Awareness and adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi: what difference can farmer-to-farmer extension make?

ABSTRACT

Despite the potential of conservation agriculture (CA) for increased crop yields, energy savings, soil erosion control, and water-use efficiency, smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa have been slow to adopt. Farmer-to-farmer extension (F2FE) may have a role to play in overcoming the information access problems and lack of knowledge that may preclude widespread adoption. This study uses data for 180 lead farmers linked to their 455 followers to investigate how F2FE influences awareness and adoption of CA technologies in Malawi. Results from a bivariate probit model for follower farmer awareness and adoption of the three CA principles (minimum soil disturbance, crop residue retention, and crop diversification) reveal four main findings: First, lead farmer motivation increases their effectiveness at diffusing CA practices to their followers. Second, lead farmer familiarity with and adoption of CA both matter to the spread of CA practices, but familiarity appears more important. Third, lead farmers play a more critical role in increasing awareness than adoption of the CA practices. Finally, F2FE is a complement rather than a substitute for other sources of agricultural extension in Malawi's pluralistic extension system and should support but not replace current systems. Research and policy implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Africa
• conservation agriculture
• farmer-to-farmer extension
• Malawi
• technology adoption

Acknowledgements

This is an output from the ‘Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies in Malawi’ project of the School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The data collection and most researcher time was funded by the CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council and the NORAD-funded NORHED ‘Climate-Smart Natural Resource Management and Policy (CLISNARP)’ project. Researcher time to contribute to this publication was also supported by the MAIZE CGIAR Research program (www.maize.org). We acknowledge the help of Kai Sonder in preparing the map of survey districts. Many thanks are due to the survey enumerators and survey respondents in Malawi.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. We use the term ‘lead farmer’ when referring to such farmer trainers, given its prominence in Malawi, the geographic focus of our study. Several other labels are also commonly used (e.g. opinion leader, model farmer, community knowledge worker, contact farmer, volunteer farmer, master farmer, community volunteer), depending on the specific roles and tasks performed.

2. Exceptions are Beaman et al. (2015), BenYishay and Mobarak (2014), Krishnan and Patnam (2013), and Genius et al. (2013).

3. This added to the survey costs and the survey budget caused a more limited coverage in Chiradzulu and Thyolo districts.

4. We also tested heckprobit models, i.e. sequential probit models, but these did not perform satisfactorily.

Additional information

Funding

This is an output from the ‘Adoption of Conservation Agriculture Technologies in Malawi’ project of the School of Economics and Business, Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The data collection and most researcher time was funded by the CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council and the NORAD-funded NORHED ‘Climate-Smart Natural Resource Management and Policy (CLISNARP)’ project. Researcher time to contribute to this publication was also supported by the MAIZE CGIAR Research program (www.maize.org).