize (even without any yield in Y1 &
would increase labor use by 35 days, or 5% 16% 2). Fully fertilized maize yields 2.5 times more than IFs
per month from September to February (which over 5 years.
are peak labor months). However, intercropped Total yield on-station in the four cropping seasons
Tv increases labor use by less than 2% (Franzel following 2-year fallows was 14.3 t/ha compared to 7.5
et. al., 1988). t/ha for 6 seasons of continuously cropped maize13.
Returns per ha were highest for fertilized maize,
In exchange for increased labor costs, farmers followed by improved fallows. Even without residual
with improved fallows harvested 3.5 4.4 t/ha, maize yield increases in the second and third years after
more than triple the amount of maize harvested the fallow is cut, improved fallows were still more
more than triple the amount of maize harvested
profitable than unfertilized maize.
from continuously cultivated, unfertilized maize profitable than unfertilized maize.
Improved fallows gave significantly higher returns to
fields (which are the norm, and yielded 0.3 1.3 labor than unfertilized maize, and slightly higher
t/ha). Moreover, maize harvested from returns to labor than fertilized maize.
improved fallow plots out-yielded fully fertilized Improved fallows are much less risky than fertilizer use
plots on two of five farmers. in times of drought (a common phenomenon in Eastern
Province).

10 From Franzel et. al., 1998
11 From Kwesiga et. al., 1997
12 From Franzel et. al., 1998
13 Kwesiga and Coe, 1994
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 90








An important factor to keep in mind when evaluating the profitability of different soil fertility management
practices is their relevance to small farmers in the area under consideration. In the Eastern Province of Zambia,
fully fertilized maize is not an option, and in many cases even partially fertilized maize is not an option, because
farmers have neither the cash nor the access to credit to purchase maize. So, even though fully-fertilized maize
fields may be the most economically profitable alternative, they are not a realistic alternative for rural farmers.

To evaluate the degree of farmer interest in the improved fallow technology, researchers looked at acceptability in
terms of farmers' perception of the soil fertility problem, past soil fertility options, current fallow practices and the
economic importance of annual cropping. These factors, combined with wealth level, gender, and access to off-
farm income were thought to impact both the testing and adoption of improved fallows (Franzel, 1997). These
factors are considered in Table XX. In general, the study found that improved fallows have proven acceptable to
farmers, based on the increase in the number of Type 3 trials and increased demand for seed over the past 5 years
(Franzel et. al., 1998).

Table XX: Factors Affecting the Acceptability of Improved Fallows,
and Their Relevance in Eastern Province


Factor Relevance in Eastern Province

Farmer interest and perception HIGH (number one crop production problem
of the soil fertility problem mentioned during the survey)
Past interest and experience in HIGH (Over 80% of all farmers have used
soil fertility management fertilizer in the past, and some also used green
manures during the colonial era)
Current fallowing The survey indicated that farmers fallow out
of desperation (because their yields are so
low) or they fallow when they have no labor
to cultivate (de facto fallow land)
Importance of annual cropping HIGH (maize is the number one production
priority for small farmers in Eastern Province)
Wealth level
Gender access of women to HIGH (Survey data indicated that 84% of all
extension information women interviewed work with their Camp
Officers to learn agricultural techniques, and
64% are members of clubs)
Access to off-farm income LOW (based on survey data)


Main indicators of wealth and
well being in the target villages
* Area cultivated
* Number of cattle owned
* Type of roofing material for
the house
* Bicycle ownership
* Ownership of Oxen for animal
traction
* Amount of maize harvested
per year
* Ability to hire labor, or
necessity to perform labor


In 1998, the on-farm team also embarked on an ambitious program of adoption
and household surveys, and collected wealth ranking data from each of the four
target villages. The adoption and household surveys are currently underway,
but data has not yet been tabulated. Wealth ranking data for the four target
villages is presented in Tables XX to XX14.

The wealth ranking research concluded that overall, there was no significant
difference between male and female headed households planting improved
fallows (Chi square test, p<0.35). However, there was variation between
villages. In Mshaba 8 of 13 women were testing improved fallows, whereas in
Fisi, only 2 of 23 were testing improved fallows. They hypothesized that
perhaps the number of active women's groups in Kasauka and Mshaba may


sekera.


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 91






have contributed to the high number of women testers. In addition, the ICRAF team has been active in Kasauka
and Mshaba for a longer period of time than it has been in Chivungwe and Fisi, and other organizations such as
LWF and SCAFE are also more active in those two villages. It may also be that Fisi is a more traditional village,
indicated by the higher number of polygamous marriages in the area (Phiri et. al. 1999).

The study team also found that the association between wealth and planting is significant (Chi square test, p<0.1).
Whereas 53% of the well off farmers have tested improved fallows, only 16% of the very poor have tested them
(Phiri et. al. 1999). This association is borne out in the current study as well. However, unlike the current study,
the ICRAF data did not look at the effect of wealth on adoption, only on testing.

Table XX: Criteria for Being Well-Off, by Village

Mshaba Kasauka Chivungwe Fisi
Brick house with iron Brick house with iron Brick house with iron Brick house with iron
roof roof roof roof
>5 cows >40 cows >10 cows >20 cows
>20 goats >10 goats >15 goats
>10 pigs >15 pigs >20 pigs
Ox implements Ox implements Ox implements Ox implements
Able to put kids through Able to put kids through Able to put kids through Able to put kids through
school school school school
Cultivate a dimba Cultivate a large dimba
Own a tuck shop Own a tuck shop Own a tuck shop
Own >1 bicycle Own >2 bicycles Own 1 or 2 bikes
Cultivate >1.5 ha Cultivate >5 ha Cultivate >5 ha Cultivate >3 ha
Able to hire labor Able to hire labor Able to hire labor Able to hire labor
Harvest 10 ox carts or Harvest 10 ox carts or Harvest 7 ox carts or
more of maize more of maize more of maize
Own a Hammer Mill Ability to pay for
medical services

Table XX: Criteria for Being Fairly Well-Off, by Village

Mshaba Kasauka Chivunge Fisi
>5 cows 10 39 cows >10 cows 5 19 cows
Cultivate a dimba Cultivate a dimba Cultivate a dimba
Send some children to Send some children to Send some children to Send some children to
school school school school
Cultivate 0.75 1.25 ha
Harvest 5 9 ox carts of Harvest 6 9 ox carts of Harvest 3 6 ox carts of
maize maize maize
_10 pigs 10 14 pigs 10 19 pigs
6 19 goats 10 goats 2- 14 goats
Able to hire labor
Use chemical fertilizer
Ox implements Ox implements


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 92







Table XX: Criteria for Being Poor, by Village

Mshaba Kasauka Chivungwe Fisi
Cultivate 0.25 0.75 ha Cultivate <2 ha Harvest less than 1 ox
cart of maize
Work in other people's Hire out labor Hire out labor Hire out labor
fields
Educate some children Not able to send children Not able to send children
through primary school to school to school
<10 chickens 5 chickens _5 chickens

Table XX: Criteria for Being Very Poor, by Village

Mshaba Kasauka Chivungwe Fisi
Cultivate <0.25 ha Cultivate <0.25 ha Cultivate <0.25 ha
Work in other people's Work in other people's Work in other people's
fields fields fields
Send no children to Send no children to Send no children to
school school school
Own no livestock Own no livestock Own no livestock

In Kasauka, standards for "well-off" are quite high. For someone to be placed in this category they must have 40+
cattle, a hammer mill and a store. In other areas, the criteria to be placed in the well-off category are much less
stringent, and more or less based on agricultural production.

Table XX: Wealth Ranking Comparisons by Village15

Village # Households % Female- headed % Well Off % Fairly % Poor % Very
households Well-Off Poor
Mshaba 46 28 20 46 17 17
Kasauka 33 24 6 40 27 27
Chivungwe 58 23 5 43 40 12
Fisi 81 25 4 15 58 23
Total 218 25 (average) 8 31 41 20

Based on the participants own evaluation (Table 11), Mshaba has the largest percentage of well-off or fairly well-
off households (and the largest percentage of female-headed households), whereas Fisi has the largest percentage
of poor and very poor households. Mshaba also has one of the highest adoption rates for improved fallows, and
Fisi the lowest. It has been speculated that Mshaba's adoption rate may be linked to the intensity and early timing
of project activities in that area, whereas the extensive amount of available land in Fisi may make natural fallows
a more interesting option than improved ones (Donald Phiri, personal communication).

In the following table, the percentage of female-headed households falling into each category is compared to the
percentage of male-headed households in each category. This comparison indicates that more women-headed
households than men-headed households fall into the poor/very poor category in Mshaba and Fisi, whereas more
women-headed households are well-off or fairly well off in Kasauka (where the standards for these categories are
quite high).







15From Donald Phiri, ICRAF/Msekera.
UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 93






Table XX: Gender-Disaggregated Wealth Ranking Data

Well Off (%) Fairly Well Off (%) ( Poor(%) Very Poor (%)
FHH MHH FHH MHHH FH M I FHH MHH
Mshaba 15 21 23 54 31 12 31 -12
Kasauka 12.5 4 50 36 12.5 32 25 28
Chivungwe 0 8.5 35 48.5 65 23 0 20
Fisi 0 5 10 17 70 54 20 24


UF/USAID Gender and Soil Fertility CRSP/Jennifer Scheffee Peterson/DRAFT/March 1999/Page 94




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs