Agroforestry Systems 10, 265-289, 1990. 265 © 1990 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Agroforestry and soil conservation needs of smallholders in Southern Zambia

P E T E R S T U R M H E I T * *Formerly: Conservation Engineer, Lusume Services, P.O. Box 42, Magoye, Zambia; Present address: Blessmannstr. 4, D-2850 Bremerhaven, W. Germany

Key words: Agroforestry, extension, Faidherbia albida, fencing, fodder, fruit trees, fuelwood, needs assessment, soil conservation, windbreaks, women, Zambia

Abstract. An agroforestry and soil conservation needs assessment survey conducted in southern Zambia revealed valuable insight into needs, constraints and development options as perceived by smallholders themselves. Inadequate efforts to conserve soil are due to technical and socio-economic factors, they do not result from a lack of awareness of the widespread erosion threat. Fruit tree planting, windbreak establishment as well as the protec- tion of the natural Faidherbia albida regeneration in cropland are popular agroforestry interventions whose positive effects are widely acknowledged. Forty-two perennial species were found to directly contribute to people's diet. Although local fuelwood and fodder shortages as well as the need for fencing are recognized only few respondents envisage agroforestry solutions such as fuelwood and fodder tree planting or live fencing. Most smallholders are interested in tree planting but have so far only planted few trees. Those planted are usually exotic fruit trees. Drought hardy, termite and browse resistant perennials adapted to smallholder tree planting must be provided by the extension services. The widespread exclusion of women from decision making and the lack of tenure security hampers female participation in agroforestry development and consequently threatens sustainable development altogether.

1. Introduct ion

There is a need to thoroughly diagnose needs, constraints and preferences

as perceived by the target g roup before designing any sustainable develop- ment solutions relevant and applicable to local condit ions [Leach and

Mearns , 1988]. However , above par t ic ipa tory approaches were previously

not used in planning agricultural extension p r o g r a m m e s in Z a m b i a [Stock- ing, 1985]. In 1986/87 a needs assessment survey was conducted in southern

Z a m b i a which a imed to gain bet ter insight into soil conservat ion and agrofores t ry needs and practices a m o n g smallholder and emergent Tonga farmers . The findings were used to redefine the conservat ion and

agrofores t ry strategy o f Lusume Services, an indigenous rural development organizat ion. A sample of 479 farmers and their adult dependents (2.4% of

27

MAZABUKA

266

u ~

~,da ! ~ J ~ ~-"~ I ' ' " "'... SOUTHERN AFRICA } " "':'" "; SHOWING

' :-..-: N~Q~ ". ' ," r" " OF ZAMBIA

~..:. ~EPu~- ' ~ . . . - ; . ! , J ' / ~ 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ...... ~~ '.' -e%.-.- / f - -,..L"

; : : ' . ' " " ' " ( " ' ~ " ° " ' ' : r,.~, e ~'

Fig. 1. Location of the study area.

the population) were interviewed by means of a questionnaire (see Appen- dix) within selected areas of Mazabuka District (see Fig. 1; alti- tude = 1000m.a.s.1.). Their views are discussed in this paper.

The majority of the sedentary southern plateau farmers use draft oxen and the mouldboard plough for land preparation [ZATF, 1986; Schultz, 1976]. Rainfed maize, either monocropped or rotated with cotton, is the predominant staple crop. Land tenure is either traditional on 'reserve land' or leasehold on state land 'settlements' [Lombard and Tweedie, 1972]. The

267

average size of holdings comprises 4-7 ha of arable land [Schultz, 1976] and the mean size of households is about 8 persons [P.M. Mbulo, UNZA, 1987, pers. comm.]. Farms are usually smaller in the 'reserve land'; here popula- tion density is twice as high (60 persons km -2) as on the 'settlements', land is of inferior quality, erosion is a greater threat and deforestation and overgrazing are serious problems. In 1987 below average crop yields led to widespread famine in the reserve land [Sturmheit, 1988a].

The unimodal rainy season lasts from November to March. The average rainfall for the area is around 800mmyear -1, but this is often irregularly distributed.

2. Major study results

2.1 Degradation o f the crucial resource - are farmers concerned about soil

erosion?

Before introduction of the mouldboard plough in the early 20th century erosion was insignificant in southern Zambia. Land was hoed, crops were sown on irregularly spaced mounds and there was no need to stump trees. However, as early as 1933 Charnaud wrote that the area under review was 'showing signs of soil deterioration and sheet erosion' [in: Stone, 1978]. In spite or perhaps due to colonial attempts to introduce contouring by forced labour [Johnson, 1956] most land converted to arable farming after in- dependence remains unprotected, and existing contour bunds are rarely maintained. Of those farmers who had been advised as how to construct storm drains or bunds only few had subsequently implemented these measures. Thus it was initially thought that farmers might lack awareness of the erosion threat. However, the study revealed that apparently most slop- ing land is affected by erosion and farmers are quite aware and concerned about it (see Fig. 3). Although many respondents appear to know the concept of contour bunding (see Fig. 4) digging the ditches during the off-season when the soils are dry and hard is highly unpopular. Loss of land to unproductive bunds is of further concern. There is also only a vague understanding of the concept of a true contour. Although there is presently no awareness that hedgerows or mulch can halt erosion (see Fig. 4) wooded contour strips may not only yield direct benefits such as fruit, fodder, fuelwood and mulch (alley strip cropping) but also conserve soil and water as a spin-off effect. Those strips might be more acceptable to smallholders facing a shortage of land than a system of graded contour ridges which may 'only' prevent future land degradation.

268

,@

z "~ 100 ~ 7

"~ 19

N

83

l ~J s e x

/ - - - - 7 [ / -

22 -~ • 2 7

48 -~

2

a g e g r o u p l a n d t e n u r e

Fig. 2. Composition of interviewed sample.

P••-- t r a d i t i o n a l f a r m s

reserve or trust land

l e a s e h o l d f a r m s

settlement schemes

on state land

~>

2.2 Storm damage and shelterbelts

Major yield losses due to thunder storms are commonly experienced. After the maturing maize plants are broken by gales, termites destroy cobs which are in contact with the ground. About three quarters of the respondents are

&60 "o

N

40

20

0 I !

o

"8 P

! I

Fig. 3. Problems of cultivating sloping land.

percentages add up to more than 100

since multiple answers were possible

269

ii

49

! 20-

N

5O

1 I

,~ o ~ °~ ~ o •

o ~

Fig. 4. Envisaged solutions to erosion related problems.

E>

affected (see Fig. 5). Although a majority is aware that windbreaks could prevent such damage (see Fig. 6) only 9% of the respondents farm land that is sheltered by adjacent strips of often natural woodland.

Recent extension experience revealed that establishment of trees for shel- ter, initially around homesteads, appears to be a popular agroforestry intervention. Nevertheless, tree planting in and around fields is often viewed with suspicion. Loss of land to trees and shading of crops are major objections.

2.3 Attitudes towards Faidherbia albida trees in cropland

Faidherbia albida is commonly known (by 98% of the population) and widely distributed within the study area. It naturally regenerates in fields of about every second respondent (53%). A quarter of the sample retains

s o m e d a m a g e

u s d a m a g e

~ no d a m a g e

Fig. 5. Extent of storm damage to crops as experienced by farmers. (% of respondents: n = 479).

270

c6

40

20-

74 1 2 1 2

, - ' ~ D- O I I I I I

; °.°

Fig. 6. Envisaged storm damage prevention strategies.

1

mature Faidherbia trees in their cropland. These farmers have most likely observed the tree's beneficial effect on crop yields. Unlike many extension specialists who used to advise farmers to remove all trees from cropland, a clear majority of farmers recognize the tree's advantages (see Fig. 7). Soil improvement was most frequently mentioned. Local experience as a whole tends to confirm scientists' findings [Sturmheit, 1989]. Most farmers con- sider leaf drop less important for soil improvement as opposed to the effect of droppings which accumulate under the tree when livestock seek shade and

+! 60

4O

[

f J

69

I

~ .8 .8 .8 .z+

~ 8 k +a

B

# 3

E 8 ~.~

Fig. 7. Advantages of intercropping Faidherbia albida trees as perceived by farmers.

O

L+@

20

2: 3 3 2 O ' I I I I I 1

71 i P

1381 1 1

i "

a~

Fig. 8. Disadvantages of intercropping Faidherbia albida trees as perceived by farmers.

271

relish its pods during the hot dry season. However, some farmers have felled mature Faidherbia trees in the wrong belief that the exceptionally fertile soil under the tree might remain in this state in perpetuity. In contrast to the Zambezi Valley Tonga [Scudder, 1975] Plateau Tonga do not consume its seed as famine food. And in contrast to parts of the Sahel, lopping the tree branches for fuelwood and browse is rarely practiced since pod production for fodder is considered more important (see Fig. 7).

Natural regeneration or coppice regrowth of Faidherbia is unpopular with barefoot walking people who tend to regard most thorny plants a weed (see Fig. 8). The tree's possible interference with cultivation appears to be a valid fear (see Fig. 8). However, Faidherbia's lateral root system is sparse [Giffard, 1971] and the few trees required (50-100 trees ha - l ) can be spaced in a systematic quincunx pattern which would minimize interference with ox tillage. Occasionally we came across 'educated' farmers strongly contesting the suggestion that crop yields might improve under trees (see Fig. 8). However, there was reason to believe that they had neglected weed control under Faidherbia's canopy since they were convinced this effort would not be rewarded. Thus a self-fulfilling prophecy resulted. In Ethiopian peasants' fields Poschen [1986] observed mean net maize yield increases by 76% under the tree's canopy. In contrast, very low canopies were found to depress yields. Due to its excellent coppicing ability Faidherbia is not easily controlled by cutting it back. Nevertheless, the formation of thorn thickets (see Fig. 8) could be prevented by allowing a few superior individuals to mature and thus shade out undergrowth. This consideration calls for a full

272

60

40- ~e

20-

64 66.,,.-62 s5 l

E E o o i

a ~ m ; El " ~ ' * ' i

i !

\ V / p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s

FMdherbia in f i e l d s

F

54 i 58 i

,i ) ,

\ v

, - " - - 7

,.<-61 52

,m u

0 0 m m

¥ .A

f /

w i l l i n g to p l a n t

FMdherbia in f i e l d s

Fig. 9. Attitudes towards Faidherbia albida intercropping.

dry season canopy cover which could be achieved by establishing trees at 10-12m equidistance. Interestingly, the long time horizon until the tree reaches maturity and the possible risk of providing nesting places to plagues such as the weaver bird are not considered a particular disadvantage.

Favourable attitudes towards Faidherbia interplanting appear to prevail (see Fig. 9). However, this result might have been biased since the phrasing of the question did not provide alternatives ('leading question', Baker, 1989. Correct phrasing: 'Do you like or dislike having Faidherbia trees in fields?' See Appendix). Figure 22 is likely to provide a better picture on the valua- tion of Faidherbia: it is favoured by 17% of the respondents. Similarly the recorded willingness to plant Faidherbia (see Fig. 9) must be viewed with caution since prior to our suggestion hardly any farmer had ever considered planting indigenous trees. The problem of 'faking good' arises too since tree planting is considered socially desirable [Baker, 1989]. Furthermore experi- ence has shown that 'what I say is not necessarily the same as what I do'. In the years 1987-88 only few farmers actually planted Faidherbia trees. Occasionally innovative Faidherbia planters were exposed to pressure from local leaders and fellow farmers who denounced their 'madness'. How could a reasonable farmer establish 'weeds' in his field?

Figure 9 suggests that both women and the youth have a less positive attitude towards Faidherbia. This is not surprising as both these groups were hardly reached by our early 'conventional' extension meetings which focused on male heads of households [Sturmheit, 1988b]. Investment by women and the youth in slow maturing trees is likely to remain unpopular as the traditional matrilineal inheritance law discriminates against these

273

E 60

#

40- i.

20-

6O J

0 l f [~ \ ,

Fig. 10. Fuelwood supply.

no problems experienced

v problems experienced

/

groups [Mvunga, 1982]. The decision to plant trees therefore usually rests with the male elders who more readily recognize Faidherbia's advantages (see Fig. 9). In contrast, modern agricultural research and extension biased towards 'high-tech' solutions largely ignore this indigenous resource.

Although farmers had initially been encouraged to plant Faidherbia trees in fields the interviews conducted by local government extension workers as well as the Lusume Services agroforestry extension campaign have neverthe- less resulted in widespread efforts to preserve the abundant natural Faidher- bia regeneration [Y. Kaonga, 1989, pers. comm.].

2.4 Fuelwood shortage in the 'reserve land'

A decade ago there were only few areas in Zambia where villagers, almost wholly dependent on wood as a cooking fuel, for light and heating, con- sidered the provision of firewood a problem. 'Usually farmers exhibit no awareness of the potential for destruction and soil degradation from repeated burning and overcutting of woodland. Rather, the forest is apprehended as an obstacle to be cleared away for cropland and as a resource open to all for fuel' [Kalapula and Roder, 1979].

In the surveyed area a minority experiences problems in satisfying their fuelwood demand (see Fig. 10). However, whereas on the state land 'settle- ments' it is not usually considered a major constraint, in the denser populated reserve land three quarters of the respondents are affected. Women as the chief fuelwood collectors are more than men concerned about fuelwood scarcity and time spent for its collection (see Figs. 10 and 11). Every second woman feels the burden.

274

4 0

20-

0

3~

\ / V f u e l w o o d

s c a r c i t y

Fig. 11. Major fuelwood suply constraints.

\ / "~/

long distances for

fuelwood collection

I>

Although every second person suffering from a fuelwood shortage sug- gests tree planting as a possible remedy (see Fig. 12) hardly anybody would seriously consider planting trees solely for this purpose (see Fig. 23). Com- munally used land supplies the bulk of the wood and planting trees here is considered a wasted effort. Furthermore, it is the male head of a household who is in charge of land allocation for tree planting. As he is less concerned about a fuelwood shortage planting of trees for this purpose alone is rather unlikely. Occasionally the Forest Department supplies free eucalypt seedl- ings as fuelwood trees. However, eucalypts have dismal survival rates due to their susceptability to termite damage. This practice does therefore probably more to discourage than encourage rural fuelwood planting.

e~ 40-

20-

! ,

+ ~ T 2 .4 .4 f i ~ _ L _ / " ++~

i l " t [ m

°+ + " + + i+ ' l+w m® ,,.k

t+ "++ Fig. 12. Suggested solutions to overcome fuelwood supply problems.

275

2.5 Perennials contributing to people's diet

Several exotic perennials cultivated for edible and marketable fruit, such as orange and banana, require a reliable supply of irrigation water throughout the dry season. However, more than half of the rural people (59%) do not have a borehole or well on their farm. These poorer farmers will consequent- ly not be able to grow orange trees, yet this is the major fruit tree propagated by the government horticultural service.

Figure 13 shows the wide range of perennials, most of them drought hardy, contributing to rural people's diet [see also: Campbell, 1987; Scudder, 1975; Storrs, 1979 and 1982]. Hardly any of them are promoted by the government extension services in order to improve and diversify fruit supply. Further indigenous species mentioned, although less widely used, are Garcinia livingstonei, Uapaca kirkiana, ScIerocarya caffra, Strychnos cocculoides, Tamarindus indica, Piliostigma tonningii, Trichilia emetica, Ziziphus abyssinica and Vangueropsis lanciflora. Altogether 42 different perennials were found to contribute to people's diet in the study area. Of these, 29 are indigenous and not usually cultivated. The products of some indigenous species such as Tamarindus, Uapaca ('masuku'), Popowia, Azanza ('African chewing gum') and Adansonia (baobab) are locally mar- keted. Indigenous species are more commonly used in the reserve lands whereas on the more developed settlements exotic perennials such as mango, banana and pawpaw top the list. Although most indigenous fruit trees are somewhat slow growing they neither require costly inputs nor dry season watering for their establishment, and they are frequently resistant to termite attack. They could also advantageously be integrated into shelterbelts.

2.60vergrazing - the problem of the commons

Cattle as 'savings on the hoof', draft power, producer of manure and beef and for social obligations is of paramount importance for the Tonga society. Although overgrazing and its potential for range and soil degradation is rarely regarded as a problem [Kalapula and Roder, 1979] two thirds of the interviewees admit that a dry season fodder shortage affects their livestock (see Fig. 14). In the reserve land almost everybody (92%) is concerned. Overstocking is most common here. Yet notions to destock to levels com- mensurate with carrying capacities are rejected by farmers as totally unac- ceptable. The common right of access to the range land prevents its sensible use. The rhythm of the seasons, with livestock gaining weight during the wet and losing it during the dry, appears to mask any long-term deterioration of the stock [Kalapula and Roder, 1979].

p~

,..~,

m r~

m"

If

e..+

II

E

0

II

0 t..*

o

.¢

o

m

E~

; s

a N * 2~ ~..~

M~uTgttrera tndica F

Mot'us rffgra F

Musa spp. F

Co~qca papaya F

Popowis obov~te F

Vanguerla ra.~dii F

J~oWnga olei[era L, F

AzmTza garckemTa F

St~ychnos spinosa F

Manihot spp. L

Citrus sinensis F

Lo.nnea d2scolor F

'Mumbu' (not identified) F

Diospyros mespiJiformis F

P~erocarpus antunesil L

Parin~'-i curatellifolia F

'Mutumbu}a' (not identified)

Adansonla digitata F, L

Psidlum guayava F

Ficus sycomorzls F

Citrus limon F

Afzelia quanzenMs L

of respondents using food / fruit of farm perennials (n=479)

C]

P bo ~ O3 CD 0 0

O7 .g--

r,o .07

CD

50

9LE

277

s u f f i c i e n t f o d d e r

a v a i l a b l e

i n s u f f i c i e n t f o d d e r

a v a i l a b l e

Fig. 14. Incidence of dry season fodder shortage as perceived by farmers. (% of respondents; n = 479).

Unfortunately farmers' proposals as how to alleviate the fodder shortage (see Fig. 15) are difficult to implement. Although some interviewees suggest to plant fodder trees only very few seriously consider such action (see Fig. 23). However, improved pasture could only be established if livestock were kept off during the establishment phase. Low-cost fencing must therefore be made available (see chapter 2.7) and rights of users as well as access to improved grazing land have to be agreed upon before development can commence here.

Protection of natural regeneration as well as enrichment planting of Faidherbia albida trees in arable land appears to be one feasible strategy to

40

20-

I I I I I l |

,,o i "Us

e~

~.~

Fig. 15. Suggested strategies to relieve the dry season fodder shortage.

I>

278

~ ~ no fencing Is / / /gyO\ intended

fencing is [ _ ~ 88O/o ~-----"'~ .I~ already fenced

intended

Fig. 16. Preferences regarding fencing off arable land against stray cattle. (% of respondents; n = 479).

improve the fodder supply (see Fig. 7). Intercropping of leguminous annuals such as velvet beans as well as perennials (Cajanus cajan and Sesbania sesban in 'fodder banks' on anti-erosion strips) are further possible strategies. On range land browse availability may be stimulated by lopping suitable trees within 90cm from the ground [Lombard and Tweedie, 1972]. In contrast, the attempted introduction of Leucaena leucocephala has been rather unsuc- cessful in the study area as this species is extremely vulnerable to termite damage.

2.7 Fencing desired - but how?

Although livestock is herded during the growing season frequent quarrels result from stray cattle causing damage in cropland. Although few fields are fenced farmers do wish to fence off their farms and arable land (see Fig. 16). However, they lack the means to fence in the 'conventional' way. For the majority barbed wire is unaffordable (see Figs. 17 and 18). Although a minority appears to consider live fences as an alternative (see Fig. 17) few farmers have as yet tried to protect their fields with hedges. The technique of direct sowing indigenous thorny perennials such as the rapid growing Acacia polyacantha has not been widely demonstrated as yet. Many farmers are biased against planting their 'own' trees. 'Imported' exotic species are often considered superior. However, as the success of 'permanent' farm improvements such as rotational grazing, fodder banks, alley strip cropping and orchards hinges on the prior establishment of effective fencing more efforts must be directed towards developing and extending live fences as a low-cost alternative within smallholders' reach.

279

A

6 0

4a

~ 20-

o i

Fig. 17. Preferred fencing methods.

67

I

®-h

1 1

8 8

2.8 Tree planting experience and preferences

Most respondents are already experienced in tree planting (84%) and intend to establish further trees of their own choice (95%). Many are prepared to establish agroforestry demonstrations on their farms (69%).

Planting of trees, usually around homesteads, for purposes other than

-~ 60

"~a ~0 -

~~ 20-

0

6

1 "d

o"

I [ I I t

Fig. 18. Constraints preventing realization of fencing plans.

t2>

280

°e2 0

a =a 0 I I I l " I I I

~ "8 ~ ,~

Fig. 19. Frequency at which perennials were p lan ted by responden ts t h r o u g h o u t their life (n = 400 p lan ted a total o f 6428 trees = 100%). Main uses: F = edible fruit; L = edible

leaves; Si = soil improvement ; Fo = fodder provision.

edible fruit, leaves and shade is uncommon (see Fig. 20). Nevertheless, more than one fifth of the respondents stated their interest in tree planting for shelterbelts, soil improvement, poles and live fencing (see Fig. 23). The extent of tree planting is rather negligible so far. Each interviewed tree planter has established an average of 16 trees in his lifetime. Indigenous trees are not usually raised (see Fig. 19). Of the 12 most popular perennials mentioned only one (Faidherbia albida) does not provide immediate food benefits (see Fig. 22). In many peasant societies 'the desire for trees mostly reflects immediate needs' [Groot and Hall, 1989]. Any agroforestry project must first and foremost respond to those needs.

Typical problems faced by many tree planters were lack of irrigation water as well as termite and livestock damage to trees (see Fig. 21). Suitable perennials for smallholders should therefore be drought resistant, resistant to termite damage, and they should be non-browse species if their protection against livestock cannot be guaranteed. They must be resistant to common pests and diseases and they should not require costly inputs (fertilizer, pesticides) for their establishment.

Orange, guava, eucalypts and leucaena all fail these criteria, yet they are the main species provided by government extension services. The rapid growing species Cassia siamea, Melia azedaraeh, Azadirachta indica and Gmelina arborea, suitable for planting in windbreaks, for provision of mulch, firewood or poles do comply with above criteria. Further perennials adapted to local conditions are Mangifera, Morus, Musa, Carica, Moringa, Ziziphus mauritania and Adansonia digitata for provision of fruit and plant- ing in windbreaks as well as Faidherbia albida and Sesbania sesban for soil

281

L~. f

80- 9~ t ~ " £

2

40- ~ g~

1 ~ 2 , 1 1 1 1 1 0 i , d . d ~ . M ~ ~

FSh _WbTu T Fo B LfSi Fig. 20. Purposes of past tree planting ( F = edible fruit; S h = s h a d e ; L = edible leaves; W b = windbreak; Tu = edible tubers; T = timber, poles; F o = f o d d e r ; B = beautification; L f = live fencing; Si = soil improvement)

improvement, fodder and fuelwood. Notwithstanding, these species require special protection from livestock browse during their establishment phase. Moringa, however, is susceptible to termite damage during the seedling stage.

The provision of suitable planting stock and the extension of improved establishment techniques are major bottle-necks of agroforestry develop- ment (see Fig. 24). Decentralized village as well as individual on-farm nurseries could minimize transport expenses and thus provide low-cost seedlings. As agroforestry extension is a recent concept agricultural and

~ 20

,o 2 2

J |

I 1 1

.~ Fig. 21. Problems experienced with tree planting.

~.-£

1>

282

60 75

e l

" 2 0

~8

1

Fig. 22. Prefer red perennials .

1 I l I I I T I I .l>-

forestry extension staff is inadequately trained and motivated to respond to such challenges. Retraining and motivating them through fair pay, pro- vision of transport and an incentive system based on sustained achievements are preconditions for lasting success.

2.9 Women as tree planters." extension must change

Past extension meetings initiated by our NGO on topics previously not considered by the state agricultural extension service such as agroforestry,

~ { No = no future tree planthag intended; F = ec~ble fruit; IC~"~ I [ Sh = shade; Wb = windbreak; Sl = soft imp . . . . . . . t.; lOOl l T = t~-~r, poles; Lf =Iive fencing; L = edible leaves;

z~40,

zal AS e ~ 20- "~ Z-I

I I l I' I ; l i I I I ~ I t""

Lf L Fo Fi

5

No F ShWbSi T Fig. 23. Prefer red p u r p o s e s o f fu ture tree p lant ing .

~o e~

20

0

701571 I ]

! !

o o "~ '-o

~ . ~ o t., ~1 • - ~ tm ~ 0 ~

Fig. 24. Kinds of assistance desired for tree planting.

--t>

283

erosion control and composting had been fairly well received by par- ticipants. Nevertheless, only few were sufficiently motivated to subsequently adopt such techniques. However, by employing conventional T & V ('Train- ing and Visit') type extension meetings we failed to reach the youth or women to any significant extent. Participation was usually confined to male heads of households. Women are rarely invited to attend agricultural exten- sion meetings which are considered a male domain (see Fig. 25). Due [1987]

2O-

o

" a 20- oo o . ~

29 ~ i 20~

i

og ~ -~ 22 2 7 ~2~

~ o ~ o oo

~'--o ~2-~

~>

Fig. 25. Causes for low female participation in agricultural extension as suggested by men and women.

284

no i1o

y e s

o p i n i o n

Fig. 26. Should women attend agricultural extension meetings? (% of respondents; n = 479).

illustrated this bias against 'ignorant' w o m e n : . . . 'At first the agricultural advisors brought the husbands for interviews in spite of instructions that it was the wives who would be interviewed.' Although apparently three quarters of men as well as women favour female participation in agricultural training (see Fig. 26) the sole female extension worker in our project area had frequently experienced husbands not allowing their wives to attend women-only home economics training. Men might fear an erosion of their traditional power base if they allowed their wives to achieve superior train- ing than themselves. An attitudes survey of rural women in Mazabuka District found only 15% of women responding that positive changes relating to agriculture had taken place within the previous decade [Due, 1987]. However, when asked which type of rural development women desired most labour saving improvements in agriculture topped their list. It is apparently incorrect to assume that living conditions of rural families would improve if only the (male) household heads were trained. For instance, a farmer had planted Faidherbia albida seedlings into his cotton crop without consulting his wife. Lateron, however, she destroyed the seedlings anticipating they were weeds.

Female participation could be enhanced if meetings addressed particular- ly to women were scheduled during the afternoons of the off-season. The present system of mobilization for meetings through extension workers and contact farmers has limited participation to male elders. Yet special invita- tion efforts addressed to neglected social groups have proved worthwhile [Sturmheit, 1988b]. In spite of the logistics required (vehicle, projector, suitable slides shot locally) evening on-farm slide shows were our most efficient extension tool. They attracted large crowds of women and the youth.

285

3. Conclusion

Target group participation in formulating development policies is now widely regarded as crucial for lasting project success [Chambers, 1981; Chambers et al., 1989; Leach and Mearns, 1988; Mugasha and Nshubemuki, 1988]. An agroforestry and conservation needs assessment survey conducted in southern Zambia which aimed to effect local project participation has revealed valuable insight into needs, constraints and development options as perceived by smallholders themselves.

After independence physical soil conservation works have rarely been implemented in the project area. This, however, is not due to a lack of awareness of the widespread erosion threat. Technical as well as socio- economic factors such as unavailability of labour as well as the traditional inheritance law have hampered lasting soil conservation successes. Fruit tree planting, windbreak establishment as well as the protection of the natural Faidherbia albida regeneration in cropland are the most popular agroforestry interventions. Forty-two perennial species were found to directly contribute to people's diet. The need for windbreaks as a protection against gale damage as well as the positive effect of Faidherbia albida on soil fertility are widely acknowledged. Although many respondents mentioned local fuelwood and fodder shortages as well as the need for fencing only few envisaged agroforestry solutions such as fuelwood and fodder tree planting or live fencing. Common rights of access to degraded communal land frustrate efforts to restore its value as range and as a fuelwood source. Most smallholders are interested in tree planting but have so far only planted few trees. Those planted are usually exotic fruit trees. Establishment of popular multipurpose fruit trees in shelterbelts and contour strips may help to enhance acceptability of such conservation measures. However, drought hardy, termite and browse resistant perennials adapted to smallholder tree planting have not been provided by government extension services in the past. Provision of species susceptible to suboptimal management such as eucalypts, oranges and leucaena might even have discouraged rural affores- tation efforts. The widespread exclusion of women from decision making and the lack of tenure security hampers female participation in agroforestry development and consequently threatens sustainable development alto- gether.

Acknowledgements

The needs assessment study was enumerated by Enock Simuunza, Whiskey Zimba, Peter Mutofweh, Phillip Nsakilwa, William Kapunga, Jackson

286

Kalyamaila and Maybin Mwaanga, agricultural advisors of Magoye Block, Mazabuka District. Block supervisor Jack Kasanda assisted in coordinating the survey. Harold Topitsch (University of Kassel, Germany), Sylvester Habeenzu (University of Zambia) and Lusume Services Magoye conserva- tion engineers Yembo Kaonga and Frank Boemer helped to evaluate the study which was financed by a donation from the German Agro Action (DWHH), Bonn. I am grateful for the assistance and cooperation rendered.

References

Baker C (1989) Questionnaire Design for Social Surveys. Bangor: University College of North Wales. 3 p (unpubl)

Campbell BM (1987) The use of wild fruits in Zimbabwe. Economic Botany 41 (3): 375-385 Chambers R (1981) Rapid rural appraisal: rationale and repertoire. Public Administration

and Development 1:95-106 Chambers R, Pacey A and Thrupp LA (eds, 1989) Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and

Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 218 p Due JM (1987) African women's perceptions of development: contrasts between Tanzania and

Zambia. Journal of Rural Studies 3 (1): 23-29 Giffard PL (1971) Recherches compl~mentaires sur Acacia albida (Del.). Bois et For~ts des

Tropiques 135:3-20 Groot PD and Hall D (1989) Back to grass roots in Kenya. New Scientist No 1646 (7 Jan)

44-47 Johnson CE (1956) African farming improvement in the plateau Tonga maize areas of

Northern Rhodesia. Agric Bull 11. Lusaka: Government Printer Kalapula ES and Roder W (1979) Environmental problems: the villagers' views. Proc Natn

Semin Envir Dev Lusaka 253-264 Leach G and Mearns R (1988) Beyond the Woodfuel Crisis. People, Land and Trees in Africa.

London: Earthscan. 309 p Lombard CS and Tweedie AHC (1972) Agriculture in Zambia since Independence. Lusaka:

Neczam. 105p Mugasha AG and Nshubemuki L (1988) Soil conservation in Kondoa. Tanzania: the case of

the Rangi People in the HADO area. Forest Ecology and Management 25:159-180 Mvunga MP (1982) Land law and policy in Zambia. Zambian Papers No 17. Lusaka: Institute

for African Studies, University of Zambia. 112 p Poschen P (1986) An evaluation of the Acacia albida based agroforestry practices in the

Hararghe highlands of Eastern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems 4:129-143 Schultz J (1975) Land Use in Zambia, Part II: Land Use Map. Mfinchen: Weltforum Verlag Schultz J (1976) Land Use in Zambia, Part I: the Basically Traditional Land Use Systems and

Their Regions. Miinchen: Weltforum Verlag Scudder T (1975) The Ecology of the Gwembe Tonga. Kariba Studies Vol II. Manchester:

Manchester University Press. 274 p Stocking MA (1985) Agricultural development for the small farmer: an evaluation of the Lima

programme in Zambia. Zambia Geogr. Journal 35:45-54 Stone JC (1978) Mazabuka District 45 years ago: extracts from a contemporary essay, with

some additional notes on the administrative history of Southern Province. In ID Elgie, (ed), Handbook to the Southern Province 1975. Handbook Series No. 4. Lusaka: Zambia Geographical Association, pp 81-92

287

Storrs AEG (1979) Know Your Trees. Some Common Trees found in Zambia. Ndola: Forest Department. 380 p

Storrs AEG (1982) More about Trees. Interesting Facts and Uses of some Common Zambian Trees. Ndola: Forest Department. 127 p

Sturmheit P (1988a) Why drought? Sunday Times of Zambia, May 22, 1988 Sturmheit P (1988b) A Traditional Agricultural Practice as a Model for Famine Prevention:

Acacia albida Extension in Zambia's Southern Province. Paper presented at an Environ- ment Liaison Centre (ELC) workshop 'Food for the Future' in Eldoret, Kenya. Magoye: Lusume Services. 34 p (unpubl)

Sturmheit P (1989) The Prospect of Faidherbia albida Intercropping as a Sustainable Strategy to Combat the 'Acquired Import Dependence Syndrome' - A Literature Review. Bangor: University College of North Wales, 55 p (unpubl)

Sturmheit P, Kaonga Y, Boemer F, Topitsch H and Habeenzu S (1988) Evaluation of a Soil Conservation and Agroforestry Needs Assessment Study conducted in Mazabuka District of Zambia, Magoye: Lusume Services. 25 p (unpubl draft)

ZATF (1986) A Blue Print for Agroforestry Research in the Unimodal Upland Plateau of Zambia. First draft. Lusaka: Afrena: Zambia Agroforestry Task Force and ICRAF. 128 p (unpubl)

Appendix

Questionnaire for the soil conservation and agroforestry needs assessment study

1. Soil erosion

1.1 Do you use fields on sloping land? (Y/N) 1.2 If yes, do you face any problems on those fields? 1.3 If yes, which problems? 1.4 What can you do to solve these problems?

(Y/N)

2. Storm damage and windbreaks

2.1 How much damage have strong winds caused to your crops in the past? serious)

2.2 What do you think you can do to prevent this from happening? 2.3 Are some of your fields already protected by windbreaks? (Y/N)

(None/some/

3. Faidherbia albida interplantbtg

3.1 Do you know the munsangu (Faidherbia albida) tree? (Y/N) 3.2 Do you have small munsangu trees germinating in your fields? (Y/N) 3.3 Do you have tall mature munsangu trees growing in your fields? (Y/N) 3.4 Do the munsangu trees have advantages when grown in (maize) fields? (Y/N) 3.5 What are these advantages? 3.6 Do the munsangu trees have disadvantages when grown in fields? Do they cause any

problems? (Y/N) 3.7 What are these disadvantages or problems? 3.8 Do you like to have munsangu trees in fields? (Y/N) 3.9 Do you wish to plant munsangu trees in your fields? (Y/N)

288

4. Fuelwood availability

4.1 Do you get all your firewood from within or from bush near your farm? 4.2 Does your family face any problems in getting enough firewood? (Y/N) 4.3 If yes, which problems? 4.4 How can you solve these problems?

(Y/N)

5. Use of fruit and food trees

5.1 Do you have a well or borehole on your farm which gives enough water in the dry season, e.g. for fruit trees? (Y/N)

5.2 Which trees used by your family for relish, fruit or 'sweets' are growing on and around your farm (including the wild growing 'bush' trees)?

6. Fodder availability

6.1 Is there enough fodder available for your cattle in the dry season on or near your farm? (Y/N)

6.2 If no, what can you do in future to make sufficient fodder available on your farm?

7. Fencing needs

7.1 Do you plan to demarcate your farm boundaries permanently? (Y/N) 7.2 If yes, how? 7.3 Do you plan to fence your fields? (Y/N) 7.4 If yes, how?Which problems do you have in realizing your fencing plans?

8. Tree growing experience, preferences of trees and willingness to plant trees

8.1 Have you ever planted any trees? (Y/N) 8.2 If yes, how many, and for what reason? 8.3 Which problems did you face in growing those trees? 8.4 Which trees do you like best and for what reason? 8.5 Do you plan to plant more trees on your farm? (Y/N) 8.6 If yes, for which purpose do you intend to plant trees? 8.7 Concerning tree planting, which kind of assistance would you like to get from extension

workers? 8.8 Would you like to plant trees on your farm as a demonstration for yourself and other

farmers? (Y/N) 8.9 Who would do the work, i.e. plant, protect and care for the trees of a demonstration?

9. Evaluation of extension training meetings

9.1 Have you ever attended any Lusume Services conservation training meetings? (Y/N) 9.2 If yes: What were the topics of those meetings? 9.3 What is your opinion about those meetings? 9.4 Which of the new techniques discussed in the meetings will you adopt? 9.5 Which of the new techniques discussed in the meetings are you practicing already? 9.6 If no (9.1): why did you not attend those meetings? 9.7 Why do women and wives not attend agricultural training meetings?

289

9.8 Men: in case you did not want or could not attend a meeting in the past, have you sent

your wife instead? (Y/N) 9.9 Men: if no, why not? 9.10 Should women/your wife(s) attend agricultural training meetings? (Y/N) 9.11 Men: if there were agricultural training meetings for women only, would you allow/send

your wife to attend? (Y/N) 9.12 Women: if there were agricultural training meetings for women only, would you

attend? (Y/N) 9.13 When does time allow women to attend meetings?

10. General information

10.1 Name 10.2 Sex (m]f) 10.3 Age 10.4 Settlement/camp 10.5 Farm No. 10.6 Address 10.7 Duration of interview 10.8 Date

10.9 Enumerator