anna handrina annahela lwesya 2004 msc thesis · 2009-02-26 · anna handrina annahela lwesya 2004...

Anna Handrina Annahela Lwesya 2004 Msc Thesis

IMPACT OF TREADLE PUMP ADOPTION ON FOOD SECURITY; Kasungu District, Malawi. 1.0 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents background information on the problem to be studied, a problem statement, the

rationale of the study, objectives of the study and the outline of the thesis.

1.1 Background Malawi is currently facing high food insecurity levels at household and national levels.

The country has an agro-based economy and agriculture holds a potential for increased

economic growth and for development at large. Agriculture contributes between 35-45%

of Malawi’s GDP and 90% of export revenues (EIU, 2004). The majority of the

population live in rural areas and mostly rely on agriculture. The agricultural sector is the

main source of employment and income. Malawi’s agriculture is predominantly rain-fed.

The climate is generally subtropical with a unimodal rainfall. The average rainfall ranges

from 760 to 1,015 mm with long dry spells (MOAI, 1999). There has been hence a

growing concern to improve agricultural production through irrigation technologies and

treadle pumps have been identified to be essential technologies to achieve high yields.

Treadle pumps are water-lifting devices for irrigation purposes (see figure 1.1).

Smallholder farmers on small-scale plots of land often use them. The pumps are sold to

farmers through The Department of irrigation; organizations such as ADMARC,

NASFAM, and other community based non-governmental organizations like World

Vision International. Irrigation has played a greater role in feeding the population. It does

not only raise the yields of crops but also prolongs the effective crop growing period,

hence permitting multiple cropping.

Malawi’s population is increasing and is growing at a rate of 2% (EIU, 2004), which is

putting pressure on suitable arable land. Treadle pumps are potentials of offsetting the

pressure on land by providing the capacity to cultivate intensively throughout the year.

The pump also frees the farmer from dependence on rain fed cultivation and removes the

drudgery of watering crops with buckets. The pumps can also create employment

1


opportunities for the local communities in processes of manufacturing and selling them as

well as in farms.

Public sector agricultural extension services play a vital role in promoting the adoption of

treadle pumps and hence improving production efficiency. In Malawi, agricultural

extension had until recently a supply driven delivery system. This did not allow farmers

to participate and determine the required information needed for their agricultural

production. This is because it was assumed that farmers are not competent to decide the

objectives or content of extension programmes because many farmers have little formal

education.

The system has been inefficient, as it has not been responsive to farmers needs. As a

result Government and its partners in the agricultural sector have formulated a new

‘demand driven’ extension services policy where delivery is pluralistic to make extension

more effective in serving farmers needs and institutionally more sustainable (MPRSP,

2002). This implies a multidirectional communication process between extension staff

and farmers. Such a communication process could foster treadle pump adoption. An

agricultural extension service can be seen as an on going process that helps farmers to

acquire knowledge, change attitudes and norms that can help in solving certain problems

to improve agricultural production.

1.2 Problem statement Malawi’s agriculture is characterised by low productivity. This is a major constraint to

food and economic security. The underlying cause of food insecurity is poverty. Poverty

can be defined as a condition of deprivation of obtaining necessary materials and services

to attain minimum acceptable level of well being. In Malawi, poverty is multifaceted

such as constraints on the economic productivity of land, capital labour and technology.

Poverty is more prevalent in rural with 66.5% of the population living below the poverty

line (MPRSP, 2002). Productive agricultural land is diminishing, creating a land scarcity

problem for agriculture with the increase in population growth. About 78% of rural

households cultivate less than one hectare of land (EIU, 2004). The problem of land

shortage is also in Kasungu district, the area under study. The district has a high

2


population density, which is decreasing land-holding sizes. This is a threat to improved

food production, productivity and reduced poverty levels both household and national

levels. Treadle pumps have a potential to contribute to increased food production and

land productivity levels. At household level, food security can be defined as the ability of

the household to secure adequate food either from its own production or through

purchases, for all household members to meet dietary needs for an active and healthy life

(Smith, Jensen and Obeid, 2000).

Malawi’s economy has been affected by macro policy reforms. The structural adjustment

policies, which were implemented in the early 1980’s, had a price effect on agricultural

inputs. The lifting of price controls and elimination of fertiliser subsidies during the

reforms has contributed to increased input prices and reduced output prices (Sahn,

Arulpragasam and Merid, 1990). This has escalated food insecurity levels in the country.

Farmers respond differently to extension advice, depending on their perceptions of the

message in question. The design of extension systems has impact on the reception and

utilisation to farmers. In Malawi, most extension campaigns have been not been

integrated creatively into practical usable solutions for farmers. Extension methods used

have not considered farmers socio economic background. Few extension workers monitor

the progress of farmers after implementation of a technology. Farmers find their own

solutions without technical expertise to problems they encounter in the adoption process.

As a result farmers, fail to perform to the maximum potential with the technology and

tend to withdraw from active participation. Farmers do not participate in either planning

or evaluation of extension programmes (MoAI, 1999). It then becomes difficult to make

interim adjustments to extension campaigns.

1.3 Rationale of the study Food insecurity has been a major constraint to improved livelihoods in Malawi. Most

rural households are food insecure. Treadle pumps as an example of an innovation, can

help in increasing production through agricultural intensification and diversification. A

majority of smallholder farmers are using treadle pumps to mitigate current food

shortages. Agricultural extension is one of the policy instruments that government can

use to promote treadle pump adoption. Most research has until this time not focused on

3


the contribution of treadle pumps as an irrigation technology that can increase household

food security. Furthermore, there is little research on the extension workers involvement

in treadle pump adoption. The study will therefore try to assess the impact of treadle

pumps to farmers that own and operate them. The study will also assess the contribution

of extension workers in adoption of the pump. This will in turn help policy makers to

focus on policies that will improve smallholder farmers agricultural productivity which

will contribute to the overall goal of poverty reduction.

1.4 Objectives In order to conduct the investigations, the following were the objectives:

1.0 To identify and describe present adaptation of different groups of households.

2.0 To identify the present adoption levels of treadle pumps among different groups of

households.

3.0 To describe the role of extension services to farmers in general and in particular on

adoption of treadle pumps.

1.5 Thesis Structure In chapter two, a theoretical overview of the impacts of treadle pump adoption is

presented. The chapter will describe present food situation in Malawi, theories on

adoption processes in general, impacts of treadle pumps on economic, socio cultural and

farming patterns, role of extension services and approaches used in promoting treadle

pump adoption.

Chapter three presents the description of the area under study. Methodology and models

used for data analysis are also presented.

Chapter three presents results and discussion of the study. This includes the present

adaptation, present adoption levels and the roles of extension services in adoption.

Chapter four presents conclusions and tentative recommendations arising from the study.

4


Figure 1.1 Treadle pump

5


2.0 Theoretical Overview This chapter gives an overview of theories on household adaptation in general, how farmers adopt

technologies, the diffusion and innovation processes, the impacts of adoption of treadle pumps on food

security and poverty reduction and the role of agricultural extension services. A revised set of research

questions is also presented, where theoretical issues are included. Important actors are the farmers,

extension services and the farmers’ socio-cultural and economic environment. In drought prone areas,

irrigation is an option to improve and sustain rural livelihoods by securing increased food production.

Farmers use different sources of water supply such as rivers, streams, dams and lakes. On average the

land size plausible for treadle pump irrigation is 0.28 hectares (Shah, Alam, Kumar, Nagar and Singh,

2000). Treadle pump adoption is affected by socio-cultural, technical and economic conditions of the

actors and extension methods used to farmers. Economic conditions include production related factors

such as access to land, labour, capital and also the willingness to convert endowments into

entitlements.

2.1 How do farmers adapt? Farmers adapt in different ways to their livelihoods. This is due to different capabilities

of access to assets.

2.1.1 Access to assets and constraints to improved livelihood Household assets play a fundamental role for farmers to achieve their objectives. These

assets are owned, controlled or accessed by the household (Ellis, 1993). Assets

constitutes that can be used to produce outputs. The assets could be natural, physical,

human, financial and social capital (ibid.). Farmers commonly own land as a type of

natural capital; farm machinery as physical capital; household labour as human capital;

food stocks, savings and access to loans as financial capital; and they relate to social

institutions, ties and networks as social capital. Asset access thus strongly influences

households in their decision making when pursuing production activities. Vedeld (1990)

outlines an analytical model that maps decision making of a household in utilising assets

to produce outputs and achieve household objectives (see figure 2.1).

6


The model will be used to explain factors influencing household decision-making.

HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIC MODEL

Production processes

RESOURCES Land Labour Capital

Cropping patterns, irrigation, harvesting, livestock, off & non farm activities.

OUTPUTS Crop production Livestock production

HOUSEHOLD OBJECTIVES

Production Consumption

Employment

Natural vagaries

Socio-cultural environment

Institutions and policy

Population growth

EXTERNAL FACTORS TO THE HOUSEHOLD

Source: modified from Vedeld (1990)

Figure2.1 Household Economic Model 1) Inputs

Households strive to achieve their objectives by allocating resources in cost efficient

ways. The environment and resource positions in which households live provide

opportunities and limitations that influence their decision-making. Most smallholder

farmers are constrained by production factors such as land, labour and capital necessary

to improve productivity and outputs (Sijm, 1997). Access to landholdings provides a

basis for meeting subsistence requirements in most smallholder farmers. Farmers with

7


large farm holdings may be more willing to adopt technolgies, as it would be easier to

spread risks. In case of treadle pumps, most farmers with small landholdings may be

willing to adopt the pumps as they function as a land-augmenting intervention as a result

of land use intensification (Shah et al. 2000). Labour is essential in raising production.

Smallholder farmers sometimes face a shortage of labour during critical periods of the

crop cycle. The availability of labour determines the preference for adoption of

technologies and also the effective performance of agricultural activities to get optimum

yields. The family is the common source of labour. Treadle pumps demands a lot labour

and families with many grown-up members are likely to adopt treadle pumps (Shah et al.,

2000). Malawi’s agriculture is labour intensive. Age and health status, are some of the

factors influencing labour availability. According to MoAI (1999), 44% of the population

is below the age of 14, leaving 56% as the source of the country’s effective labour.

Hence, only few people can use and adopt the treadle pump. Access to financial capital

can affect the decision to adopt. In Malawi, most farmers have poor access to lending

institutions. This is because these institutions demand high collateral requirements and

high interest rates (ibid.). Despite that micro finance institutions exist, none of them

provide specialized and low cost services to agriculture.

2) Outputs

The level of output affects decision making in utilising the resources. Consequently this

affects consumption and production levels. Low output may also impede the ability to re-

invest in production capacity enhancement.

3) External factors

Household external factors can have positive or negative effects on household resource

endowment and ability to convert to entitlements. Farmers have little or no control over

these external factors. Population growth can help a household in acquiring more labour.

However, the growth can also affect land access and availability. Institutional factors

such as market prices support of outputs and reduced input costs can give an incentive to

encourage adoption of technologies (Pretty, 1995). Provision of extension and research

services can ensure that farmers have access to new technologies and capacity to adapt

them to their own conditions (ibid.). Natural vagaries create risks and uncertainty to

8


households. This can affect household decision-making in utilising resources and

adoption of innovations. Droughts for example, may influence a farmer to adopt

irrigation technologies to mitigate inadequate rains.

2.1.2 Heterogeneity factors in adaptation Socio-economic factors represent the different characteristics in the categories of people

in decision-making. These factors include age, sex, gender, marital status, occupation,

wealth status and education level. The factors reflect differences in decision making

related to preferences and utility of the resources (Vedeld, 1998). The age of a farmer can

influence the type of technology to adopt. The youth may be more willing to use

innovations that demand a lot of energy. Sex and gender are linked to the socio cultural

environment of a farmer. Different societies have different roles for men, women and

children. The roles are often acquired through the process of socialisation. Marital status

plays a great role in decision-making. Education attainment improves on the rational

decision-making of farmers. It provides farmers with the basic skills that facilitate the

transmission of technical knowledge, making the possibility of keeping farm records and

making simple calculations required for deciding on the economic benefits of proposed

innovations.

2.2 How do farmers adopt new technologies? 2.2.1 Decision pathways Theories that explain the decision of farmers to adopt can be classified in three groups:

the economic constraint model, the innovation-diffusion model and the technology

characteristic model (Negatu and Parikh, 1999). Farmers make decisions on whether to

accept or reject a technology after analysing their own socio-economic and

environmental factors. The economic constraints model assumes that households access

to resources influence critically on the ability and willingness to adopt a technological

innovation (Vedeld, 1990). The innovation-diffusion model also known as the ‘transfer

of technology’ approach (TOT) argues that a technology has to be transmitted from

researchers to farmers through competent extension services as farmers lack information

and knowledge about the innovation (Rogers, 1995). The technology characteristic model

9


assumes that the characteristics of the innovation play a role in decision making of

adoption and diffusion process (Scoones and Thomson, 1994; Vedeld and Krogh, 2001).

2.2.2 What kinds of innovation will the farmer accept or consider to adopt? Farming systems of most smallholder farmers are complex and diverse (Chambers et al.,

1989). Most technologies entail that farmers change their farming systems. Consequently,

farmers may have problems in adopting technology that demands changes in their modes

of farming. Vedeld et al. (2001) reports that properties of a technology affects the

decision to adopt: the innovation should have a relative advantage compared to others

such as saving time, reducing drudgery or improving income levels. Innovations often

fail because of their complexity and are often not implemented correctly. This is

sometimes because a farmer may fail to grasp the concept of the innovation especially if

it is not practical or in line with the needs of the farmer. A farmer is also risk averse and

he is more inclined to adopt an innovation if it is low cost and easy to see the results.

Farmers learn much from observing results of an innovation. Farmers’ decisions on

adoption are also strongly influenced by their social and cultural values and beliefs.

Nevertheless, Rogers (1995) outlines different stages that are associated with decision

making for farmers: a farmer becomes aware of the innovation and acquires knowledge

about the innovation. He or she then forms and/or changes attitudes towards the

innovation. It is this change in attitude that forms a basis for decision making to adopt or

reject an innovation based on both theoretical and experience-based practical insights and

skills. The farmer then implements the innovation. He or she also gathers addition

information and practical experience after the adoption to confirm if he has made the

right decision. In practice, a farmer does not always follow the outlined stages. A farmer

can and often form and change an attitude towards the innovation after adoption. For the

treadle pumps, a farmer may need addition training and learning after implementation.

This is to facilitate the sustainability of on adoption.

2.2.3 Who adopts? In adoption processes, not all farmers adopt a new technology at the same time. Ban and

Hawkins (1988) states that those who are prompt to adopt innovations have similar

10


characteristics: they have frequent contact with extension workers, they often have higher

levels of education, have positive attitudes to change and they also have a relatively high

income and standard of living. Shah et al. (2000) state that the adoption characteristic

has led to a ‘treadle pump trickle down’ hypothesis. From this hypothesis, the authors

expound that the pioneers of treadle pump adopters tend to be less poor. With time, as the

technology blends into the social fabric, the poor also tend to adopt and stick to it.

Reij and Waters-Bayer (2001) report that a positive correlation between farm size, assets

in general and the level of innovativeness can be expected as those who have big farms

are often rich and have more access to resources including information. They can also

better afford to engage in risky technologies. Most farmers have been thought of

adopting very slowly or failing to adopt because of their traditional or conservative

attitude towards life in what is called the “individual-blame” hypothesis. According to

(MoAI, 1999), adopters of treadle pumps in Malawi were graduates of water can dimba

irrigation practice. Most crops grown under treadle pumps are for household consumption

but also sell their produce at local markets and in the gardens (Wiyo et al. 2002).

2.2.4 Why do farmers adopt? In order to improve household food security, farmers adopt technologies that can improve

farm productivity. This in turn may improve their livelihoods and reduce the levels of

poverty. The need to adopt technologies such as treadle pumps in Malawi has been due

current food shortages among households in the country.

Malawi was hit by a famine in the 2001/2002 growing season that had adverse effects on

food security and consequently on poverty levels (EIU, 2002). The critical months were

between January and March when about 78% of farm families had no food. Maize is the

main staple food of the country. Some of the causes of the famine include adverse

climatic changes, a poor harvest in the 2000/2001 growing season and rapidly rising food

prices. The problem exacerbated as the strategic grain reserves were sold. Producer prices

have been kept low to keep inflation in check. Despite the low producer prices, input

costs have remained high. This also implied that farmers have been unable to grow

sufficient maize. The situation was expected to be no better in the 2002/2003 growing

11


season because of the agro-meteorogical conditions, which were not optimal for crop

production. In this season planting rains started late and were erratic with prolonged dry

spells and early cessations. According to UNDP (1998), about 55% of rural communities

are now facing chronic food insecurity, 31% being marginally food secure and only 14%

being food secure. The most vulnerable groups were the elderly, children and women.

Food production contributes significantly to food security. According to FEWS NET

(2002), smallholder production of maize, the main staple and conventional barometer of

food security fell by 28% below the five-year average 1996/1997 to 2000/2001 growing

seasons. The drop in maize production obviously contributed to its low availability in the

country.

To mitigate food shortages, smallholder farmers may embark on adopting irrigation

technologies using treadle pumps. The pump enables farmers to improve crop yields and

livelihoods. Most adopters are found to cultivate in dimba1 areas and the production

supplements maize food stocks. Farmers can sell that surplus in form of cash. The

commonly grown crops are green maize, potatoes and horticultural crops such as onions,

tomatoes and leafy vegetables (Wiyo, Lunduka and Nalivata, 2002).

2.2.5 How are innovations diffused? Socio-cutural and economic differences among farmers play an important role in how

knowledge about an innovation will be shared. Scoones et al. (1994) also state that the

dynamics of transfer of knowledge is partly a political issue. Wealthy farmers will have

more power to reveal their full opinions, beliefs, values and ideas than the less resource

endowed. Ban et al. (1988) argues that the trustworthiness of the source of the message

plays a more important role in dissemination than an authority-subordinate type of

relationship. Farmers will often be more willing to take messages from fellow farmers

with similar socio economic status.

2.3 Impacts of adoption Adoption of new technologies will generally have both negative and positive impacts.

Treadle pumps have economic, socio-cultural as well as farming practices that impacts on 1 These are cultivated wetlands along rivers or streams mostly used as horticultural gardens

12


farmers’ livelihoods. Farmers assess the costs verses benefits of the impacts of new

technologies and make a decision to adopt or not.

2.3.1 Economic impacts According to Kay and Brabben (2000), treadle pumps enable farmers to raise their

incomes levels through increased crop yields and land productivity. Furthermore, as

farmers are able to utilise irrigation water, they also acquire an incentive to take risks

trying out new crops. This in turn spread their farming risks giving different food crops

and increases access to food. Treadle pumps also increase employment opportunities for

artisans who are manufacturing the pumps, carpenters producing the treadles, and

workforce on farms to cope with the increased labour demands. Hence, rural livelihoods

are likely to improve with these opportunities and the poverty levels can be reduced.

However, overproduction of crops due to treadle pumps can cause a market glut and

prices of their commodities might be affected. This is because most adopters grow same

kind of crops during the same seasons. Even though Shah et al. (2000) states that the

pumps have a main advantage of the ease of operation and low cost of maintenance, this

might not be true in all societies. Treadle pumps demand a lot of human energy to

treadle; this might be a disadvantage to the households with the elderly and women who

have relatively less hand work capacity. Most smallholder farmers may also have

problems in meeting maintenance costs as they already face financial constraints. In

Malawi few treadle pumps are being adopted because of high purchasing costs. This is

because suppliers are not local artisans (Wiyo et al., 2002). The distance to the suppliers

who often stay away from rural areas discourage farmers from buying the pumps.

Different types of irrigation systems have different environmental impacts. Irrigation can

cause damage to downstream ecosystems due to reduced water quantity and quality,

salinization, water logging, erosion as well as soil acidification (Dougherty and Hall,

1995). These may in long term deteriorate the productivity of soils and in turn reduce

yield levels of crops.

13


2.3.2 Agronomic impacts Kay et al. (2000) reports that treadle pumps have substantial impacts on farming practices

and cropping patterns. The total area of cultivated land increases due to irrigation. A

farmer is able to grow a wider menu of crops and he can increase growing cycles since

crops grow faster with full provision of water through irrigation. Treadle pumps are easy

to operate and hence reduce time spent irrigating crops compared with traditional manual

irrigation devices. This helps a farmer to achieve high yields and increase in productivity

levels, increasing food production and availability. However, most smallholders’ farming

systems are complex and diverse. There may be a need to change the whole systems such

as a complete reversal of mixed cropping to mono cropping for effective irrigation. This

may conflict with farmers’ interests and be a reason for non-adoption.

2.3.3 Socio cultural impacts Shah et al. (2000) in their studies in South Asia, found that rural poor people prefer to

adopt the treadle pump and making it a good poverty reduction intervention. The pump

also offers a substitute of muscle power for fossil fuels. Farmers do not spend incomes on

buying fuel (ibid.). Environmentalists are in favour of the pumps as it reduces pressures

on land expansion onto marginal lands. This creates a win-win situation.

In Malawi, Wiyo et al. (2002) found out that 77% of the adopters were male-headed

households with relatively high literacy levels. They use treadle pumps in a group of 10

to 20 people, which also promotes social capital and hence social security in their

societies. Irrigation may thus enhance inequity levels in societies (Dougherty and Hall,

1995). In some societies, women do not feel comfortable in using the pump, as they feel

exposed and undignified. Hence they are less likely to adopt the pump. For female-

headed households, it will entail that they can face lower food production and become

more food insecure. Women are also disadvantaged where male extension workers due

to cultural reasons, tend to restrict themselves towards male farmers.

Irrigation has other negative social impacts such as the reduction of water levels for

domestic uses for downstream communities. Irrigation can also enhance the spread of

waterborne disease to communities who are using the same water point source (ibid.).

14


2.4 What is the role of agricultural extension? Extension services play different roles in improving farmers’ livelihoods and food

security.

2.4.1 Empirical evolution of extension in Malawi Agricultural extension is a continuously renewal processes with changing times. The

agricultural policies after independence in 1964 up to early 1970s favoured the estate2

sub-sector (MoAI, 1999). Extension services were also biased towards the estate sub-

sector than smallholder farmers. In the 1970’s, the World Bank introduced the training

and visit extension delivery system classic of ‘transfer of technology’ approach, which

has also been used by Malawi’s government (ibid.). Up to1994, Malawi’s agricultural

extension revolved around credit clubs. Extension workers were responsible for forming

the clubs, supervising the collection of inputs and collecting credit repayments. The

technical advice dominated on hybrid maize and fertiliser that formed the basis of all

credit. The extension system has been using the ‘block-extension system’, a modification

of train and visit approach. Farmers meet at an agreed place known as ‘a block’ where

extension messages and demonstrations take place. Currently, many farmers are not

attending the ‘block’ meetings, as there is no more access to credit (MoAI, 1999).

The ‘train and visit’ system was widespread because of its simplicity in organisation,

objectives and operation of well-known management principles (Benor and Baxter,

1984). In the train and visit approach, extension workers train and visit ‘contact

farmers.’3 Having recognized the failures of training and visit as well block extension

system, Malawi is advocating a ‘demand driven’ approach of extension service delivery

to make delivery more effective and responsive to farmers’ needs (MPRSP). The

approach is pluralistic allowing farmers to decide on the kind of information required.

The approach addresses similar issues as those of ‘beyond farmers first approach’.

Emphasis is on the learning processes than on teaching (Pretty, 1995). The pedagogic

goals become self-learning and self-teaching. The new roles of extension services are to 2 Malawi’s agriculture is comprised of the estate sub-sector that use leasehold land and smallholder farmers mostly use customary land. 3 These are farmers who are trained and visited by extension workers so that when they adopt a technology, they should be able to diffuse to fellow farmers.

15


integrate people’s knowledge with formal science, building partnership between

extension, farmers and research staff. The extension staff is oriented towards

participatory processes. In this way, farmers are able to prioritise their needs.

2.4.2 How are extension services structured? Agricultural extension in Malawi is organised in a structured flow of command. An

extension agent works with farmers in a section. The section is under the Ecological

Planning Area (EPA) that is supervised by a development worker who reports his duties

to the district agriculture officer and subject matter specialists. All district offices operate

duties within the Agricultural Development Divisions (ADDs). The latter reports to the

ministry headquarters.

Extension services face constraints in the carrying field operations. The extension worker

to farmer ratio is low; hence few farmers have access to the services. Extension workers

often lack means of transport to visit their clients. This is exacerbated by lack of running

funds, leading to poor performance of the services (MoAI, 1999). There is little contact

between extension workers and researchers who mostly do not develop trials and

experiments with farmers.

2.4.3 Social construction theories Agricultural extension provides information to farmers, researchers and policy makers. It

also helps farmers reach their goals as efficiently as possible and help in changing

farmers behaviour to achieve policy makers’ goals. According to Vedeld, Moulton and

Krogh (1998), extension workers typically have good knowledge about farmers’ social

background knowledge values, practical problems and opinions. Hence extension

workers can have a concise approach to farmers on what messages to convey, how to

communicate and when to address farmers. Ban et al. (1988) outlines different strategies

that extension organisations can use to influence farmers’ behaviour: some extension

workers prefer using the ‘development and influence strategy’ where extension service is

towards working to get farmers to a situation considered desirable by the extension

organisation. Another approach used is the ‘social marketing strategy’ where the

extension service works in the interests of farmers. The ‘problem-solving strategy’ is

16


another method that can be used where the extension service works jointly with the

farmers to unravel their problems. The choice of the strategy depends on the type of the

problem; trust in farmers’ capabilities and the mission of the extension organisation. In

treadle pump adoption, the problem-solving strategy would be more effective as it

involves participation of both actors’ interests. This would in turn achieve high farm

productivity levels, and therefore increasing food production and reducing levels of

poverty.

2.4.4 Extension approaches in promoting treadle pump adoption In Malawi, prior to 1996/1997, farmers were using motorised pumps whose utilisation

was not viable due to frequent technical problems and high maintenance costs. There was

also inadequate trained personnel and training programmes for farmers in irrigation

issues leading to low adoption levels (MPRSP, 2002). Agricultural extension workers and

NGOs played a greater role to sensitise farmers on treadle pumps as an alternative to

motorised pumps. Wiyo et al. (2002) reports that farmers received information on

assembling of the treadle pump, priming, operation, plot layout, repair and maintenance

as well as water management. However, extension workers have not been given training

on treadle pumps to enhance adoption. Most extension workers are still using the training

and visit approach in disseminating irrigation information.

2.4.5 Paradigms in extension system of delivery The extension services use different methods to disseminate information to the targeted

and intended users. Different methods play a role in helping farmers form opinions and

make decisions. According to Ban et al. (1988), the methods can be through mass media

such as newspapers, radio, televisions magazines and fliers. Group methods are also an

important input in disseminating information. These can be through demonstrations,

excursions, which expose farmers to new technologies, and group discussions where

members help each other in identifying and finding solutions to their problems.

Individual extension method helps in supplying information for solving a sole problem

such as a major investment decision. Treadle pump adoption however requires an

application of different outlined methods to achieve high productivity levels.

17


Chambers, Pacey and Thrupp (1989) reports that many scientists use the ‘transfer of

technology’ approach where technologies are disseminated to farmers, the latter

participating passively by being mere recipients of technologies. Researchers and

extension workers often perceive farmers as primal and unscientific (Scoones et al.,

1994). The transfer of technologies approach has increasingly been recognized to be

inappropriate in farming systems, which are complex, diverse and risk prone and

characterised by resource poor farmers (ibid. and Chambers et al., 1989). Researchers are

furthermore becoming more interested in the reward systems based on scientific

publications and are disheartened to work in the field with farmers perceived to be less

scientific (Pretty, 1995). In order to serve these farmers, there has now come a shift

towards ‘farmer-friendly’ approaches in generating and disseminating technologies.

There is a growing acceptance that participatory approaches are essential for meaningful

adoption of technologies and for development (ibid.). This implies that local people have

to be involved actively in participation. Local participation can be seen as “a strategy of

devolution of authority and power, resources, distribution of rights and duties from state

to local levels of governance and from public to civil societies” (Vedeld, 2002:14).

According to Pretty (1995) there are two schools of thought and practice about

community participation. One school views participation as a means to increase

efficiency. The concept being that involved people are more likely to agree and support a

new development or service. The other school of thought sees community participation as

a right where the aim is to mobilise collective action empowerment and institutional

building. Chambers et al. (1989) describe the new shift towards farmer participation as

the ‘farmer first approach’. The author argues that the approach understand farmers

perspectives by acknowledging their local knowledge in their farming environment. The

approach is more accountable to farmers. Therefore this contributes to a process of self-

empowerment and development. However, this approach is criticised as it assumes that

farmer’s local knowledge represents is a defined stock of knowledge that is ready for

extraction and incorporation into the western scientific system (Scoones et al., 1994). The

approach presents the view that farming communities share common goals and access to

resources. The authors continue to state that the ‘farmer first knowledge’ emphasise on

knowledge exchange between the actors of generation and dissemination (researchers,

18


extension workers and farmers). The approach lacks the analytical depth where for

example, social-political factors are overlooked. Hence, the emergence of ‘beyond

farmers first’ approach (ibid.). The new approach advocates that knowledge is diffuse and

fragmentary such that the different actors may have conflicting interests and goals. The

approach also acknowledges the links between power and the knowledge, which can

confront with other knowledge systems in different social settings. Thus innovation and

creation is shaped on these ‘battlefields of knowledge’ (Long and Long, 1992).

Treadle pump innovation is a singular mode innovation where farmers have ration choice

in deciding how the package should be presented. Active participation can be effective in

determining the compatibility of the innovation with their farming systems and socio-

cultural environment.

Table 2.1 is showing the differences in the types of participation related to transfer of

technology, farmer first and beyond farmer first approaches in technology generation and

dissemination.

19


Table 2.1 Comparison of TOT, Farmer first and Beyond farmers first approaches. Approaches Transfer of technology

(TOT)

Farmers first approach

Beyond farmers first

approach

Assumptions Farmers knowledge is

primitive and

unscientific, need to be

told to adopt

technologies

Populist ideology of

common goals, interests

and power among

farmers

Differentiated interests,

goals, power between

actors and the networks

Mode of field learning -Researchers generate

technology, extension

workers disseminate and

farmers adopt.

-Errors are concealed or

ignored

-Farmer or community

consensus solutions to

identified problems

-Designed solutions and

planned outcomes with

farmers involved in

planning and

implementation

-Negotiation and

conflict resolution

between different

interest groups

-Planning with dynamic

and adaptive

implementation of

negotiated outcomes

through dialogue and

empowerment

Role of extension

workers and researchers

Designers of

technologies and

disseminate

Planner of interventions,

manager of

implementation

Facilitator, initiator and

catalysts

Role of farmers Adopt technologies Reactive respondent,

passive participant

Creative investigator

and analyst, active

partcipant

Styles of investigation -Standadised, top-down,

linear approach.

-Institutions work in

isolation

-Structured and

systematic organisation

-institutions are linked

to each other

Centres on networks,

relations of power and

dynamic performances

-institutions are linked

to each other

Chambers et al.: 182, Scoones et al.: 22

The new approaches are ‘farmer first’ and ‘beyond farmer first’ emphasise participatory

tools. For researchers, a close relationship with farmers helps to understand the problem

from users’ perspectives (Scoones, 2001). This in turn helps researchers to develop

technologies that will yield useful results. The transfer of technology approach depends

much on extensive support for research in order to equip the extension delivery system

20


(Chambers et al. 1994). With changing macro economic policies, such as the structural

adjustment programmes, there has been a decreased level of governments’ service

provision in research and extension (ibid.). Hence the need for more flexible approaches

that focus on farmers identification of needs through their demands. However, both

formal and informal sciences are essential and need to complement each other. For

treadle pump adoption, there is need for applying all approaches. This is because farmers

have to be aware of the technology before they can actively be involved in participatory

approaches.

For extension services to be effective, there is need for training of extension staff to

improve their capacity in delivery. According to Frémy in SAA/Global/CASIN (2000),

pre-service and in-service training is essential for technical preparation of extension

messages. Those with many years of service have little education attainment as such do

not have the capacity to deal with farmers as entrepreneurs and relate them professionally

to researchers. In terms of irrigation techniques, training should address issues such as

water management, operation and maintenance of the treadle pump, installation

techniques and field demonstrations with farmers (Kay et al. 2000).

2.5 Revised research questions for the investigation In order to achieve the objectives of the investigation, attempts were made to answer the

following questions:

Objective 1: Present adaptation levels of households

• What kind of resources do households access?

• What do they make a living out of the resources?

• What are the key constraints for improved livelihood?

Objective 2: Present adoption levels of treadle pumps among households

• Why do some farmers adopt and others do not adopt?

• What are the observed differences between adopters and non-adopters?

• What are the impacts of adoption to households?

21


Objective 3: Role of extension services to farmers in general and in particular on

adoption of treadle pumps

• How roles do extension workers play to farmers?

• What approaches are used to disseminate information?

• What are the key constraints that extension workers face in their services?

22


3.0 Methodology This chapter presents the different methods that were used during the fieldwork and in data analysis.

A general description of the area under study is outlined. Survey methods and data collection methods

are presented. Models used in the analysis are also presented.

3.1 Description of the area under study 3.1.1 Location and demographic characteristics The study was conducted in Kasungu district in central Malawi (see map 3.1) and lies at a

position of 13° 1' 60S, 33° 28' 60E. Agricultural activities are coordinated under the

Kasungu Agricultural Development Division (KADD) agro-ecosystem. The district has a

population of 569,581 of which 52% of the people are under 18 years old.

Two extension-planning areas (EPAs) were selected, Kasungu–Chipala (13° 0' 0S, 33°

28' 60E) at an altitude of 1151 meters and Chulu (13° 40' 60S, 33° 40' 0E) lying at an

altitude of 1211 meters. The sampled villages were Chioza village under Chulu EPA,

Chikankheni and Mnduka villages under Kasungu-Chipala EPA.

3.1.2 Climate Kasungu experiences a warm tropical climate characterized by a unimodal rainfall

pattern, receiving erratic rains ranging from 500 to 1200 mm per year. The district lies at

an altitude of 1342 meters and has a mean annual temperature of 19-23°C. The soils are

predominant oxisols, ultisols, and alfisols. Soils are reasonably fertile and there is much

potential for improved agricultural development.

3.1.3 Agricultural activities and water sources for irrigation Kasungu district is dominated by the ‘estate sector’ in agriculture. There are 416,000

hectares of cultivable land. Arable land is used for crop cultivation and grazing. Maize

production occupies 70 % of the cultivated area followed by groundnuts (12%) and

tobacco (3%). Smallholder farmers have farm holdings slightly above the national

average.

Most of the people in the rural areas of Kasungu are farmers who mostly rely on rain fed

agriculture. Chioza village has a dam as a source of water for irrigation. Chikankheni and

Mnduka villages use water from the streams.

23


3.2 Survey methods A field reconnaissance was done in these EPAs to conceptualize the problems on the

ground and consequently plan for selection of the sample. One village was selected from

Chulu EPA and two villages were selected from Kasungu-Chipala EPA. The choice of

the study area depended on the presence of farmers using treadle pumps. Eight extension

workers involved in treadle pump promotion were selected. Ten households and two

extension workers were randomly selected from the EPA’s for pre-testing. This helped in

improving the questionnaire in relation to the objectives and research questions.

3.2.1 Quantitative and qualitative methods Quantitative and qualitative methods were used in the methodological approaches of the

study. This was done in order to get a comprehensive view of the situation in the study

area. Qualitative methods used were focus group discussions and participant

observations. This was done to examine the treadle pump adoption phenomena within the

particular cultural and social context. In quantitative methods, a social survey was

conducted to collect data using a structured questionnaire for households and extension

workers. The method helps in conceptualising a logic structure in which theories address

hypotheses. The interviews were conducted at home or at work sites. The deliberations

were held between household heads or their spouses and in some cases older children or a

relative within the household. Where possible, the rest of the members in the household

participated to supplement information. A total of 90 households were interviewed, 45 of

whom were adopters.

3.3 Data collection methods Focus group discussions and a household questionnaire were used to collect data.

3.3.1 Sampling of households Sampling can be defined as the process of selecting a representative set of cases from a

much larger set (Ragin, 1994). Stratified sampling was used to select adopters’ and non

24


adopters’ households.4 Polygamous families were treated as separate households. Fifteen

percent of the households were randomly selected from the strata. The adopters’

households were randomly selected from the total number of adopters. Non-adopters’

households were randomly selected from the total number of non-adopters. This made the

sampling suitable for statistical testing. Below is a table showing the total number of

selected households.

Table 3.1 Household sample sizes according to villages. Kasungu, 2003.

Village Total number of

households in

the village

Sampled

adopters’

households

Total

adopters

Non-

adopters’

households

Total non-

adopters

Chikankheni 93 14 29 14 64

Mnduka 100 15 34 15 66

Chioza 105 16 37 16 68

Total 298 45 100 45 198

3.3.2 Group interviews Focus group discussions were conducted in order to gather information on main

livelihood activities pursued in the villages and socio-economic status of the areas. The

meetings comprised of men and women. Key informants and local chiefs were

interviewed to get an in depth information.

3.4 Data validity and reliability Data validity and data reliability measures the accuracy and consistence of the research.

Reliability assesses whether the research has random errors. It determines the consistence

of the measurements. High reliability represents high correlation between dependent and

independent variables. Reliability can relate to the researcher or the respondents. In the

research study, reliability problems might have been due to:

4 A household was defined by local people as a group of individuals living together and eating from the same pot.

25


• Some respondents, who were spouses, might have been giving different

production estimates from their true estimates. The problem was corrected by

getting more correct information from elder children or relatives.

• Some respondents gave incorrect answers wilfully so as to seem to be poor by

underestimating production and income levels. The situation was corrected by

explaining more clearly to them the purpose of research.

• Some respondents had problems in giving correct information on land sizes

and production due to lack of knowledge. Some had memory problems in

recalling production levels and incomes. Key informants and local leaders had

knowledge about farmer’s production levels and helped when the respondent

was unsure.

Validity is a measure determining the extent of systematic errors in the data material

(Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1995). If relevant variables are excluded, the

statistical models are biased. Data validity is to a great extent dependent on the

researcher. In the research study, validity problems might have been due to:

• Questions not specific enough for the respondent to understand

• Asking leading questions

• Omitting relevant or including irrelevant information

Enumerators were trained to minimize possibilities of the validity problems. All

households were generally co-operative, no household refused to be interviewed.

3.5 Models used in the analysis This section describes the models used to analyse the objectives presented in chapter 1,

section 1.4. Minitab statistical package was used to analyse data.

3.5.1 Objective 1: present household adaptation A theoretical framework by Vedeld (1990) modified into a household decision model was

used to answer research questions (see Box 3.1) under this objective.

26


Box 3.1 Objective 1 and research questions

The

hous

3.5.1

Desc

the h

and

Two

inde

H0:

hypo

A m

inde

Yi =

Whe

Fact

that

impr

Objective 1: Assess household present adaptation

Research questions

• What kind of resources do households access?

• What do they make a living out of the resources?

• What are the key constraints for improved livelihood?

household model was modified to suit the local conditions. In this model,

eholds’ access to endowments and use of entitlements are discussed.

.1 Statistical tests

riptive statistics was used such as means, standard deviations and percentages to find

ousehold adaptation. Besides, the two-sample t-test, the multiple linear regressions

the Gini coefficient and Lorenz curves (see section 3.5.4) were used.

-sample t-test is used for comparing two different kinds of samples. Data comprise of

pendent random samples, x1, x2, …, xn and y1, y2,…,ym. The t-test is used to test if

µx= µy. The test statistic obtained from the data is used accept or reject the null

thesis.

ultiple linear regression is used to study the relationship between the dependent and

pendent variables. The model is estimated by:

βi+ β1X1i +…+ βnXin + ei ……………………………………............. 3.5.1

re Y is the independent variable

βi is the constant,

β1X1i +…+ βnXin are the independent variables.

ei are independent error terms N(0,δ)

ors that contribute to improve household livelihoods also contribute to the constraints

households face. Gross output value (see section 3.5.3) was used as a proxy for

oved livelihood.

27


3.5.2 Objective 2: Present adoption levels among households

Households had different capacities in adopting treadle pumps. Research questions

shown in box 3.2 were used to answer the objective.


Objective 2: Present adoption levels of treadle pumps among households

Research questions:

• Why do some households adopt and others do not adopt?


• What impacts do treadle pumps have on households?

3.5.2.1 Statistical tests

A logistic regression model was used to estimate factors affecting adoption of treadle

pumps. Descriptive statistics such as percentages, standard deviations and means were

used. Two-sample t-tests and Chi-square tests were also used. A multiple linear

regression model was used to assess the impacts of treadle pumps on households. The

Gini coefficient and the Lorenz curves were used to assess gross output values

differences between adopters and non-adopters.

Chi-square is used when testing categorical data that is recorded as classes. Observed

frequency associated with a class is compared to an expected frequency. The null

hypothesis that two traits X and Y are independent is tested by rejecting H0 if the

observed and expected frequencies are far too apart (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black,

1995).

The logistic regression model is based on the cumulative logistic probability function and

is by Gujarati (2003) given by:

Pi = E (Y= 1| Xi) = 1/ (1+ e – ( β1+ β2

Xi

) ………………………………………3.5.2

28


Where Pi is the probability that an individual will take a certain choice (adopt, non adopt)

given the knowledge of Xi. Pi ranges from 0 to 1 and it is non linear. The dependent

variables are all dummy variables of either 0 or 1 with 1 being the yes alternative. The

more negative the log-likelihood (0) is, the better is the predictability.

Β1 and Β2Xi explain how much parameter Xi is affecting the dependent variable. The

negative the sign the less the parameter is affecting the dependent variable. The P-values

indicate how much the explanatory variables can explain the variation in the dependent

variable.

3.5.3 The Gross Output Value Gross Output Value (GOV) was used to estimate the value of entitlements that

households can consume, save, invest or exchange into other goods. GOV was calculated

as sum of values from different entitlements that households owned:

• Crop production was given as the market value of total produce.

• Remittances were calculated as gross amount received.

• Livestock value was calculated from sales of livestock and produce, market value

of the stock.

• Employment was calculated as gross salaries.

• Private businesses were calculated as gross earnings.

3.5.4 The Gini Coefficient and Lorenz curve The Gini coefficient and the Lorenz curves were used to assess income distribution levels

for adopters and non-adopters. The Gini coefficient is estimated by

G =1- (Y∑−

=

1

0

k

ii+1 + Y1) (Xi+1 – Xi) ……………………………………………….3.5.3

Where G is the Gini coefficient

Y = the cumulative incomes

29


X is the cumulative households

K is the number of classes

3.5.5 Socio economic variables Households have variations in adaptation and adoption levels. Socio economic variables

were used to represent the adaptation and adoption properties. This section discusses the

socio economic variables like land, labour, capital and external factors. Some of these

variables were used in the statistical tests for objectives 1 and 2.

3.5.5.1 Land

Land comprised the total area owned and accessed by households. This included land

under fallow, grazing or hired land. Irrigated land and access to water sources are also

included. The potential to irrigate depends among others on the availability of water

sources. The size of the land was estimated in hectares. It is expected that the more land a

household have the more the produce and the higher the adoption level.

3.5.5.2 Labour

The quantity of labour was calculated from household members using standard worker

units. Consumers were converted into consumer units. (See Appendix 2). Consumer

worker ratio was calculated from consumer units and worker units to show the

relationship between consumers and workers. The higher the ratio, the higher is the

dependency burden, implying a ‘worse off’ livelihood status. Household size also

represents labour endowment. It comprises of both consumers and workers. In the

regression models worker units were used as they reflect the quantity of labour on farm

and income generating activities. Consumer units, consumer worker units and household

size were excluded from the models to avoid correlation among the variables.

The age of household head is an important element in the quality of labour that reflects

the capacity for decision-making in resource use and access. Variations in household

adaptation are related to the age of the household head. The youth will tend to have less

restriction in accessing resources. Age of the household head, also reflects the willingness

to access new information such as adoption of treadle pumps.

30


3.5.5.3 Capital

Capital can be defined as goods or property owned by a households. This includes fixed

and liquid assets. Fixed assets are materials that are used in the long term such as farm

machinery. Liquid assets are materials and cash that have short period of service. Credit

and livestock are other forms of capital. Higher access to credit is expected to increase

production levels and adoption levels. Livestock is also a form of capital. In the analysis

livestock owned by households was converted into Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) (see

appendix 3).

3.5.5.4 External factors to the household

Increase in population, natural vagaries, market availability and access to information

from extension workers are some of the aspects that households have little control over

them. In the regression models, factors used are drought as a natural vagary, access to

markets and information from extension services.

3.5.6 Objective 3: Roles of extension services Extension services help in supplying farmers with information important for production

processes. Research questions set in box 3.3 were used to answer the objective.

31



3

D

w

Objective: Role of agricultural extension services

Research questions:

• What tasks do extension workers play to farmers?



.5.3.1 Statistical tests

escriptive analyses such as percentages were used in analysing the roles of extension

orkers to farmers.

32


MAP OF MALAWI SHOWING AREA UNDER STUDY

Area under study

Map 3.1 Kasungu District in central Malawi.

33


4.0 Results and Discussion This chapter presents results and discussions on the adoption of treadle pumps. Methods presented in

chapter three are used to analyse the findings. Background information given in chapter one and

theories presented in chapter two are used to discuss the findings. The chapter is divided into three

parts corresponding to the objectives presented in chapter 2.

4.1 Household adaptation In this section, an analysis of household’s resource allocation in Kasungu district is

presented. A household economic model is used (see chapter 2) to discuss allocation of

endowments for production and how entitlements are used. This is used as a framework

for the first objective and the corresponding research questions (see below).

B

4H

a

e

4C

l

M

r

Objective 1:

Assess household’s present general adaptation.

Research questions

-What kind of resources do households access?

-What do they make a living out of the resources?

-What are the key constraints for improved livelihood?

ox 4.1 Objective 1 and research questions

.1.1 Access to endowments for production ouseholds form a base for livelihood and development through production, exchange

nd transfer processes of endowments such as land, labour and capital to produce

ntitlements.

.1.1.1 Capital access apital helps to improve production. Most households access capital in form of credit or

ivestock.

1) Access to credit

ost respondents report to have little access to credit. About 23 % of the respondents

eport to access formal credit. The formal institutions include commercial banks, which

34


offer credit in form of cash and MRFC, which offers loan in the form of fertiliser. The

amount of loans offered to farmers varies depending on the collateral requirements. Three

percent of the respondents got loans from commercial banks and 20.8 % got credit from

MRFC. NASFAM, a private institution facilitates farmers who are its members to access

loans from commercial banks. However, none of the respondents were members of the

institution. Formal lending institutions charge high interest rates of about 49 % per

annum. This is expensive for smallholder farmers. Most respondents report to access

informal credit from relatives and friends without any collateral.

Most respondents indicated that they take up credit for income generating activities such

as buying inputs for agricultural production and for micro enterprise development. Credit

also helps households to raise money in difficult times as one respondent reported:

“Yields were very low during the 2000/2001 growing season, such that

I had to borrow some money from my friends to repay the fertiliser

loan I got from MRFC.”

Man, 41; Chioza village.

2) Livestock

All respondents had some kind of livestock. Few respondents owned cattle (27.8 %).

About 62 % owned goats, 49.7 % owned pigs and 91 % owned some form of poultry.

Below are the average tropical livestock units (TLU) among households in the surveyed

area.

Table 4.1 Tropical livestock units among households. Kasungu, 2003

N=90

Type of livestock Average TLU Standard deviation

Cattle 0.9 2.5 Goats 0.4 0.7 Pigs 0.4 2.4 Poultry 0.3 0.5 Total 2.0 6.1

35


The standard deviations for cattle and pigs are high which imply differences in livestock

holding between households. Respondents reported that theft and diseases have adversely

reduced the number of livestock units.

Livestock serves different purposes. Products are used as sources of income, manure and

food. Besides, livestock also functions as a symbol of prestige in the societies.

Respondents also indicated that livestock is used as a buffer in times of drought just as

one respondent indicated:

“During the 2001/2002 famines, all of us who had some form of livestock

survived, as we were able to sell in exchange for maize or cash.”

Woman, 52; Mnduka village.

3) Assets

Ownership and access of assets for income generation varied across households. The

common assets for most respondents were oxcarts and bicycles that were used for

transport purposes. Households that were actively involved in irrigation owned treadle

pumps.

4.1.1.2 Land

Land is an essential component in production. Households access land differently, which

also affects output levels. Water sources also serves important functions in production.

1) Access and utilisation

All respondents in the sampled villages report to own land privately, mainly under

customary tenure. Few respondents (6.7%) rent land for cultivation. Land acquisition was

mainly through legacy and through buying. The average cost of land was 8,000 MK per

hectare. Though inheritance of the land has no financial costs, it encourages land

fragmentation. With increasing population, land will be subdivided further in small

pieces with less economic viability. The mean landholding for respondents was now 5.2

hectares with a standard deviation of 3.4, indicating variations in land sizes. Ten percent

own less than 2 hectares of land. Most respondents who inherited land had farms close to

36


their homesteads. Those who owned dimba land had such parcels located away from their

homesteads. The mean distance to dimba lands was one kilometre. Fifty two percent of

the respondents had two types of land; dimba and upland areas. The figure below shows

land allocation for dimba and upland areas.

Land allocation for dimba and upland

16%

294%

1 'dimba'2 ' upland'

Figure 4.1 Land allocation for dimba and upland farms. Kasungu, 2003

Upland areas mainly consist of the arable land. The main food crops grown in the arable

land were maize and cassava. Tobacco, and groundnuts were the main cash crops grown.

The common crops grown in the dimbas were vegetables, potatoes, beans and maize.

Households produced these crops for own consumption and for income generation.

Soils in the dimba land are relatively more fertile than the upland area. This is because

dimba soils retain most of the nutrients. The upland has gentle slopes, which allows

cultivation of most cover crops that also help to prevent soil erosion.

Twenty eight percent of the respondents had part of the upland under fallow, which was

partially used as grazing land. Much of the cultivated land had gentle slopes with

relatively fertile soils.

2) Water access

Kasungu district receives erratic rains and access to irrigation is essential for improved

production. Households had different water sources for irrigation; Chioza households

used water from a dam, Chikankheni and Mnduka households used water from the

streams. However, proximity of the farm to the water sources determines households’

37


access to these water sources. Respondents reported that few households utilise the water

sources as most villagers’ farms are far away. This in turn affects the output level when

rains are inadequate for production.

4.1.1.3 Labour

Family size and composition are crucial to household production activities. This depends

on how much labour can be mobilised by members within the household. Respondents

accessed labour endowments differently.

1) Household characteristics

The majority of respondents (83.3 %) were male-headed households. The rest were

female-headed households who were mostly widows and who often lack adequate labour

access. The average number of years of education level for household heads was 5.4

with a standard deviation of 3.4, which indicates that there were some differences in the

education levels. The average household size of the respondents was 5.8 with a standard

deviation of 2.0.

Age reflects the physical capacity to work that also includes the ability in accessing

information, knowledge, practical skills and experience. The majority (81.2%) of the

population was below the age of 45. There were 0.1 children between the ages of 0 and 4

years, 0.3 children between 5 and 11 years, 0.2 youths between 12 and 15 years, 0.5

adults between 16 and 44 years, 0.1 adults between 45 and 60 years and 0.1 elderly

people of more than 60 years of age. It was assumed that the contribution of labour for

individuals less than 4 or more than 60 years was equal to zero (see Appendix 3).

The sampled households had an average of 2.3 labour units (standard deviation: 0.6).

Households had a high consumer worker ratio (c/w) of 2.6, implying a high dependency

ratio5. The high dependency ratio is a common phenomenon in Malawi. This population

stratification results in low production potentials and levels.

5 Dependency ratio is defined as the sum of population of dependents (individuals below 15 years and those above 60 years divided by the household size.

38


The age of household head contributes to the level of dependency burden. Below is a

graph showing the c/w ratio with the household age group.

consumer worker ratio vs age of household head

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

<30 yrs 31-40 yrs 41-50 yrs 51-60 yrs >60 yrs

age of household head

cons

umer

/ wor

ker r

atio

Figure 4.2 Average consumer/worker ratios for different household head age groups, Kasungu, Malawi 2003.

The c/w ratio was low for households less than 30 years. This can be explained to be the

high input in labour due to their physical capability and not having so many children.

Household heads of the ages between 31 and 40 years have high c/w ratio because it is

during this period that households raise children. These children contribute to labour

when they grow up hence the decline in the c/w ratio of household heads between ages of

41 and 50 years. However, these children move out of the household when they get older

and the ageing parents have less labour supply. This explains why the c/w ratio is

increasing for household heads more than 51 years. This thus reflects the demographic

‘life-cycle’ of a household and when a household can be expected to have ‘surplus

labour’.

2) Allocation of labour endowments

Households’ activities were shared among all productive family members of the

respondents. However, women had the hardest workload as they had to look after

children and attend to other household chores besides income generating activities. Those

attending school only took part in household activities during holidays.

39


Migration was not a common scenario among respondents. Only 3 % of the households

indicated that the household heads migrated for non-farm employment. The main reasons

for migration were to earn more incomes to improve their livelihoods. Household heads

often migrated during the dry season when there are few agricultural activities. There

were few reported opportunities for off farm employment.

4.1.1.4 External factors to the household

Households have little control over external factors affecting access to resources. This

section discusses population density, existence and access to markets and access to

extension services as factors that can enhance or limit household access to and use of

resources.

1) Population growth

Malawi has an average population density of 117 persons per square kilometre.

Assuming the growth rates (see chapter one), are relevant to Kasungu district, land

scarcity will increase. In addition to natural growth, immigrants have also contributed to

high population growth in the surveyed area. About 36 % of the respondents were

immigrants who came to marry and join relatives. Six percent came to the villages to seek

land for production and 2 % came to seek employment opportunities.

2) Markets

The existence of markets and their performance impact on access to resources and

utilisation of endowments by a household. High input costs and low output prices

increase uncertainties in household decision-making. Respondents indicated that farm

input prices are high, making it difficult for smallholder farmers to sustain production.

The removal of subsidies has partly contributed to the high costs. The average cost of a

50-kilogram bag of fertiliser was 2,100 MK, which is enough just for 0.25 hectares of

land. Farm input sources were mostly institutions such as ADMARC, Norsk Hydro and

Farmer’s World.

Respondents sold their produce mostly at local markets that offer low output prices. The

average output price of maize for example, was 13 MK per kilogram. Some institutions

40


such as ADMARC buy this maize and sell out to consumers at higher prices, which were

reported to be 22 MK per kilogram. This implies low incomes generated from production

for farmers. Households are hence left with low incomes to suffice for other basic

requirements. The average distance to markets was 4.1 kilometres. Lack of market

information had also affected farmer’s ability to operate rationally in the market.

3) Drought

Unreliable rains affect output levels. Respondents indicated that for the past five years

rains have been inadequate. Those near streams and dams could irrigate their crops to

supplement water requirements.

4) Access to extension services

Extension services play a role in facilitating access and utilisation of resources. Farmers

get new information from these services related to production techniques, climate and

markets. Forty nine percent of the respondents accessed information from extension

agents.

4.1.1.5 Summing access to endowments

Households’ access to capital is necessary to improve production capabilities. However,

formal lending institutions provide credit at high interest rates and also demands

collateral. Most households take up credit from informal sources. Households had some

kind of livestock, which was multifunctional to the livelihoods of most families.

Households also keep some assets, which help them to use in production processes.

All respondents owned land, which was mainly private. Most households had upland

areas and a small number owned dimbas. Few households left their land fallow. Diverse

crops were grown. Irrigation activities served production with the occurrence of the

unreliable rains in the area.

A large proportion (41%) of the population in the sampled area are in the productive age

(16-44). However, households had a high consumer worker especially where the

household head was above 50 years of age. The labour force was mainly allocated to

41


farming activities. Women had had the highest workload than men. Few household heads

migrated out to seek employment opportunities.

Immigrants constitute a high proportion of population growth. This can in turn reduce the

size of farms for production. Input and output market failures affect farmer’s capacity in

effectively producing good yields. Unreliable rains reduce output levels. Access to

information helps to get information necessary for production.

4.1.2 Entitlement mapping This section outlines the entitlement mapping processes, which include exchange,

transfers and production processes where endowments are transformed into entitlements.

The use of entitlements is also presented. Gross Output Value (GOV) is used to show

various sources of income generating activities.

4.1.2.1 Gross Output Values

Gross Output Value was used to estimate the total production outcomes for all

respondents. All households had various sources of GOV as shown in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Gross Output Values among households. Kasungu, 2003

N=90

Source GOV (MK) Mean GOV % Of total GOV

Food crops 9,616,096 106,846 52.14

Cash crops 7,458,564 82,873 40.44

Remittances 94,500 1,050 0.51

Off & non farm employment 86,250 958 0.47

Private business 244,800 2,720 1.33

Livestock 941,921 10,466 5.10

Total 18,197,331 204,913 ≈100

Crop production constitutes the greatest proportion of GOV. Households received

remittances from their children or relatives. Non-farm employment activities were such

42


as maintenance and construction works. Private businesses included handcraft and

brewery.

By comparing the gross output values with a poverty line, it was found that the average

individual earns less than a dollar a day (USD 0.86). This implies high poverty levels

among the households, which is a common phenomenon in Malawi.

4.1.2.2 Use of entitlements

Entitlements were used for savings, investments or consumption. Most households use

the money to buy food in times of shortages. The common ways of saving were reported

to be keeping money at home or in the bank, store grain, buy more livestock and some

invest in farm inputs such as treadle pumps. Few report to invest in education for their

children.

4.1.2.3 Summing up entitlements

Most households depend on crop production as the main livelihood source. Livestock

products also contribute to households’ entitlements. Most households used their

entitlements for direct consumption. Households save mostly in form of cash at home and

not in the bank. Few households engage in investments.

4.1.3 Key constraints to improved livelihood This section presents the major constraints that households face to improved livelihood.

Different households also had different opinions on the key constraints to improved

livelihood. Gross output value was used as an indicator for household welfare.

Endowment and entitlement failures are also presented.

4.1.3.1 Factors affecting Gross Output Value

Farmers reported that small land holdings, lack of adequate labour, high input prices, lack

of access to credit and drought are the main constraints to improved welfare. A linear

regression model (see chapter 3, equation 3.5.1) was run to estimate the effects of the

outlined key constraints to the gross output value. A correlation matrix was used to

43


estimate the quality of the model. The tested independent variables had relatively low

correlation. Table 4.3 shows the key constraints to improved welfare.

Table 4.3 Results from linear regression model where gross output value is the

dependent variable. Kasungu, 2003.

R2 = 0.21; F= 4.71

Predictor Coefficient P-values

Land size (ha) 40271 0.013

Labour (worker units) 93343 0.029

High input prices (yes/no) -272315 0.006

Access to credit (yes/no) -122619 0.051

Drought (yes/no) 1344 0.982

From the model, it can be shown that the major constraints were land size and high input

prices, significant at 1 % level; availability of labour, and access to credit, significant at

5 % level. High input prices were highly significant because of the policy reforms that

included the removal of input subsidies by the structural adjustment programmes.

“In spite of all the efforts, we still produce less because fertiliser prices

have gone up so high. Only few people can afford to buy.”

Man, 23; Chikankheni village.

Drought was expected to be significant as Kasungu District receives erratic rains.

Respondents indicated that production was not being optimised as desired due to the

constraints.

4.1.3.2 Distribution of Gross Output Value

The key constraints to improved household welfare affect the gross output levels. The

Gini coefficient (see chapter 3 equation 3.5.3) and the Lorenz curve were used to

indicate the distribution levels of GOV of the households as in Figure 4.3.

44


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% HH

% G

OV

Line of perfect equality

The Lorenz curve

Figure 4.3 The Lorenz curve for GOV. Kasungu, 2003. The curve shows that there are very skewed distributions of GOV. The Gini coefficient

was 0.61, which imply high income inequalities. There were more households with the

lowest income levels. Below is the distribution of the different levels of incomes.

Table 4.4 Gross output level distributions for the households. Kasungu, 2003

Income level (MK) Total Income % Income No. of HH % of HH

0-100,000 6,973,898 38.0 56 62.2

100,001-200,000 2,907,899 16.0 20 22.2

200,001-300,000 897,775 4.9 4 4.4

300,001-400,000 746,623 4.1 2 2.2

400,001+ 6,671,136 37.0 8 8.9

Total 1 8,197,331 100 90 ≈100

Table 4.7 indicates a dichotomous income level among households. A few households are

wealthy (8.9 %) and many are poor (62.2 %). There were significant differences in the

45


GOV levels between the highest and the lowest income group levels. A two-sample t-test

confirms the differences at 1 % level (P= 0.01).

4.1.3.3 Endowment and entitlement failures

Endowment and entitlement failures represent the main constraints to improved welfare.

Richer and poorer households access endowments differently. Households with income

levels of less or equal to 100,000 MK were categorised to be poorer and those whose

income levels was equal or more than 400,001 MK were classified to be the richer

households.

4.1.3.3.1 Endowment failures

Each of the key endowment failure that was presented in section 4.1.6.1 is discussed in

this section. Endowments are important production assets.

1) Lack of access to labour

Richer and poorer households have different access to labour. Poorer households have

less labour than richer households. Running a two-sample t-test gave the results below.

Table 4.5 Labour access between poorer and richer households. Kasungu, 2003

Poorer households (N=56) Richer households (N=8) Variable Mean Standard

Deviation Mean Standard

deviation

P-value

Household size

6.6 2.0 5.8 1.5 0.196

Consumer units 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.040 Worker units 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.138 Male worker units

0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.551

Female worker units

0.4 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.001

C/w ratio 2.5 1.3 1.7 0.6 0.041 Age household head

46.4 10.2 36.8 7.7 0.010

Education level household head

5.1 3.4 9.0 2.8 0.150

Poorer households had more consumers than the richer households. The differences were

significant at 5 % level. This is expected, as often poorer households have larger

46


household size. There were more female worker units for the richer households. This was

expected, as most women who are poor tend to be female headed and sometimes lack

labour. The differences were significant at 1 % level. The consumer worker ratio for

richer households was lower than the poorer households. The differences were significant

at 5 % level. This was expected, as poorer households tend to produce many children to

provide labour and secure income at old age. Richer households were younger in terms of

age. The differences were significant at 1 % level. This was expected, as many poorer

household heads tend to be old people.

2) Lack of access to land

Poorer households had less land for each of the types than richer households as shown in

the table below.

Table 4.6 Land access between poorer and richer households. Kasungu, 2003.

Poorer households (N=56) Richer households (N=8) Type of Land (hectares)

Mean Standard deviation


P-value

Upland 3.7 1.5 7.7 2.7 0.004 Dimba land 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.000 There were significant differences in accessing both types of land at 1 % level.

3) Lack of access to farm input prices

Both poorer and richer households use some kind of purchased farm inputs. High input

prices reduce production levels. The common purchased inputs were fertilisers, seeds and

pesticides. Richer households used higher levels of inputs per hectare than poorer

households as shown in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7 Access to farm inputs between poorer and richer households. Kasungu,

2003

Poorer households (N=56) Richer households (N=8) Type of input (kilogram)



P-value

Fertilisers 112.0 58.4 226 61.9 0.001 Seeds 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.684 Pesticides 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.519

47


Fertiliser use was significantly different between the poorer and richer households at 1 %

level. This was expected, as poorer households have low incomes and cannot easily

afford to buy fertilisers. The mean fertiliser use for richer households was just enough for

1.1 hectares of land whilst the mean fertiliser utilisation for poorer households was

enough for only 0.56 hectares. Fertiliser use levels are thus low considering that the mean

hectarage of land for poorer and richer households are 3.9 and 8.3 respectively. Both

richer and poorer households used low quantities of seeds and pesticides, there were no

significant differences in the uptake.

4) Lack of access to credit

Credit is essential to help households access more farm inputs. Only 16 % of the poorer

and 50% of the richer households had access to credit. The differences were significant at

5 % level (Chi-square, P=0.026). This implies restricted production opportunities for

poorer households.

4.1.3.3.2 Entitlement failures

Lack of endowments contributes to entitlement failures. This decreases the ability of

households to improve their welfare. Richer and poorer households own entitlements

differently. The table below shows the allocation of entitlements for the different

households.

Table 4.8 Entitlements for poorer and richer households. Kasungu, 2003

Poorer households (N=56) Richer households (N=8)

Entitlements Mean GOV Standard

deviation

Mean GOV Standard

deviation

P- value

Crop

production

48,470 42,427 265,829 185,059 0.013

Livestock

production

1,131 2,891 10,183 9,823 0.036

Non-farm &

off-farm

employment

2,410 3,235 650 857 0.004

48


Private

business

179 633 12,759 3,447 0.000

Remittances 500 1,035 256 577 0.317

Total 52,690 289,677

Richer households had more entitlements than poorer households in crop production,

livestock production at 5 % significance level. This was expected, as richer households

tend to have more endowments, which consequently enable them to produce more.

However, the poorer households had more employment entitlement than richer

households. This was expected, as poorer households tend to sell out their labour to richer

households. Richer households had more entitlements in private businesses than poorer

households at 1 % significance level. This was expected, as richer households tend to

involve themselves in diverse income generating activities. There were no significant

differences between the richer and poorer households in terms of remittances. This was

not expected, as poorer households tend to depend more on remittances for their

livelihoods than richer households.

4.1.3.4. Summing up key constraints

The major key constraints to improved livelihoods were land size, labour, access to

credit, which is a form of capital, and the high cost of input prices. Drought was not a

constraining factor in production. There was skewed distribution of GOV between the

richer and poorer households. Richer households had relatively more endowments and

entitlements than poorer households. The richer are younger, have more education, more

labour, more land, use more farm inputs and produce more output. This in turn affects the

way households adapt to improved livelihoods.

49


4.2 Present adoption levels of treadle pumps In this section an analysis of the present adoption levels of treadle pumps is presented.

The observed differences between adopters and non-adopters are discussed. Impacts of

treadle pumps on households are also presented. The discussions will follow the objective

and research questions set below:

Box 4.2 Objective 2 and Research questions.

4A

f

T

A

E

c

E

T

f

A

O

W

Objective 2:

Present adoption levels of treadle pumps among households

Research questions:


• Why do some households adopt and others do not adopt?

• What impacts do treadle pumps have on households?

.2.1 Observed differences between adopters and non-adopters dopters and non-adopters were observed to have some general differences in the

eatures they possess. Below is a table summarizing some observed distinctions.

able 4.9 Observed differences between adopters and non-adopters

spects Adopters Non-adopters

ndowment (land, labour,

apital)

More access Little or restricted access

ntitlement access (GOV) More GOV Less GOV

ime spent working on the

arm

Spend most of their time

working in the dimbas during the

dry season

Spend most of their time on

leisure activities such as

traditional ceremonies in the

dry season

gronomic practices Cultivate food and cash crops Most cultivate food crops only

rganisation Often mobilise themselves and

belong to some kind of farmers’

groups

Often do not belong to some

kind of farmers’ groups

ealth status Are often affluent Are often poor

50


Occupation Semi-commercial farmers Subsistence farmers

Adopters were generally ‘well-off’ than non-adopters. Most non-adopters tend to be poor

and have restricted access to resources. Non-adopters were mainly subsistence farmers.

The differences between adopters and non-adopters depict the reasons as to why other

households adopt and others do not.

4.2.1.1 The adopters utilisation of the TP

Respondents had used the pump for an average of 2.5 years. About 52 % were graduates

of ‘water cane’ irrigation and 36 % had used the ‘motorized pumps’ before. According to

the respondents, treadle pumps have a comparative advantage over the ‘water cane’ or the

‘motorised pumps in that it does not demand fossil fuel which is expensive for

smallholder farmers. The pump also increases efficiency in watering compared to the

‘water cane’. The technology is also sustainable in that it is easy to maintain and cheap to

repair compared to fossil fuel systems.

4.2.1.2 Marketing

TP offers a lucrative farming enterprise to adopters. Farmers could sell dimba crops

immediately after harvesting. This enables households to have stable incomes.

Households used incomes from the produce to buy farm inputs, pay school fees and for

consumption. Most adopters sold their produce at local markets. Some adopters had to

travel long distances to fetch markets that offered better prices. Poor transport services

were a limiting factor in accessing these markets. Produce was often transported in ox-

carts and on bicycles.

4.2.1.3 Technical aspects of the pump

The major sources of water for irrigation were streams and dams. Farmers were treadling

the pumps in twos, to increase input power. However, some respondents stated that water

tends to be scarce during the months of October and November. Adopters indicated that

TP had two major limitations to effectively improve the livelihoods: Maintenance costs

tend to be relatively high, as local artisans do not manufacture them and the pumps

supplied have short delivery pipes.

51


4.2.1.4 Ownership of treadle pumps

Treadle pumps were either owned individually or as a group. About 40 % of the adopters

owned the pumps individually. Group ownership was preferred in that it acted as a source

of collateral when accessing formal credit from sources such as commercial banks or

suppliers of TP. Groups also act as an investment in human capital that help to reduce

labour endowment failure. There is also a greater interaction among farmers in the group

that provide the opportunity to exchange beneficial or useful experiences. This also helps

to build social capital.

4.2.1.5 Group dynamics

Membership entry depended on the individual’s behaviour in the society. Group

membership was defined as those who contributed to the mobilisation and purchase of

the pump. Purchasing costs were shared equally among the members. Adopters who

owned the pump in groups comprised of two to five people. This consists of both male

and female members. Members were relatively homogenous in terms of wealth status. A

leader was elected by the members to facilitate the group. A member was allowed to

leave a group and all members could agree how much to repay the exiting member. New

members were allowed to join the group and were asked to contribute the amount that

each of the old members paid for the pump.

The group set rules guiding the usage of the pump. Members were responsible for

managing the TP. All members contributed equally to the maintenance costs if the pump

needed to be repaired. Non-members were not allowed to use the pump without joint

consent of the members. The latter had the right to use the pump at any time.

Group members enacted sanctions that would be applied to non-compliant members. A

fine worth an average of 300 MK was charged if a member misappropriates the pumps’

parts and she/he would be evicted immediately. However, expulsion was a rare case.

“We prefer to charge a fine to a non-compliant member than eviction

because the latter would ruin the image of the member to the society.”

Member; Mnkhota group.

52


Conflicts among group members were reported not to be a common phenomenon.

However, when conflicts arise, members themselves resolved them. These conflicts could

be between leaders and members or amongst the members themselves. The cause of

conflicts could be misinterpretation regarding the time a member would want to use the

pump or regarding the sanctions.

The groups were locally initiated. However, they were recognised by government

authorities such as extension workers. Their organisation was basically at a local level.

4.2.1.6 Summing up observed differences

Non-adopters were in many aspects different from adopters. Non-adopters had little

access to resources. Most adopters were graduates of other irrigation techniques. The TP

offered advantages compared to other irrigation techniques. TP gave a productive

farming enterprise. The produce was mostly sold at local markets. More TP users owned

the pump in groups. Management of the pump was the responsibility of all group

members. Graduated sanctions were used to be applied to non-compliant members.

4.2.2 Why some farmers adopt and others fail to adopt The producer environment affect farmer’s decision to adopt in a particular way. Treadle

pump (TP) adoption is influenced by a multiple of factors. A production function was

used where adoption is seen as a result of household access to various resources. A

correlation matrix was used to test correlation between independent variables. There was

a relatively low correlation for all tested variables. Running a logistic regression model

gave an indication of which factors that are important for adoption. (See chapter 3,

equation 3.5.2) as shown in Table 4.9.

.

53


Table 4.10 Results from estimation of factors affecting adoption, where adoption is

the dependent variable.

Log-likelihood = -11.26

Independent variables Estimated coefficient P-value Age of household head -0.048 0.479

Sex of household head (dummy) -1.009 0.509

Worker units 0.617 0.041

Education level of household head 0.193 0.309

Land size 0.715 0.024

Income 0.000 0.409

Access information from extension services (dummy) 6.601 0.004

Access credit (dummy) 4.033 0.012

Market distance -0.136 0.351

Access to dimba land (dummy) 0.754 0.541

Worker units contributed significantly to adoption of TPs. This was expected, as the

technology demand a lot of manpower. Households with more workers were likely to

adopt the pump as they were assured of availability of labour. Adopters and non-adopters

had an average of 2.4 and 2.2 worker units respectively. The differences were still

significant at 10 % level (P= 0.1).

Land size contributes significantly towards adoption. The larger the landholding, the

more likely a household can adopt. Households with smaller holdings tend to be more

risk averse due to uncertainties related to the technology. Households with large holdings

have a higher potential of increased production, which enable them to invest and gain

more from the technology. On average, adopter households had mean plot sizes of 6.2

hectares and non-adopters had a mean of 4.4 hectares (differences were significant P=

0.02). Thirteen percent of adopters and 28.2 % of the non-adopters owned less than 2.5

hectares of land.

Access to information from extension services has the most significant coefficient and it

is reasonable to deduce that extension service is an important factor contributing to

54


adoption of treadle pumps. This was expected as 87 % of the adopters got information

about treadle pumps from extension workers. About 81 % of the non-adopters indicated

that no extension worker visited them. There were significant differences in accessing

extension services between adopters and non-adopters. The chi-square confirms the test

at 1 % level (P= 0.00).

Access to credit was also expected to contribute to adoption. The more access, the easier

it is to get more capital to invest in technologies such as TPs. The pumps cost about

10,000 MK and are thus expensive for smallholder farmers who have to meet different

expenses required for their livelihoods. Adopters were paying cash for TPs, which were

mainly bought at ADMARC and the irrigation department.

Forty two percent of adopters and 13.3 % of the non-adopters reported to have access to

formal credit. The chi-square (P= 0.02) confirms that there were significant differences in

credit access between the two groups.

The age of the household was expected to contribute significantly to adoption. This is

because most young household heads tend to use more innovations than older people who

tend to be conservationists.

Access to dimba was also expected to contribute significantly to adoption of TP. This is

due to the fact that most TP users cultivate in dimbas, which are mostly located near

water sources.

4.2.2 Summary on why others adopt and others do not Access of different resources enables some households to adopt and preclude others.

Households with more worker units and more land size seem more were likely to adopt.

Access to information from extension services and access to credit were also important

factors in facilitating adoption. Age of household head and access to dimba land were

also expected to contribute to adoption of TPs.

55


4.2.3 Impacts of adoption Treadle pumps have positive impacts on yields, incomes, land size under cultivation,

socio cultural aspects and the environment. A linear regression model was run to test the

impact of adoption on yields and the total land size under cultivation (see chapter 3,

equation 3.5.1). Yields of maize were used, as the crop was grown both in the upland and

in dimba areas. Other dimba crops were grown in mixed patterns and were difficult to

quantify, hence were not used in the impact analysis. Socio impacts were also assessed.

4.2.3.1 Impact on maize yields

TP adoption had significant impacts on increase of maize yields at 10 % level. A

correlation matrix was used to show correlation between independent variables. All tested

variables were low correlated. All the tested variables had low correlation. Below is a

table showing contribution of different variables on yields of maize.

Table 4.11 Linear regression model, yield of maize is a dependent variable.

Kasungu, 2003

R2 = 0.351; F = 4.70

Predictors Coefficient P-values

Land size 7187 0.463

Worker units 42462 0.980

Livestock units 6.150 0.258

Non farm incomes -0.276 0.827

Access information from extension

workers (dummy)

196037 0.012

Access credit (dummy) 107160 0.104

Age household head 1267 0.563

Sex household head (dummy) -98562 0.175

Education level household head 9990 0.205

Market distance 1182 0.848

Number of times crops are grown -55293 0.303

Adoption (dummy) -184851 0.09

56


An increase in maize production implies that households have more food and hence

become more food secure.

Access to extension information and credit also contributed significantly to increased

yields of maize at 5 % and 10 % significant levels respectively.

4.2.3.2 Impact on incomes

Use of TPs contributes to increase in household incomes. This is because farmers are able

to get cash from selling the dimba products. Incomes from dimba production were used

to buy inputs for upland fields thereby giving a guarantee for good harvest in the

subsequent year. Cash from TP production was also used to buy food in times of

shortages, which in turn improved the food security levels.

The GOV was used to indicate the different levels of income groups between adopters

and non-adopters. The differences were significant at 5 % level (Chi-square, P= 0.00).

The table below is showing the differences in output levels.

Table 4.12 GOV levels for adopters and non-adopters income groups. Kasungu, 2003 Adopters (N=45) Non-adopters (N=45)

Output

level

(MK)

Total

GOV

% of

GOV

No

HH

% of

HH

Total

GOV

% of

GOV

No of

HH

% HH

0-100,000 1,055,921 11.4 17 37.8 5,917,977 66.0 39 86.7

100,001-

200,000

2,643,277 28.6 18 40.0 264,622 3.0 2 4.4

200,001-

300,000

432,220 4.7 2 4.4 465,555 5.2 2 4.4

300,001-

400,000

746,623 8.1 2 4.4 0 0 0 0

400,000+

4,356,539

47.2 6 13.3 2,314,597 25.8 2 4.4

Total 9,234,580 100 45 ≈100 8,962,751 100 45 ≈100

57


Table 4.12 indicates that adopters were ‘better off’ than non-adopters. About 38 % of

adopters households are ‘worse off’ with an output of less than 100,000 MK and 13.3 %

are ‘well off’ with an output of more than 400,000 MK. The majority (86.7 %) of non-

adopters were ‘worse off’ with an output of equal or less than 100,000 MK. There were

significant differences in the output values for the two groups at 5 % level (P= 0.05).

However, adoption indicated to have more effect on income inequalities of households.

Gini coefficients (see chapter 3, equation 3.5.3) were used to estimate the inequality

levels. This is because households access resources differently and do not adopt at the

same rate. Below is the Lorenz curve showing distribution of incomes. Gross output

value is used to represent total incomes.

1009080706050403020100

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%G

OV

Lorenz curve


% HH

Figure 4.4 The Lorenz curve for income level distribution for adopters.

The Gini coefficient estimated from the Lorenz curve was 0.42 for adopters. The high

coefficient implies much inequality among households.

58


Non-adopters’ households had lower inequality levels. This can be explained by the fact

that most non-adopters have restricted access to resources and they are all poor, hence

tend to have similar income levels. Below is a graph showing income distribution levels.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%G

OV

Lorenz curve


% HH

Figure 4.5 The Lorenz curve showing income level distribution for non-adopters

The Gini coefficient for the group of households is 0.12. The low coefficient indicates

low-income inequalities.

4.2.3.3 Impact on household consumption

TP farmers sustain a significant proportion of the dimba crops for household

consumption for most parts of the year. This attributes to higher levels of food security

and consequently higher nutritional levels of household members were improved as one

woman reported:

“Before I started using the treadle pump my children used to be

underweight and often fell sick. This time all my kids as you can

see have gained weight and are very healthy”

Woman; Chioza village.

59


Most non-adopters deplete their food stocks within three months of harvest. The rest of

the year was survived mostly through ganyu6. Most TP farmers had food supplies through

out the year due to supplements from the dimba maize. Few had run short of food one

month before the harvest as one adopter reported:

“Treadle pumps have helped us to have food throughout the year. Those

who do not use the pumps often deplete their food stocks soon after

harvesting.”

Adopter; Chikankheni village.

4.2.3.4 Impact on land under cultivation

TP have been known to increase the total land under cultivation. Table 4.12 were the

reported links between land size and adoption. A correlation matrix was used and the

tested independent variables showed low correlation.

Table 4.13 Linear regression model, land under cultivation is a dependent variable.

Kasungu, 2003

R2 =0.231; F = 7.69

Predictors Coefficients P-values

Livestock units 0.1591 0.002

Access to credit 0.6596 0.382

Worker units 0.4370 0.010

Consumer worker ratio 0.7961 0.453

Adoption 1.4834 0.030

Adoption contributed significantly to total area under cultivation at 5 % level. All TP

farmers stated that their land sizes have increased more than four fold to the original size.

The fact that TP reduce labour requirements compared with ‘watering canes’ enables

adopters to expand their gardens. Increased land area entails more capacity of households

to increase in production levels. As indicated earlier in section 4.1.5.1, food crops

6 This is casual labour supplied to informal sectors for survival.

60


constitute a major proportion of GOV. It can therefore be deduced that if households

have the ability to produce more, they are likely to increase in food production levels and

hence improve in food security levels. With the TP farmers are able to cultivate a

minimum of two times per year. This also contributes to an increase in food production

levels. The average land size used by TP was 0.87 hectares. The pump cannot effectively

irrigate larger pieces of land.

Livestock units contributed significantly to increased land size. With access to manure

from livestock, farmers are more willing to expand their land to utilize the organic

fertiliser. Adopters and non-adopters reported a mean of 3.1 and 2.3 tropical livestock

units respectively. There were significant differences in the livestock units at 10 %

(P=0.101).

Households with more workers of productive age groups are certain of the availability of

labour and can increase the total land under cultivation. The mean age of adopters was

38.9 and non-adopters was 43.4. There was a significant difference in the ages of the

groups at 10 % level (P= 0.102).

4.2.3.5 Socio cultural impacts

Most TP users owned the pump in groups. This promoted social cohesion within their

societies. Irrigation was initially perceived to be a woman’s task. Men often resisted

irrigating most of the hours using ‘watering canes’. With the advent of treadle pumps,

time spent on watering crops is reduced and men are now working together with their

families. The workload of women has thus reduced. Men have now changed their cultural

calendars of resting during the dry season and attend traditional ceremonies. Women

operate the TP without any traditional or religious restrictions.

TP adoption has spill over effects to communities. Since social capital is an asset to the

rural communities, those with more food and more income as a result of using TP help

others through informal credit services. TPs also create employment opportunities to

those who sell out their labour during peak periods of production and to local artisans

when they repair pumps.

61


4.2.3.6 Environmental impacts

TP users expressed that the pump had so far no negative environmental effects. Water

percolates slowly into the soil during the irrigation process and this reduces the potential

of soil erosion.

4.2.3.7 Summing up impacts of adoption

Adoption of treadle pump contributed to increase in maize yields and hence increased

food security levels. Most adopters had food throughout the year, as they were able to

cultivate more than once per year. Non-adopters often face food shortages. Total land

under cultivation increased, as TP reduces time spent working on farms. The workload of

women has reduced as men are actively working with women in irrigation. TP has so far

caused no negative environmental effects on farms and to the society.

62


4.3 Roles of agricultural extension services This section presents the roles of agricultural extension services to the livelihoods of

farmers. Approaches used by extension workers in disseminating information on treadle

pumps and other agronomic practices are also expressed. Farmers’ opinions regarding

extension services and what extension workers perceive of the farmers are presented.

Discussions follow the objectives and research questions below:

Box 4.3 Objective 3 and Research questions

4A

i

f

f

t

t

s

a

e

t

e

t

Objective 3: Role of agricultural extension services

Research questions:

• What roles do extension workers play to farmers?



.3.1 Functions of the agricultural extension gricultural extension services provide important services to farmers. Extension workers

ndicated that they bridged the gap between researchers and farmers and also provided

eedback to the public institutions. In so doing, they helped to shape the institutional

ramework affecting farmer’s producing environment. Extension workers further stated

hat their role was to introduce, train and teach farmers in the use of new improved

echnology. In case of treadle pump technology, extension services contributed

ignificantly to adoption at 5 % level (P=0.04). Information was also imparted regarding

lternatives to improve existing livelihood status. Farmers reported that they perceive

xtension workers’ roles as that of giving technical production related information to

heir producing environment. However, sixty percent of the farmers reported that recently

xtension workers are not providing much technical assistance as they used to do some

en years ago as one farmer reported:

“In the past few years, extension workers used to help us a lot by providing

us with all the technical assistance we needed on our farms, these days, they

63


just come and tell us to work hard on our farms even when we present a

problem.”

Respondent 72; Chioza village.

The frequency of extension workers’ visits to farmers is important in improving the

relationship between them. This in turn enhances the degree of interaction where farmers

can easily present feedback related to production aspects. Forty percent of the extension

workers indicated that they visit farmers once in every fortnight, the rest visited farmers

once in a month. However, a large proportion of farmers (51 %) reported that extension

workers have never visited them in the last three years. For those who accessed extension

services, information was mainly on general agronomic practices and on TPs to the users.

About 18 % of the farmers indicated that the extension workers visit them once in a

month. Fifty two percent indicated that they are often visited once in at least two months.

Few female-headed households (33.3 %) accessed extension information. Farmers

expressed dissatisfaction with the frequency of the visits as one respondent stated:

“We want extension workers to visit us at least once a week, but it has

never been the case. The worst thing is that when they visit us they

always tell us they are busy and hardly take more than 15 minutes.”

Respondent 54; Chikankheni village.

4.3.2 Approaches in service delivery Government extension workers were the main agents working in the surveyed area.

Extension workers indicated that they use both the individual and group methods to all

classes of farmers in disseminating information. The priority clients were stated to be

smallholder farmers because of their high poverty levels. Group methods were identified

to be effective than the individual basis. This is because coverage is increased and thus

reduces the cost of meeting farmers; the latter also share experiences and encourages one

another in the decisions to adopt technologies. Farmers responded that local leaders and

the affluent are the ones who are mostly met on individual basis, the rest of the farmers

were met on group basis only as one respondent stated:

64


“Extension workers prefer visiting the well to do people on individual basis,

we the poor totally ignored even if there is a pressing need demanding

their services”

Respondent 61; Mnduka village.

Extension workers reported that they were mainly using the ‘block extension’ service

delivery. This is a group method where farmers would meet at an agreed place, which

was usually on a farmer’s piece of land. Demonstrations and advisory services would

take place on that farm, where it was expected that those who attended the meeting would

practice and spread information to other farmers. The content of the messages would be

scheduled to coincide with the seasonal farm operations. In cases of an outbreak of pests

or diseases, ad hoc meetings could be scheduled to tackle the problems. Extension

workers dominated in the discussions. Farmers were expected to listen and take up the

messages. This is a centralised, supply driven approach typical of the ‘train and visit

approach’ (see chapter 2). This approach was preferred because it enabled farmers to be

aware of the new technologies and their mode of operation. The approach also allowed

preplanning of extension messages and hence facilitated monitoring and evaluation of the

progress amongst farmers.

However, farmers reported that the ‘block meeting’ have been creating some inequalities

in accessing information. Due to socio cultural conditions, women do not easily mix up

with men and so opt to stay at home waiting for men to spread messages to them. Time

was also reported to be a constraint for women to participate in these meetings due to

their multiple roles at home as one woman reported:

“It is not easy to mix up with men, even if you take up the courage to do

so, you would not easily ask a question in front of men. You would be

thought of to be a woman without manners.”

Woman 18; Chikankheni village.

65


Furthermore, young farmers do not easily ask a question in the presence of the elderly.

The ‘block’ meetings had also created some conflicts in the society. This is because

meetings were often held on particular individuals’ farms. One respondent angrily said:

“Can you imagine, each time there is an extension meeting, the extension

worker always wants some individuals’ farms to be chosen. If you argue,

you end up being criticised by fellow farmers.”

Respondent 41; Chioza village.

Extension workers reported that recently, the ‘demand driven’ approach is also being

used in service delivery. Forty percent of the extension workers stated that they use the

‘demand driven’ approach together with the ‘block’ extension system. The rest reported

that they use the ‘block’ approach only. Extension workers indicated that the ‘demand

driven’ approach is not much used, as it is a new system, which has not fully internalised.

However, extension workers reported that the ‘demand driven’ has the following

comparative advantages over the ‘block’ system:

1) Addressing farmers needs

The ‘demand driven’ approach is more responsive in addressing farmers’ needs. Farmers

are able to present their needs to extension services and the latter respond by taking into

consideration the resource endowment of the farmers. ‘Block extension’ brings in

messages without consideration of the particular need of the farmer and resource

endowment.

2) Focus

The ‘demand driven’ service is pluralistic and hence accommodate for the multifarious

needs of farmers. The ‘block system’ has a narrow focus hence does not fully take into

consideration of the farmers’ heterogeneity in their producing environment.

3) Degree of farmer participation

Farmers are perceived as stakeholders not as mere beneficiaries in the ‘demand driven,’

as such they participate actively in decision-making. The ‘block extension’ on the other

hand recognizes farmers to be passive participants.

66


Extension workers further reported that the effectiveness of the approach needs a lot of

input from the public sector such as equipping extension staff with transport facilities.

In promoting treadle pump technology, 25 % of the extension workers report to use both

the ‘demand driven’ and ‘the block extension’ system. Farmers presented their needs

related to irrigation activities. Extension workers responded by provided alternatives to

irrigation in the ‘block’ meetings one of the alternatives being the TP. The rest of the

extension workers used the ‘block extension’ in promoting the TP. Seventy eight percent

of the farmers responded that they got information about TPs from extension workers.

The rest of the farmers got information about TPs from fellow farmers.

4.3.3 Launching the TP Extension workers published information about TPs in their working areas through

meetings and brochures. Some farmers at first thought it was an impractical technology

and thus ignored the meetings. Few farmers were selected to attend a field show in a

different district to be exposed about the technology. Demonstrations were carried out on

the pioneers’ plots. This included mounting of the pump, plot lay out and plant spacing.

Farmers were mostly passive participants in the demonstrations. Extension agents

indicated that there has been an increase in food production levels among adopters since

they started using the pumps. The indicators were: Most households were having at least

two meals per day, unlike in the past where they used to have only one meal per day. The

nutrition status of the under five children had improved in the last two years. Food stocks

had been available for most part of the year. Adopters also owned assets like oxcart,

radios and bicycles as a result of using the pump. There were a lot of ceremonial

activities like weddings during the dry season. Farmers also stated that TP has enabled

them to increase both food and income levels. Extension workers further reported that

most non-adopters were food insecure, the most vulnerable groups being the elderly,

under five children and the female-headed households.

The adoption process was spreading; extension workers were still taking the leading role

in the deliberations with farmers. All extension workers interviewed have been in the

67


service for more than 12 years. This accounts for the reasons why they are not flexible to

the ‘demand driven’ approach.

4.3.4 Perceptions on typical adopters According to extension agents, education, age, access to dimba land and farm size play a

great role in adopting TP technology. Eighty one percent indicated that typical adopters

are the ones with high education levels within 5 to 10 years spent at school. Seventy eight

percent indicated that the middle aged from 25 to 45 were the likely adopters. Farmers

with an average land holding of more that 2 hectares are also particularly good in

adoption. However, eighty two percent of the farmers responded that those who access

formal credit are the typical adopters. Sixty eight percent reported that those having

dimbas are likely to adopt.

4.3.5 Key constraints facing extension workers Extension workers reported that they face different constraints to effectively deliver their

services. There has been a shrink in financial and human resources for public extension

services that has adversely affected their operation services to farmers. They lack

adequate transport facilities to meet their clientele. With the advent of the ‘demand

driven’ services, extension workers will be more constrained to meet individual farmers’

needs. Extension workers also stated that there are few workers compared to the number

of farmers they are supposed to deliver their services. For example, one extension agent

has been responsible for more than 1,000 farmers. Hence, some farmers end up not being

visited for a long time.

Extension workers also reported that lack of in-service training is hindering their capacity

in delivery of services. None of the respondents had been trained for the last five years,

hence sometimes have limited knowledge in addressing farmers’ needs in their dynamic

producing environment. One extension worker reported that:

“I have never been trained ever since I started this profession. Yet I am

expected to effectively carry out my services. The ‘demand driven approach

is very challenging and needs a lot of improved professional skills to tackle

farmers problems.”

68


Extension worker 2; Chulu EPA.

Nevertheless, extension workers indicated that most farmers are less productive on their

farms due to high malnutrition levels; hence agricultural activities are not effectively

taken up. Low literacy levels of farmers have also been impeding the scope of

production, as farming is less perceived as an entrepreneurship activity. Few farmers

participate in the market economy hence they still limit their goals to subsistence levels.

4.3.6 Summary on the roles of extension workers Extension workers provide information to farmers on various agronomic practices and

new technologies. The main approach of delivering their services was through the ‘block’

extension system where information was disseminated in groups of farmers. However,

this poses some limiting factors to women and the youth in participating during the

meetings due to socio cultural reasons. The ‘demand driven’ system was acknowledged

to be a better approach in addressing farmers’ needs. However, extension workers needed

some kind of training and transport facilities for the success of this approach. TP was

mostly promoted using ‘block extension’. The typical adopters were perceived by

extension workers to be those with relatively higher education, the middle aged and those

who had larger plot sizes. Extension workers expressed constraints they faced as a

limiting factor to improved service delivery.

69


5.0 Conclusions and tentative recommendations The main aim of the study was to find out the impact of treadle pumps on household food

security. This chapter presents the main conclusions from the thesis. Tentative

recommendations for improvements are also presented.

5.1 Household adaptation The study showed that households were living below the poverty line. However they

accessed endowments like capital, land and labour. Few respondents (23 %) reported to

access credit. All respondents had some form of livestock. Households had an average of

5.2 hectares of land, comprised of upland and dimba land. The major upland crops

produced were maize, tobacco, groundnuts and the common dimba crops were

vegetables, maize and potatoes. Crop production contributed about 90 % to improved

livelihoods. Natural population growth and immigrants were a growing threat to

diminishing land sizes. Respondents sold their produce mostly at local markets that gave

low output prices. Unreliable rains affected production levels. The key constraints that

obstructed improved livelihoods were high input costs, which reduced the capacity to

produce more, farm sizes, which were small, compared to the household size, lack of

adequate labour and access to credit.

5.2 Adoption levels of treadle pumps Different farmers had different capabilities in adopting treadle pumps. Adopters were

observed to be ‘well-off’ than non-adopters. Households with more manpower had the

potential of adopting more than others. Adopters had mean worker units of 2.4 whilst

non-adopters had 2.2 worker units. Households with relatively larger farm sizes were able

to adopt as they could easily spread the risks of engaging in irrigation activities. Access

to credit had an important contribution to adoption. Treadle pumps are expensive for

smallholder farmers; hence credit help to lift them up to the desired attainment of the

equipment. Only 13 % percent of the non-adopters and 42 % of the adopters accessed

credit.

70


Food security levels of adopters have increased as a result of using treadle pumps.

Adopters had an increase in maize yields that ensured the availability of food through out

the year. Adopter households increased their incomes that were used to buy food in times

of depletion and also helped to purchase farm inputs for improved production. Nutritional

status of adopter households improved as a result of better consumption levels. Land size

under cultivation increased which also ensured more food production. Non-adopters were

less food secure. Their production was mainly in upland fields, a rain fed kind of

production. This constrained their output levels and subsequently food production levels.

Treadle pumps had also helped in reducing the workloads of families and facilitated to

improve the social capital of the society. Apparently treadle pumps have been known not

to cause any negative environmental effects.

5.3 Roles of agricultural extension services Extension services help in providing technical information related to production to

farmers and provide feedback to researchers. Extension workers played a great role in

adoption of treadle pumps. More adopters (87 %) became aware of the pumps through

extension services. The main approach used in service delivery was the ‘block extension’

system. The system was preferable to the ‘demand driven’ extension system, as the latter

demand a lot of resources, which are currently not available for extension workers.

Farmers reported that the ‘block extension’ system had social cultural constraints to

women and the youth who would not actively participate in the meetings. However,

extension workers appreciated the principles of the ‘demand driven’ approach as it

addresses farmers’ at the point of need. Extension workers expressed that the key

constraints hold back the efficiency and effectiveness of their service delivery. Lack of

training and transport facilities were identified to be the main drawbacks.

5.4 Recommendations The following could be thought of possible ways of improving livelihoods and hence

food security levels to farmers.

• There is need for farmers to access more resources like credit at lower interest

rates to improve their livelihoods.

71


• Market information should be available to farmers to enable them transact

profitably in their entrepreneurships.

• Local artisans should be equipped with skills to be able to manufacture treadle

pumps locally. This will in turn reduce the purchasing and maintenance costs for

farmers.

• The length of delivery pipes of treadle pumps should be more than 50 metres to

cover wider areas of irrigated land.

• Extension workers should often be given in service training to improve their

delivery skills. Transport resources should also be available to extension workers

to be able to meet their clientele.

72


REFERENCES

Ban, A. and Hawkins, H. (1988). Agricultural Extension. Longman Scientific and Technical. New York. Benor, D. and Baxter, M. (1984). Training and Visit Extension. World Bank, Washington, USA. Dougherty, T. and Hall, A. (1995). Environmental Impact Assessment of Irrigation and Drainage Projects. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 53. FAO, Rome. Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. (1989). Farmer First. Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. Ellis, F. (1993). Peasant Economics. Farm households and agrarian development. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (2004). Country Profile. Patersons Dartford. Dartford.

FEWS Net Reports (2002). Malawi Food Security Warning. Lilongwe, Malawi.

Frémy, J. (2000). Human Resources Development and Management Issues: SAA CASIN/SSA/Global 2000. Mexico, D.F. Gujarati, D. (2003). Basic Econometrics. McGraw-Hill International Editions. New York. Hair, J., Andersen, R. Tatham, R and Black, W. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Max MacMillan International Editions, New York. Kay, M and Brabben T. (2000). Treadle Pumps for Irrigation in Africa. International programme for Technology and Research in Irrigation and Drainage. FAO, Rome. Long, N. and Long, A. (1992). Battlefields of Knowledge. The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development. London and New York. Malawi Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (2002). Final Draft. Lilongwe, Malawi. Michael (1985) in Shiferaw (1991). Rural Energy Survey in the Third World: A critical Review of Issues and Methods. IDRC, Canada. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (1999). Malawi Agricultural Sector Investment Programme Policy Review Paper. Lilongwe, Malawi.

73


Negatu and Parikh, (1999). The Impact of Perception and Other Factors on the Adoption of Agricultural Technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (district) of Ethiopia. Ethiopia. Pretty, J. (1995). Regenerating Agriculture. Policies and practice for sustainable and self Reliance. Earthscan publications Ltd, London. Ragin, C. (1994). Constructing Social Research. Sociology for a new century. Pine Forge Press, Califonia. Reij, C. and Waters-Bayer A.(2001). Farmer Innovation in Africa. A source of Inspiration For Agricultural Development. Earthscan Publications Ltd, Sterling,VA, U.K. Rogers E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. Free press, New york Scoones, I and Thompson, J (1994). Beyond Farmer First. Rural People’s Knowledge, Agricultural Research and Extension Practice. Intermediate Technology Publications. London. Sahn, D., Arulpragasam, J. And Merid, L. (1990). Policy Reform and Poverty in Malawi. A survey of a Decade of Experience. Cornell Food and Nutrition Policy Program. New York. Shah T, Alam M, Kumar M., Nagar RK and Singh M. (2000). Pedalling Out of Poverty: Socio Impact of Manual Irrigation Technology in South Asia. Research Report 45. Colombo Sri Lanka. Sowera, B. (1998). Livestock Production Among Rural Farmers in Lilongwe. Lilongwe, Malawi. Sijm, J. (1997). Food Security and Policy Interventions in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lessons from the Past Two Decades. Thesis publishers, Amsterdam. Smith L., Obeid A. Jensen, H (2000). The Geography and Causes of Food Insecurity in Developing Countries. Agricultural Economics. Vol 22 (2): 199-215. UNDP (1998). Malawi Information Kit. Lilongwe, Malawi. Vedeld, P. (1990). Household Viability and Change Among the Tugens- A case study of Household Resource Allocation in the Semi-Arid Baringo District, Nomadic Peoples: 133-151. Vedeld, P.O, Moulton, M. and Krogh, E. (1998). Extension Workers, Farmers and the Environment. Competence Development in a Changing World. A case from Telemark, Norway. Agricultural University of Norway. Norway.

74


Vedeld, P. (2002). The Process of Institution Building to Facilitate Local Biodiversity Management. Noragric Working Paper #26. Agricultural University of Norway, Norway. Vedeld, P. and Krogh, E. (2001). Good Agronomy. Social institutions among Norwegian Farmers. Agricultural University of Norway, Norway. Willy, H.(1999). Household Food Security Among Rural Peasants in Malawi. Lilongwe, Malawi. Wiyo, K., Lunduka, R. and Nalivata, P. (2002). Impact Assessment of Treadle Pumps in Malawi. Bunda College of Agriculture, Malawi.

75


APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Household survey Appendix 2 Questionnaire for extension workers Appendix 3 Coefficients for converting household members Into standardized consumer unit and worker unit. Appendix 4 Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) IMPACT OF TREADLE PUMP ADOPTION ON FOOD SECURITY: Kasungu

district, Malawi.

76


Household questionnaire

Name of enumerator Date checked

Traditional authority Household number

Name of village Name of respondent

Date of interview Time started

Checked by Time finished

1.0 Household Demographic Data

Member Sex Marital status of household head

Age Education level

Contribute to farm work

Main occupation of household

Religion

Codes

Sex of household

Marital status

Main occupation of household head

1. Female 2. Male

1. Single 2. Married (polygamy) 3. Married (monogamy) 4. Separated /divorced 5. Other (specify)

1=Peasant farmer

2=Semi-commercial farmer (e.g. cash

crop grower)

3.wage labourer/worker

4.artisan/carpentry

5.Housewife

6. Business person

7. Other (specify)

2.0 For how long have you resided in this area (years)?……………………..

3.0 Were you born in this area or moved from somewhere else?

1) Born here……………………………………………………………….

77


2) Moved from somewhere else………………………………………….

4.0 If moved from somewhere, when did you come?…………………..

5.0 Why did you decide to come here?…………………………………. 6.0 What were the main crops grown in the last 12 months? Type of crop

Area cultivated

Distance to farm from home

Quantity harvested

Quantity of post harvest losses

Amount consumed

Quantity sold (MK)

Present stock

Maize Tobacco Groundnuts Cassava Soybeans Beans Leafy vegetables

Other (specify)

7.0 How did you acquire the land?

1) Bought

2) Inherited

3) Others (specify)…………………………………………………………………

8.0 How much land is under fallow?

……………………………………………………………………………………

9.0 How can you acquire additional land?

…………………………………………………………………………………… 10.0 Types of livestock kept for the last 12 months Livestock Quantity Amount sold Loss due to

death/ theft

Quantity consumed

Quantity remaining

Cattle

Goats

Chicken

Other (specify) 11.0 Do sell any of your farm products

78


1) Yes 2) No

12.0 If sell, where do you sell? (Indicate the distance) ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 13.0 Other income sources in the last 12months Source Amount earned Fuel wood sales Fodder for animals Wild fruits

…………… ……………

Remittances/gifts (from who)

Off farm employment

Non farm employment

Rental income Salaries Hire out services Trade of other goods

Other 14.0 Do you buy farm inputs?

1) Yes 2) No

15.0 If yes where do you buy? …………………………………………………………………………………….. 16.0 how much did you spend on the following? ……………………………………………………………………………………… 17.0 If no, why do you not buy? ………………………………………………………………………………………. 18.0 How much did you spend on farm activities for the last 12 months? Input Amount spent Pesticides Fertiliser Seeds Packing and storage Transport

79


Hired labour Farm machinery Other (specify) 19.0 Do you access credit? 1) Yes

2) No 20.0 If yes, where do you get the credit? ………………………………………………………………………………………... ………………………………………………………………………………………… 21.0 In what form is the credit? …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… 22.0 Why do you take up the credit? ……………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23.0 What are the conditions required to access the credit? ……………………………………………………………………………………………... ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 24.0 If do not access credit, why? ……………………………………………………………………………………………. . .…………………………………………………………………………………………… 25.0 What kind of assets do you have? ……………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 26.0 Where do you keep your savings? …………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 27.0 How much money do you spend per month on the following? (MK)

1) School fees……………………………………………………………………….. 2) Domestic household basic needs (salt, sugar, soap)……………………………… 3) Others (specify)……………………………………………………………………

28.0 Do you practice irrigation? 1) Yes

2) No

29.0 If yes, on what type of land do you practice irrigation? 1) Dimba land

80


2) Upland 3) Both

30.0 Where do you get the water for irrigation? …………………………………………………………………………………………. 31.0 Do you have a treadle pump? 1) Yes

2) No

32.0 If no, why? 1) Lack of knowledge about it 2) Expensive to buy 3) Do not have dimbas 4) Lack of water sources 5) Its not a practical technology 6) Lack of labour 7) Do not believe in it

8) Others (specify)_______________________________________________ 33.0 If yes, why did you decide to adopt the treadle pump?

1) Reduce time spent irrigating 2) Easier to use 3) Increase food base 4) Was just given 5) Supplement rainfall 6) Others (specify)……………………………………………………………………

34.0 Describe how you thought and decided about taking it into use. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. 35.0 How many treadle pumps do you have? …………………………………………………………………………………………. 36.0 How did you acquire the pump(s)?

1) Bought with cash 2) Bought on credit 3) It was a gift 4) Others (specify)…………………………………………………………………….

37.0 How long have you used the pump(s)? ..………………………………………………………………………………………… 38.0 How is the treadle pump(s) owned?

81


1) Individual 2) Group 3) Others (specify)…………………………………………………………………..

39.0 If owned by a group, how does the membership work? (membership, rules, sanctions) ………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 40.0 What is the sex composition of the group? …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. 41.0 What problems do you face with the treadle pump?

1) Demands a lot of labour 2) Demands a lot of time 3) Difficult to maintain 4) Expensive to buy 5) Lack of organizational skills in farmers groups 6) Others (specify)…………………………………………………………………..

42.0 Have you used other irrigation techniques before using the treadle pump? 1) Yes

2) No

43.0 If yes, what other techniques? 1) Watering cans 2) Motorized pumps 3) Others (specify)………………………………………………………….

44.0 Which crops do you grow using the treadle pump? Type of crop

Area cultivated

Distance farm from home

Quantity harvested

Quantity consumed

Quantity sold

Maize Irish potatoes

Sweet potatoes

Cabbages Onions Tomatoes Green leafy

82


vegetables Beans Others

45.0 How many times do you grow these crops in a year? 1) Once 2) Twice 3) More than 2 times a year

46.0 Do you grow the above number of times because of the treadle pump?

1) Yes 2) No

47.0 Have you improved in the your livelihood as a result of the treadle pump than before? 1) Yes

2No

48.0 if yes how …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………………………………………….

49.0 if you have not improved in the livelihood explain why

1) Experienced climatic vagaries 2) Did not use adequate farm inputs 3) Pest outbreak 4) Did not get enough information on the effective use of the pump 5) Did not use the pump (specify reason)…………………………………………. 6) Others (specify)………………………………………………………………….

50.0 Do you sell some of the dimba products? If yes, where (Indicate distance)

1) Local markets 2) At the farmers’ gardens 3) Distant urban markets 4) Institutional markets 5) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………..

51.0 If do not sell why?

1) Selling points are far 2) Output prices are low 3) There is no demand 4) Consumes everything 5) Not interested in selling

83


6) Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………. 52.0 What environmental effects do you think the treadle pump has? ……………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 53.0 Do you get information from extension workers?

1) Yes 2) No

54.0 If no why

1) No extension worker visits the area. 2) Not interested in getting new information 3) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………….

55.0 If yes, what kind of information?

1) Treadle pumps 2) General agronomic practices 3) Health related issues 4) Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………….

56.0 In what way is the information provided? 1) Individual meetings 2) Group meetings 3) Mass media (specify)………………………………………………………………

4Others (specify)…………………………………………………………………….

57.0 If the information is provided through meetings, who take the leading role in the discussions? 1) Extension workers 2) Local community

3) Local chiefs/ cultural leader 4) Political leaders 5) Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………. 58.0 How do you perceive extension workers’ roles to you as a farmer? ………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… 59.0 How often does extension workers visit you? ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… 60.0 Are you satisfied with the frequency of extension workers’ visits? ……………………………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………..

84


61.0 Which organization do the extension workers that visit you come from?

1) Government 2) NGO

3) Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………. 62.0 Explain the role of extension services in launching the treadle pump in your area. ………………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. …………………………………………………………………………………………. 63.0 What kind of farmers would you, as a farmer say are typical adopters? ……………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 64.0 What do you think are key constraints for improved livelihood? (Rank in terms of priority)

1) Labour access 2) Capital access 3) Droughts and ecological vagaries 4) Political changes 5) Changes in prices of inputs and outputs 6) Others (specify)………………………………………………………………………

IMPACT OF TREADLE PUMP ADOPTION ON FOOD SECURITY; Kasungu District, Malawi.

85


Questionnaire for Extension workers 1.0 Name of extension worker……………………………………………………

2.0 Age …………………………………………………………………………..

3.0 Sex

1) Female

2) Male

4.0 Number of years spent at school…………………………………………….

5.0 Length of professional experience……………………………………………

6.0 what are your roles in the extension services?

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

7.0 How many clients are visited per month?…………………………………..

8.0 Who are the priority clients?

1) Large land holders

2) Female headed households

3) Male headed households

4) The elderly

5) Small land holders

6) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………

9.0 Why do you target the chosen clients?

……………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………..

10.0 What type of extension system are you currently using for dissemination of

information?

1) Block extension system

2) Demand driven extension system

3) Block extension system and demand driven system

4) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………….

86


11.0 Why are you using the system you have chosen above?

…………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………..

12.0 Which extension system did you use in promoting treadle pump adoption?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

13.0 Describe how you launched the treadle pump promotion.

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………...

14.0 How did you work with farmers in a process of implementing activities on treadle

pumps?

……………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………….

15.0 What kinds of farmers are particularly good in adoption of treadle pumps?

……………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………….

87


………………………………………………………………………………………..

16.0 How do you compare the block extension system to the demand driven extension

system in terms

of delivery of services?

…………………………………………………………………………………………...

……………………………………………………………………………………………

17.0 Has there been any improvement in food security levels among households who are

using

treadle pumps?

1) If yes, what are the indicators?

……………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………

2) If no why?

……………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………………….

18.0 Who are the vulnerable groups to food insecurity?

1) The landless

2) Female-headed households

3) Under-five children

4) The elderly

5) Other (specify)…………………………………………………………………

19.0 What key constraints do you face to effectively deliver your services?

……………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………..

Coefficients for converting household members into standardized consumer unit and worker unit

88


Table 1 FAO/WHO coefficients for household members into standardized consumer units.

Sex Age category (years) Male Both Female <1 0.4 1-3 0.6 4-6 0.8 7-9 0.9 10-12 1.1 1.0 13-15 1.0 0.9 16-19 1.0 0.8 20-39 1.0 0.8 40-49 1.0 0.7 50-59 0.9 0.7 60-69 0.8 0.6 >=70 0.7 0.5 (Source: Michael, 1985)

Table 2 Coefficients for converting household labour into standard worker units

Sex / Age Condition Worker unit <5 or >60 All 0 Children (5-11) 1 0.5 Children (5-11) 2 0.1 Child (12-15) 1 0.65 Child (12-15) 2 0.2 Adult males (16-44) 1 0.8 Adult males (16-44) 2 0.2 Old males (45-60) 1 0.7 Adult females (16-44) 1 1.0 Adult females (16-44) 2 0.25 Old females (45-60) 1 0.8 Source: Willy, 1999. Condition 1: Income generating activities and work at home Condition 2: Attending school (work in holidays)

Tropical Livestock Units

89


Table 1 Conversion factors for livestock. Livestock Conversion factorCattle 1.3 Goats 0.19 Sheep 0.19 Poultry 0.016 (Source: Sowera, 1998)

90

anna handrina annahela lwesya 2004 msc thesis · 2009-02-26 · anna handrina annahela lwesya 2004...

Documents