gender and conservation agriculture in east and southern africa: towards a research agenda

Gender and conservation agriculture in East and Southern Africa:towards a research agenda

Cathy Rozel Farnwortha∗, Frederic Baudronb, Jens A. Anderssonc, Michael Misikob,Lone Badstued and Clare M. Stirlingd

aPandia Consulting, Teigelkamp 64, 48145 Munster, Germany; bCIMMYT – Ethiopia, Shola Campus,ILRI, P. O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; cCIMMYT – Southern Africa, % Royal Tropical Institute,Mauritskade 63, 1092 AD, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; dCIMMYT, Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 Mexico,D.F., Mexico

It is remarkable that despite wide-ranging, in-depth studies over many years, almost noconservation agriculture (CA) studies consider gender and gender relations as a potentialexplanatory factor for (low) adoption rates. This is important because CA demands newways of working with the farm system. Implementation will inevitably involve areallocation of men’s and women’s resources as well as having an impact upon their abilityto realize their gender interests. With respect to intra-household decision-making and thedistribution of benefits, CA interventions have implications for labour requirements andlabour allocation, investment decisions with respect to mechanization and herbicide use,crop choice, and residue management. CA practice may impact upon the ability ofhouseholds to source a wide variety of crops, wild plants, and insects and small animals forhousehold nutrition. Gender biases in extension service design can sideline women. Thispaper examines the limited research to date on the interactions between CA interventionsand gender in East and Southern Africa, and, based on the gaps observed, sets out aresearch agenda. It argues that attention to gender in CA is particularly timely given theincreasing interest in CA as a means of adapting to climate change.

Keywords: conservation agriculture; gender; Sub-Saharan Africa; climate change

1. Introduction

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change (Slingo, Chal-linor, Hoskins, & Wheeler, 2005). About 30% of the current population is malnourished and it hasone of the highest projections for population growth to 2050 (FAO/WFP, 2009). Added to this,climate projections indicate that regional warming is likely to proceed at a faster rate thanglobal averages resulting, under medium scenarios, in a temperature increase of 28C by theend of this century (Niang et al., 2014). Predictions for rainfall are less certain but a reductionis likely over the south-western parts of South Africa by the mid- and late twenty-first century(Niang et al., 2014). Increased variability of weather patterns, frequency, and severity ofclimate extremes are likely to accompany these warming trends. All this places tremendouspressure on agricultural systems that are largely small-scale, low input, and rain fed and whichare already struggling to feed the population. Cereal yields in SSA are low and stagnant, aver-aging 1.3 t ha21 compared with 3 t ha21 in the developing world as a whole (Milder, Majanen,& Scherr, 2011).

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2015.1065602

mailto:[email protected]

In view of these challenges, increased attention is being paid to innovative approaches to foodproduction in SSA, which protect the soil whilst increasing resilience to climatic variability. Onesuch intervention is conservation agriculture (CA). This has received much acclaim as a cost-saving, soil- and water-conserving set of practices in many farming systems around the world.The core principles are: (i) minimum soil disturbance through reducing tillage intensity and fre-quency, (ii) organic soil cover, permanent or at least during critical stages, and (iii) diversificationof crop species grown in sequences or associations (FAO, 2012). Several studies have emphasizedthe contributions of CA to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Dendooven et al., 2012; Verhulstet al., 2012) and increasing soil carbon sequestration (UNEP, 2013). This said, it is clear that someaspects of CA, such as the contribution of minimum tillage to soil carbon sequestration, have beenoverstated (Govaerts et al., 2009; Powlson et al., 2014). CA contributes to the improvement of soilfunction and quality. Under certain conditions, this can promote higher yields and improved resi-lience to climatic variability (Thierfelder, Matemba-Mutasa, & Rusinamhodzi, 2014; Thierfelder& Wall, 2010), though not in all cases (Pittlekow et al., 2014). Nevertheless, CA is seen by manyas having an important role to play in strategies contributing to global food security and improvedresilience and adaptation to climate change.

Despite these potential benefits, the suitability of CA to diverse African smallholder farmingsystems is contested (Andersson & Giller, 2012; Baudron, Andersson, Corbeels, & Giller, 2012;Giller, Witter, Corbeels, & Tittoneel, 2009). Dispute has largely focused on the attribution of yieldbenefits, the levels of financial investment required, the labour savings that can be achieved, andthe quantities of crop residues available for use as surface mulch (Andersson & D’Souza, 2014).Whilst capital and labour requirements are central to the discussion of CA suitability for Africansmallholder farmers, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the ability of women farmers,within male-headed households and as household heads themselves, to meet such requirements.There is almost no understanding of how gender relations in smallholder agriculture, expressed indecision-making over technology adoption, roles, and responsibilities for specific farm tasks, andaccess to productive assets and input and output markets, may impact upon the likelihood of CAadoption. The costs and benefits of CA adoption to women themselves – in terms of income,labour deployment, contributions to food and nutrition security, relative decision-makingpower at household and community level, and potential deepening and widening of their inte-gration into value chains and extension networks – remain largely unknown. Even less isknown about whether CA provides an opportunity for women to alter existing gender relationsin their favour, and, if so, under which conditions.

Research in SSA points to different roles, responsibilities, and decision-making power bygender in agriculture. Women and men typically take on distinctive roles and responsibilitiesin agricultural production systems, with tasks frequently being both sex-sequential and sex-seg-regated (Anriquez et al., 2010; FAO, 2011; IAASTD, 2008; O’Sullivan, Rao, Raka, Kajal, &Margaux, 2014; Quisumbing et al., 2014; World Bank, 2008b). Men and women may have differ-ent rights and responsibilities for particular crops, and livestock species and/or specific livestockproducts (Anriquez et al., 2010; Doss, 1999; Flinton, 2007; Kristjanson et al., 2010; Nigussiel,Hoag, & Alemu, 2014; Yisehak, 2008; Waters-Bayer, 1988). Almost everywhere, womenretain chief responsibility for household tasks and caring roles. These can be very time-consum-ing. Women more than men are involved in a ‘zero-sum game’, a closed system in which time orenergy devoted to any new effort must be diverted from another activity (De Schutter, 2012;Gyasi & Uitto, 1997). Women’s labour becomes fragmented to handle existing and new work,often resulting in reduced efficiency and effectiveness across productive as well as care work.

Although gender roles and responsibilities are undergoing significant change in different partsof the continent, African farming systems and the wider policy environment generally remainstrongly gendered. However, attempts are being made to redress this situation. In May 2010,

2 C.R. Farnworth et al.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260158080_From_adoption_claims_to_understanding_farmers_and_contexts_A_literature_review_of_Conservation_Agriculture_CA_adoption_among_smallholder_farmers_in_southern_Africa?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-63d1af0e9bf8a4d2446787cb7a1f4c08-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4MzQ2Mjg3ODtBUzoyOTI3NDE5ODk4NDcwNDBAMTQ0NjgwNjUzNzMwOA==

the 28th Meeting of the COMESA Council of Ministers gave support to women and gender issuesin CA. It issued a Directive that 80% of beneficiaries in CA should be women. This support wasintegrated into the COMESA-EAC-SADC Climate Change Initiative (CCI) at the 30th Meetingof the COMESA Council of Ministers. The CCI includes the development of a gender-sensitiveRegional Strategy and Action Plan (RESTRAP) on climate change and agriculture. RESTRAPperceives CA and the specific targeting of women as central to its brief and has made a specificcall to all COMESA Secretariats and Ministries of Agriculture to ensure women are involved inthe design and implementation of climate change programmes across the Member States. The 31stMeeting of the COMESA Council of Ministers in 2012 agreed to the enhancement of the Womenin Business in the Green Economy (WiBGE) programme to further CA.

In this paper, we examine the limited research to date on the interactions between genderand CA in East and Southern Africa. The first three sections set out broad gender issues inrelation to (i) the changing agricultural landscape in East and Southern Africa, (ii) in assetsand investment ability, and (iii) in access to extension services. Each of these shapes the land-scape within which men and women farmers learn about and potentially adopt CA practices. Wethen engage in an in-depth study of CA practices and the current extent of our knowledge onhow they interact with gender. We conclude by setting out a research agenda to address infor-mation gaps.

2. The changing face of smallholder farming in East and Southern Africa

Following the expansion of capitalist farms, mines, and urban industries in the early colonialperiod, male labour migration from rural areas became significant throughout much of Eastand Southern Africa. Highly regulated by colonial states and industries in some countries(Crush, Jeeves, & Yudelman, 1991; Wolpe, 1972), circulatory migration of men from ruralareas became a common pattern, although family migration to urban industrial centres was stimu-lated in some areas such as in the Zambian copper belt (Chauncey, 1981). The high absenteeismlevels of working-age men from rural areas, in what has been called the ‘Africa of the labourreserve’ (Amin, 1972), resulted in overall labour shortages in agriculture in many areas.Women became the predominant farming labour force in many locations. Increasingly, womenstarted taking on tasks customarily regarded as men’s tasks. In a few cases, this included ox-drawn ploughing (O’Laughlin, 1998).

In the post-colonial period, and in Southern Africa especially since the late 1980s, labourmigration has changed dramatically. A relaxation of controls on movement has resulted inincreased mobility of people. Migratory movements to South Africa, the main centre of gravita-tion in the region, have become informal (Crush & McDonald, 2000; McDonald, 2000; MPI,2014). Migratory patterns are now more diverse and include more women. However, rural–urban and international mobility remains male-dominated (Andersson, 2006). In many areas,this has reinforced the feminization of labour in smallholder agriculture set in motion duringthe colonial era.

Although increased mobility affects labour availability in agriculture, it is generally short termand therefore not reflected in population census data. However, migration-fuelled urbanization isreflected. As Table 1 shows, there is an ongoing population shift from rural to urban areas, and theshare of the working-age population (20–60 years) in the total rural population is decreasing.More youth and elderly people in rural areas are dependent on one person of working age. Pro-gressive urbanization is also simultaneously increasing the demand for food whilst reducinglabour availability in food-growing areas. Given women’s predominance in caring tasks andfood production, these demographic changes are likely to increase the pressure on women’s (agri-cultural) labour time in many areas.

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 3

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249705719_Underdevelopment_and_Dependence_in_Black_Africa_Historical_Origin?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-63d1af0e9bf8a4d2446787cb7a1f4c08-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4MzQ2Mjg3ODtBUzoyOTI3NDE5ODk4NDcwNDBAMTQ0NjgwNjUzNzMwOA==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/31305510_Informal_Moves_Informal_Markets_International_Migrants_and_Traders_from_Mzimba_District_Malawi?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-63d1af0e9bf8a4d2446787cb7a1f4c08-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI4MzQ2Mjg3ODtBUzoyOTI3NDE5ODk4NDcwNDBAMTQ0NjgwNjUzNzMwOA==

In rural households with migrants, women often remain behind to manage the farm (Dodsonet al., n.d.). Some of these women benefit from remittances sent by migrants to help pay for hiredlabour and machinery. However, these benefits may be limited given that migrants are not necess-arily on high incomes. Many de facto women-headed households lack such external supportaltogether. More broadly, research suggests that women heads of household appear to exercisemore decision-making power than women in male-headed households. Nevertheless, they maylack sufficient access to labour, credit, social capital, and extension advice to exercise thispower effectively (Manfre et al., 2013; Ragasa, Berhane, Tadessa, & Seyoum, 2013; Tegebuet al., 2012; Torkelsson & Tassew, 2008). Evidence from South Africa indicates that womenmay have wider social networks than men, but that these are less effective than men’s networksfor mobilizing economic resources (Haddad et al., 2003). A broader problem is that agriculturalincomes are themselves generally low, resulting in weak investment capacity.

HIV&AIDS and population movements are interacting in complex ways to result in majorreconfigurations of households (Ayieko, 1997; Concern Universal, 2011). For instance, in theRift Valley and North East Province of Kenya, increasing numbers of households are headedby children, young adults, and elderly people (Oyugi, 2000). The impacts of HIV&AIDS onthe farm labour force include the death of women and men in their economic prime. This isnot only a question of losing working hands; it can lead to a loss of agricultural know-how con-tributing towards reduced agricultural production. The care burden of tending the sick andlooking after orphans typically falls to women. This can contribute to lower agricultural pro-duction. In addition to reducing labour inputs, HIV&AIDS may diminish capital investmentsin agriculture when monies are spent on medical bills, funerals, and on food purchases. House-hold assets may be stripped in distress sales occasioned by the need to pay for AIDS-relatedexpenses. In some societies, widows are particularly vulnerable to property grabbing, losingland, livestock, equipment, and the loss of access to credit and productive inputs which were pre-viously facilitated by their husbands. At the same time, men and women who have lost spouses toAIDS are increasingly living alone, stigmatized by their communities and desperately poor. Stig-matization may prevent households from participating in community networks, producer groups,and other platforms (FAO, 2004; Farnworth, Akamandisa, & Hichaambwa, 2011; Torell et al.,2007).

In some countries, including parts of Kenya and in Rwanda, conflict is compounding house-hold breakdown and reconfiguration (UNICEF, 2009). Child- and youth-headed households typi-cally face particular difficulties accessing land, extension, and other farming resources (Barnett,2005; Christiansen, 2005) partly because, as orphans, they may lack the identity documentsrequired to gain access to various assets (Farnworth et al., 2012; USAID Kenya, 2013). At thesame time, across the region a premium is increasingly placed on educating children. This is redu-cing the numbers of young women and men willing and able to take on agricultural occupations(Gabrielsson & Ramasar, 2012; Leavy & Hossain, 2014; USAID, 2012; Valle, 2012).

Table 1. Weeding time in maize, Magoye, Zambia (in person days per hectare).

Tillage system 1st weeding 2nd weeding 3rd weeding Total days (ha)

Shallow ripping 19.5 2.3 4.3 26.1Deep ripping 12.5 1.8 5.3 19.6Ploughing 4.5 2.0 5.3 11.8Ridging 6.8 2.5 3.5 12.8Planting stick 27.5 15 14.8 57.3Basin planting 16.8 14 15 45.8

Source: Hoogmoed et al. (2003).


As a consequence of these major shifts in population dynamics, children and women aretaking on almost all farm tasks in some areas, including tasks previously reserved for men insome locations (Lastarria-Cornhiel, 2006; Mtshali, 2002; Njuki, Kihiyo, O’ktingati, & Place,2004; Tshuma, Maposa, Ncube, Dube, & Dube, 2012). In other locations, land is being left uncul-tivated due to a lack of labour or capital. In other cases, women and elderly people are renting(part of) their land to wealthier farmers, or are themselves renting land.

Despite the reconfiguration of the smallholder farming workforce, changes in householddynamics, and changes in agricultural roles and responsibilities by gender, institutional changemay be limited. There can be a real mismatch between women’s day-to-day agricultural respon-sibilities and their ability to assert – statutory or customary – land and grazing rights, to takeautonomous decisions, to access input and output markets, and to play an active role in producergroups and networks. The new norm of the ‘female primary farmer’ has not resulted in their wide-spread recognition as such by external agencies or indeed within their communities. The ability ofwomen-led households, or male-headed households with women as primary farmers, to adopt CAmay be compromised when government policies, extension systems, and other actors continue todesign interventions around the conceptual norm of the male-headed household (Farnworth &Colverson, 2015).

This paper now examines in detail gendered labour and decision-making constraints andopportunities to effective CA adoption.

3. Gender differentials in agricultural assets and investment ability

The ability of women to take decisions as to whether to invest in new technologies such asCA depends on many factors. These include their entitlements within the frequently gender-differentiated resource base of African farming systems, gender differences in access to infor-mation and the ability to act upon it, gender differences in participation in community andmarketing networks, women’s marital status, and the complex arena of intra-householddecision-making.

Access to, the deployment of, and benefit from productive assets are critical for effective par-ticipation in CA initiatives as with other technological innovations. Both women and men small-holders, for instance, generally lack appropriate implements to seed through an organic mulch.This is one of the major constraints faced by African smallholders wanting to adopt CA(Hobbs, Sayre, & Gupta, 2008; Giller et al., 2009; Johansen, Haque, Bell, Thierfelder, &Esdaile, 2012). Further time-saving investments include the acquisition of machinery such asrippers and direct seeders, herbicides, and hired labour. The widespread unavailability, orexpense, of such technologies leads many smallholder farmers to select manual CA systems(such as planting basins), which are often labour-intensive (Giller et al., 2009; Hobbs et al.,2008; Johansen et al., 2012). New evidence is emerging of CA contract services to provide agri-cultural equipment rather than direct hire (Baudron et al., 2015) but such services, as yet, are notwidespread.

Even if CA machinery and herbicides are locally available, women may find that the assetsthey manage (whether as female heads of household, or as married women) are rarely sufficientto act as collateral for purchases. Conversely, assets controlled, or managed largely, by men tendto be of higher value and contribute more directly to farm productivity, such as land, education,the ability to command – in many cases – their wife’s and children’s labour, and farming tech-nologies including machinery. Furthermore, the decision to adopt CA across a farm holding mayappear to be a household-level decision in married households, but little is currently known aboutthe intra-household discussion processes that have led to this decision, whether both women andmen are equally in favour, and whose assets will be deployed. Likewise, little is known about the


degree to which male-led CA investment processes produce benefits for all household membersand the degree to which such benefits are managed by women.

The prevalence in some locations of cultural norms whereby women work on male-managedfields before tending to their own has strong implications for productivity on female-managedplots, particularly since their land is also likely to be the last to be ploughed, sown, and harvested(Dolan & Sorby, 2003; Jones, 1983). Studies show that lower labour and fertilizer inputs, as wellas late planting, can result in significantly lower yields (Haggblade & Tembo, 2003; Udry, 1996)particularly on women-managed land (Anriquez et al., 2010; FAO, 2011; O’Sullivan et al., 2014).Furthermore, since the access of women to productive resources is primarily generated throughmale kin, particularly in patrilineal customary system, this access is sometimes entirely with-drawn, or restricted, in the event of marital breakdown or death of the husband (Cooper, 2012;Farnworth et al., 2011; Munachonga & Akamandisa, 2010; Oleke, Blystad, & Rekdal, 2005).

Access to land – which in many sub-Saharan African countries is managed under customarylaw, or a patchwork of statutory and customary laws – is a vastly complex thematic area withunder-researched associations between gender, decisions on land management, and farmers’ will-ingness to engage in CA. It is well established that there are strong differences in women andmen’s ownership of land in Africa in nearly all measures of land ownership and bundles ofrights. However, recent analyses show that the gender gap in land ownership varies widelybetween countries with women solely owning (documented and undocumented) 31% of landaccessed by households in Malawi, followed by Uganda at 16%, and Tanzania at 15% (Doss,Kovarik, Peterman, Quisumbing, & van den Bold, 2013). Since security of land tenure can encou-rage long-range investments, such as in CA, more research is required into how ownership isdefined and the rights accruing to ownership or use. The implications of sole or joint ownershipfor decision-making with respect to investment in new technologies need to be better understood.

A number of studies observe a lack of fit between local farming systems, such as extensiveslash and burn cultivation, and the introduction of CA (Giller et al., 2009; Kaumbutho &Kienzle, 2007; Wall, 2007). The gender dimensions of local farming systems and how theymay promote or inhibit the adoption of CA remains, however, to be analysed. Farmingsystems such as chitemene (slash and burn) in Zambia involve complex roles and rightsbetween women and men over a period of several years. For instance, among the Bemba in North-ern Province, women and men work together to prepare the land, at which time it is considered theman’s land. Crops are planted in strict rotation over a four- to five-year period, with the majorityof the crops belonging to women and destined for household use (Chishimba, personal communi-cation, 20 November 2013; Farnworth et al., 2011). Such practices make long-term investments inCA, in terms of both information and financial inputs – among others – complex to target andadminister because of the shifts in gendered responsibility over a particular land parcel. Moreresearch into the (potentially productive) interface between local farming systems, CA, andgender roles, responsibilities, and benefits is required.

4. Gender differentials in access to extension services

Successful practice of CA requires a suite of agronomic and marketing skills. The correct use ofinputs, particularly herbicides such as glyphosate, can pose an important challenge. Frontlineextension staff may lack sufficient understanding of CA practices, thus limiting effective adoption(Concern Universal, 2011). Whilst some extension programmes aim to target women, women aregenerally more poorly served by extension and advisory services than men (Kristjanson et al.,2010; Manfre et al., 2013; Ragasa et al., 2013). This is a particular concern given the increasinglyfemale face of farming in East and Southern Africa (see above). A conceptual ‘lock in’, meaningthe tailoring of services to the norm of the ‘male farmer’, often prevails. Despite evidence


accumulated over several decades on women’s multi-faceted roles in agriculturally based liveli-hoods, policy-makers frequently construct men as the lead farmer with primarily commercialinterests and women as subsistence-oriented farmers primarily interested in feeding their house-hold. Pretty, Toulmin, and Williams (2011) note simply that women are under-represented inresearch and governance systems, women are the primary farmers in many contexts, andwomen are routinely ignored by external agencies. Overall, normative conceptualisations of‘farmers’ can result in inappropriate targeting and ineffective messaging.

This mindset is demonstrated in Zambia where the majority of CA training is disseminatedthrough the CFU (Conservation Farming Union). The CFU broadly lacks expertise in genderalthough the majority of farmers in Zambia are women (Maal, 2011). This contributes to afailure to overcome institutional biases which distorts outreach, and hampers the ability ofwomen to participate effectively in training. In a joint programme between the Government ofZambia and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), with whichthe CFU works, farmers are identified through camp-level selection committees. The membersof the selection committee need to be land holders, but as women rarely hold land in their ownright, members are almost always men. The selection committee selects 28 lead farmers, whomust also be landholders. Each lead farmer receives a bicycle to help them recruit a further 15farmers and visit them each fortnight. In effect, this means that male lead farmers largelycontrol CA extension efforts. It is estimated that women form 30% to 40% of CA trainees,even though they are by far the majority of farmers in the targeted locations (Maal, 2011). Some-times, even if women are recruited, husbands prevent them from attending training sessions, par-ticularly if the lead farmer is male (Maal, 2011). Similar findings come from Malawi, where it wasfound that women farmers receiving CA training from women extension workers and female leadfarmers recorded higher yields than those female farmers trained by men (Concern Worldwide,2013).

5. Gender and CA practices

CA interventions are not gender-neutral in terms of labour and capital requirements, empower-ment, or economic benefits and costs (Milder et al., 2011). Integrating CA practices inevitablyaffects on-farm gender relations, notably resource allocation as well as having an impact uponthe ability of women and men to realize their gender interests.

In this section, we focus on the implications of CA practice for gender divisions of labour andlabour requirements. Many studies focusing on CA highlight labour shortages as a constraint tothe adoption of CA, particularly when zero tillage is not complemented by the application of her-bicides. Smallholder family farmers in Africa often lack the resources to hire in additional labour(Baudron et al., 2012). Yet, very few CA labour studies elaborate on the gender-differentiatednature of rural households’ labour shortages or the gendered nature of labour hiring practices,for instance, for tasks such as weeding (Arslan, McCarthy, Lipper, Asfaw, & Cattaneo, 2014;Giller et al., 2009; Umar, Aune, Fred, Lungu, & Obed, 2012). Almost no CA studies acknowledgethat labour comprises the work of boys and girls, women and men – and that the work of each hasdifferent implications for their personal and familial human development outcomes, or thatwomen’s labour is often not interchangeable with men’s labour. Lack of substitutability ispartly because, in most Sub-Saharan African countries, women are almost exclusively responsiblefor childcare and household maintenance and thus need to undertake more tasks in a working day.Lack of substitutability also arises because the opportunity costs of women’s labour differ to thatof men in many locations. Women often have very different off-farm income-generation oppor-tunities to men, are usually paid less as casual labourers than men, and in general their work is lesssecure (FAO, 2011; Fontana & Paciello, 2009; Lai et al., 2012).


Although estimates vary considerably, and the reliability of collection methods have beenchallenged, several thousands of family farms appear to have adopted CA-related practices incountries such as Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi. The retention of an organic cover and thediversification of crops grown are two CA principles which are rarely adopted, or not in aform or to an extent that matches the definition of CA as provided in the introduction to thispaper. Minimum tillage is by far the most frequently adopted principle (Andersson &D’Souza, 2014). In order to ground the discussion on gender relations and gender dynamics sur-rounding CA, we briefly describe the range of practices under discussion.

In manual systems – where most of the adoption of CA has occurred in East and SouthernAfrica – crops are planted with minimum soil disturbance using planting basins (shallow struc-tures which are redug each season using a hand-hoe, ideally in the same place, following a precisegrid (Baudron, Mwanza, Triomphe, & Bwalya, 2007). More rarely, a dibble stick – a simplepointed stick (Ngwira, Johnsen, Aune, Mekuria, & Thierfelder, 2014) or a jab planter (a mechan-ical tool originally developed in Brazil and now manufactured in several local companies in theregion (Johansen et al., 2012)) is used. Minimum tillage has also been adopted extensively inanimal traction systems. Chisel-tined rippers are animal-drawn reduced tillage implements thatare becoming increasingly popular in East and Southern Africa. For example, several thousandZambian ‘Magoye rippers’ have been produced and are being used in Zambia and neighbouringcountries (Baudron et al., 2007). Animal-drawn direct seeders are more sophisticated implementsthat place seeds and fertilizers in slots opened in unploughed soil by coulters or discs. These weregenerally imported from Brazil and introduced by various projects in the mid-2000s. Their adop-tion by farmers, however, has been limited as this type of implement is used mainly in donor-funded projects. In Ethiopia, SASAKAWA 2000 promoted the use of the local maresha ploughto establish crops with minimum soil disturbance after a single pass (Temesgen, Hoogmoed,Rockstrom, & Savenije, 2009) instead of the usual 3–4 passes (Gebregziabher et al., 2006).Various modifications of the maresha and its use have been developed to minimize soil disturb-ance still further (Temesgen et al., 2009). The promotion of direct seeders powered by small trac-tors has also started, but this is a very recent development (Baudron et al., 2015). The number ofAfrican smallholders using motorized implement for CA remains negligible.

Weed control is a major objective of ploughing (Baudron et al., 2012). This means thatalternative weed control methods have to be used in CA. The use of ox-drawn cultivators – acommon practice in parts of Eastern and Southern Africa – where animal traction is the mainsource of power – would interfere with the principle of minimum soil disturbance, and is thusdiscouraged in the promotion of CA. The use of herbicide features prominently in CA recommen-dations, but the availability of this costly input may be limited. Herbicide use still tends to belimited to beneficiaries of input support programmes or as part of contract farming arrangements(Andersson & D’Souza, 2014). Amongst other benefits, the use of green manure cover crops maycontrol weeds through shading effect (Thierfelder et al., 2012), but so far, this technology hasmainly been used experimentally in the region. Whilst widely advocated, there is some evidencethat soil mulching may not be effective in controlling weeds and that the application of glyphosateis not always effective. Indeed, mulching may increase weed density, and only be efficient in con-trolling weeds at very high rates (8 t ha21) of application, which is not achievable by smallholders(Mashingaidze, Madakadze, & Thomlow, 2012; Mashingaidze, Twomlow, & Hove, 2009). Takentogether, these factors mean that farmers who have adopted (some form of) CA in East andSouthern Africa generally rely on manual weeding. Finally, there is little evidence as towhether CA practices result in a decrease of weeds over time, though Muoni et al. (2014) suggeststhis can indeed be the case.

The amount of residue retained as surface mulch is generally limited under farmers’ con-ditions. This is first and foremost because of competition with other uses – chiefly livestock





feed, but also fuel and construction material (Valbuena et al., 2012). This is particularly the case inareas with high demographic pressure where communal areas (a major source of biomass in lesspopulated areas) have virtually disappeared. Even in areas where substantial quantities of cropresidues are retained as surface mulch in the field, this biomass may quickly disappear throughthe action of termites and challenge the principle of mulching in CA (Giller et al., 2009). Forexample, in Northern Zimbabwe, Baudron (2011) found that termites accounted for the disappear-ance of 40–80% of residues during the 6 months of the dry season. Finally, in areas where alterna-tive sources of feed, fuel, and construction materials exist and where termites only consume asmall fraction of the crop residues, farmers may still not retain substantial residue mulch, andinstead choose to (partially) burn or remove crop residues. Residue retention complicates fieldoperations such as planting and weeding, particularly in manual systems (Baudron et al.,2012). Even the most popular animal-drawn CA equipment – chisel-tine rippers – cannotseed in residue-covered soils (Johansen et al., 2012).

Crop diversification and rotation is challenging in smallholder agriculture in the region. Thesepractices are rarely adopted on CA fields due to the focus by promotional projects on specificcrops or specific practices (such as basins). These may complicate crop rotation. There aremore general challenges unrelated to CA to overcome, as well. For instance, crop rotation requiresthat farmer grow a diversity of crops on roughly similar acreages. However, in East and SouthernAfrica, the ‘maize mixed farming system’ (Dixon, Gibbon, & Gulliver, 2001) is widespread. Asthe name suggests, maize is central to the system. Crop diversification and rotation is not onlychallenged by the dominance of a few crops, but also by the fact that different soil types in thesame farm may differ in their suitability for particular crops (Baudron et al., 2012). The labourrequirements for different crops may also vary, potentially limiting the scope for crop rotationin the generally labour-constrained smallholder farms of East and Southern Africa. Similarly,the practice of intercropping is generally limited to small land areas, or to farmers with small hold-ings (Baudron et al., 2012). There is some evidence regarding the relative performance of differ-ent genotypes under CA pointing at the importance of two traits in particular: early vigour (asunploughed fields tend to have a higher bulk density) and resistance to diseases – fungal diseasesin particular (Herrera, Verhulst, Trethowan, Stamp, & Govaerts, 2013).

In summary, CA adopters in the region generally plant their crops by using planting basins oranimal-drawn chisel-tined rippers, control weeds overwhelmingly through manual weeding –though they may also use herbicides, retain limited amounts of crop residue as surface mulch,and practice crop rotation and intercropping on some parts of their farm.

5.1. Land preparation

Land clearance and preparation can be a onerous task, performed in much of Africa using hoes,machetes, and axes. In some cases, animal or tractor power, particularly for primary land prep-aration, is used, but much of the continent relies on the hoe (Mrema, Baker, & Kahan, 2008).In farming systems characterized by high land: labour ratios, a shortage in labour, tractorpower, or animal power limits the area under cultivation and the crops and livestock farmerscan manage (Bishop-Sambrook, Kienzle, Mariki, Owenya, & Ribeiro, 2004). Because of farm-power limitations, the deployment of power-saving animal or tractor-drawn rippers is an impor-tant benefit of CA. Mechanized, minimum tillage practices such as ripping and direct seeding gen-erally reduce labour and recurrent capital expenses, enabling early and fast land preparation oflarge areas. And although hand-hoe dug basins tend to increase labour demand in comparisonto conventional ploughing, it generally reduces labour demand compared to hand-hoe tillage ofcomplete fields, which is common in some parts of the region (Rusinamhodzi, 2015). In addition,the digging of planting basins is spread over a much longer period than conventional land


preparation, making the activity calendar more flexible and allowing household members,especially women and children, to carry out lighter tasks (Baudron et al., 2007). On the otherhand, the reduced farm-power needs for land preparation under CA often go together withincreased labour demands for weeding, thus effectively shifting labour peaks within the agricul-tural season (Baudron et al., 2012).

5.1.1. Land preparation using animal traction

The evidence suggests that existing sex-segregated modes of land preparation are transferredalmost unmodified into CA (Nyanga, 2012a, 2012b). Traditionally, men across the continenthave dominated animal or tractor-drawn ploughing. In some cases, this is shifting. In migrantlabour societies characterized by high male absenteeism, women sometimes take on such tasksas noted above. CA may also facilitate such diversions from existing norms. In Zambia, the intro-duction of CA is leading to shifts from the plough to the magoye ripper. Although women rarelydeploy magoye rippers, a few women have begun using rippers in parts of Eastern Province. Thismay be a consequence of large-scale CA promoting programmes there as well as the feminizationof farming in that province (Boahen et al., 2007; Maal, 2011; Nyanga, 2012a, 2012b).

5.1.2. Manual land preparation: basins, dibble stick, and jab-planters

Basin-based CA, the most common manual CA system in Africa, is typically practised by women.It is the only CA system that has benefited from some concerted gender analysis and it is thereforepossible to provide more detailed analysis here.

In Zambia, farmers are generally advised to dig permanent planting basins spaced at 0.7meters along the rows and 0.9 meters between rows, resulting into a grid of 15,850 CA basinsper hectare. Crop residues and other vegetative matter are retained in the area between basins.The recommended dimensions of a basin are 0.2 meters in depth, 0.3 meters in length and thesame width as that of the blade of the hoe (Nyanga, Johnsen, & Kalinda, 2012). In other countries,such as Zimbabwe and Malawi, farmers are generally advised to dig basins of smaller sizes, anddifferent depths and spacings. The agronomic underpinnings of differences relate to rainfall,water-harvesting considerations and the presence of plough plans in farmer fields (Andersson& Giller, 2012). Basins facilitate early land preparation for those who do not own animals andimplements or cannot afford to hire these, a category that generally includes large numbers offemale-headed households. Such households could benefit from basin-based CA in areaswhere women are traditionally discouraged from ploughing, as in Northern Ethiopia (Arayaet al., 2012), and thus frequently engage in unfavourable share-cropping arrangements.

It is not unusual for women to prepare basins on land they manage, sometimes alongsidemale-managed fields prepared using rippers. In Zambia and Malawi, the heavy chaka hoe issometimes recommended. This enables farmers to dig compacted soils resulting from shallowploughing and ridging over many years. The chaka hoe has an elongated, thick, strong bladeand a long handle compared to the traditional hoe, enabling it to be swung with sufficientforce to break through the plough pan. It weighs 4–5 kg more than the average hoe. Women com-plain that working with the chaka hoe is arduous (Concern Universal, 2011; Maal, 2011; Nyanga,2012a), but to date no research has been conducted upon the impact on women’s health of thechaka hoe in terms of physical strain upon the back, and calorie requirements. The use of anenergy-demanding chaka hoe may, though, be limited by the physical condition of manywomen. In Zambia, 13.5% of women suffer from chronic energy deficiency (CED) (Hindin,2006) and similar figures obtained in Kenya. Up to half of Ethiopian women suffer from CEDwith averages across SSA of 10–40% (Howson, Harrison, & Law, 1996).


At the same time, there are indications that women are using the opportunities presented byCA to manage the intensity and timing of their labour contributions on their own, and on male-managed plots. Women often experience significant labour pressure because traditionally, they areexpected to work on their husband’s fields before turning to their own fields. Basin-based CA canenable women to plan their time more effectively due to the reduction in pressure and ‘panic’ toprepare land just after the first rains (Maal, 2011). It is also possible, in cases where women cannotrely on male-controlled animal-drawn ploughing and ripping services, that they welcome theindependence of basin-based CA. However, conversely, in some societies, for example, inparts of Malawi, men are expected to plough their wife’s/wives’ land. In such situations, promot-ing basins may release men from this obligation.

A four-year study in Zambia showed that women start preparing basins on average 68 daysearlier than non-adopting women, using conventional means of land preparation, and 94 daysearlier than non-adopting men preparing land using the plough. Men started ripping onaverage 30 days after women started preparing basins (Nyanga, 2012a). In Malawi, womensaid that they were able to spread labour from June to May under CA, in contrast to conventionalagriculture, which requires more intensive labour inputs from October to May. They calculatedthat CA techniques – when combined with herbicide use – saved them around 35 days laboura season (Concern Worldwide, 2013).

On the other hand, preparing basins is laborious and difficult since this off-season activitycoincides with maximum soil hardness (Baudron et al., 2007). In Zambia, female-headed house-holds argued they had particular difficulty in digging sufficient basins due to the need for them toperform many other competing tasks, including domestic and care tasks, with little adult help(Maal, 2011). One should be careful, however, not to overstate the decreased dependency onploughing services enabled by basin-based agriculture as labour (and other resource) shortagesoften limit the land areas dedicated to basins. For instance, in Zimbabwe the number ofnumber of farmers practising CA on some part of their land has increased, but the areadevoted to CA has often not increased beyond the initial 0.2 ha for which inputs were providedby humanitarian aid programmes (Andersson & D’Souza 2014, p. 126; Marongwe et al., 2011).

In many crop-livestock systems, cattle are highly valued and allowed to graze fairly freelywith weak enforcement of community by-laws preventing their incursion into cropland inmany locations (Baudron et al., 2007; Concern Universal, 2011; Ngoma, Mulenga, & Jayne,2013). Shortage of fodder sometimes results in cattle entering cropland in the dry season anddestroying basins, meaning that they must be cleared again at the beginning of the rainyseason (Concern Universal, 2011; Maal, 2011). Women in a Kenyan study claimed that, aswomen, they were powerless to drive men with cattle from their fields (Farnworth, 2010).

The data tentatively suggest that hand-hoe-based land preparation enables women to managetheir time fairly autonomously within a context that remains fundamentally unchanged withregard to women’s ability to decide how to allocate their labour.

5.2. Weeding

The application of herbicides is fundamental to the labour-saving credentials of CA. Minimumsoil disturbance is strongly associated with increased weed growth when herbicides are notused. A major cause of dis-adoption of CA is increased labour demand for weeding in situationswhere herbicides are not used (Arslan et al., 2014; Baudron et al., 2007; Giller et al., 2009; Kaum-butho & Kienzle, 2007; Nyanga, 2012a, 2012b; Nyanga et al., 2012; Tshuma et al., 2012). This isbecause poorer farmers reportedly cannot afford herbicides, or herbicides are not available(Baudron et al., 2007; Baudron, Tittonell, Corbeels, Letourmy, & Giller, 2011; Kaumbutho &Kienzle, 2007).


A study in Magoye District, Zambia (1999–2000 and 2000–2001 growing seasons) com-pared weeding days per hectare under various systems. Table 1 shows that, without herbicideuse, CA techniques for land preparation increase weeding over and above ploughing andridging. Huge differences in labour days per hectare between ploughed fields and basinplanted fields (11.8 days/ha versus 45.8 per hectare), with even higher labour demands for plant-ing stick-based CA, were observed. However, shallow and deep ripping presents a high demandfor weeding at the beginning of the growing season, which then reduces to levels similar to thoseof conventionally ploughed fields (Hoogmoed, Stevens, & Muliokela, 2003). A labour use studyon sand and clay soils in Zimbabwe found that the ‘effect of soil type on weeding requirements inplanting basins was not significant’, but that on average, ‘moving from the mouldboard plough toplanting basins entailed three times more labour input in maize production’ (Rusinamhodzi, 2015,pp. 70–71).

In much of East and Southern Africa, weeding is largely, though not exclusively, a women’stask. Studies conducted in several countries show that where (frequently subsidized) herbicideshave been used, the release of women and children from weeding tasks results in multiplebenefits, including more children attending school and more time for women to engage inincome-generation activities (Concern Universal, 2011; Kaumbutho & Kienzle, 2007). The effec-tive management of stubborn weeds can prove a particular boon. In general, effective weed man-agement results in both women and children reporting more opportunities to rest (Kaumbutho &Kienzle, 2007). In Malawi, where herbicides were used, women who had previously employedganyu (meaning hired) labour reported graduating from reliance on ganyu labourers as an impor-tant benefit of CA (Concern Worldwide, 2013). However, poorer households may rely on workingfor money or food. CA uptake using herbicides, if it results in poorer households losing labouropportunities, may therefore become a mechanism of advanced social differentiation (Andersson& D’Souza, 2014; Ngwira et al., 2014).

The ability to purchase herbicide is not merely a matter of income, but it is also a matter ofintra-household decision-making around how to allocate resources – this encompasses both will-ingness and ability to pay. Women in somewhat wealthier male-headed households may not beable to argue successfully for the purchase of herbicides because men, since they are not respon-sible for weeding, may not find such purchases necessary. Women in resource-poor female-headed households may lack the resources to do so. For poor households in general, herbicidesmay appear costly. Economists typically conduct cost–benefit analyses different from farmers.Whereas economists allocate a cost to family labour, farmers may perceive their work as ‘free’because they do not pay for it in cash. However, the labour-saving element of CA with respectto weeding can only be realized when herbicides are purchased, which, to farmers, may representa ‘real’ cost.

From a technical point of view, conventional sprayers are often too large and heavy forwomen to use, or men are culturally allocated spraying tasks (FAO, 2004). This means thatwomen farmers may have to employ men to spray fields, thus increasing their unit costs perhectare and rendering competitive entry into cash cropping more difficult. Some costs ofincreased weeding burdens for women are not immediately obvious. For instance, increasingthe amount of time spent on weeding can impact on the welfare of other household members.Children may be unintentionally neglected at home if women spend more time in the field(Berti, Krasevec, & FitzGerald, 2004).

Early planting under CA can be an effective means of weed control. Women interviewedunder the Farm Power and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification (FACASI)project in Kenya, Tanzania, and Ethiopia said that land preparation and seeding is a mechaniza-tion priority, even though these tasks are typically ‘male’. This is because such services allowearly planting and thus reduce the weeding burden. The use of planting basins following a




precise grid may also help us to achieve a homogeneous canopy early in the season and thus sup-press weeds (Baudron et al., 2007). Mulching can also help control weeds, particularly when thecrop residue of cereals such as maize and sorghum are left standing. It is, however, not knownwhether women find these techniques useful as a means of controlling weeds. Moreover, it ispossible that mulching may hamper both sowing and weeding in hand-based CA systems. Theextra moisture (from mulching) may also increase weed growth.

5.3. Residue management

Although CA adopters in East and Southern Africa generally retain negligible quantities of cropresidues as surface mulch (see above), retaining enough residue as mulch to cover at least 30%of the soil is often used as a target (Erenstein, 2003). However, residues are often deployed fora multitude of uses other than soil amendment, including livestock feed, household fuel,fencing and thatching material, sterilizing material for seed beds, and as a source of cash.They may have cultural significance too, for example, in being used for traditional dances insome countries (Concern Universal, 2011, Ekbom & Akpalu, 2010; Hellin, Erenstein, Beuchelt,Camacho, & Flores, 2013; Jaleta, Kassie, & Shiferaw, 2012). Although to date very littleresearch has been conducted on women’s use of residues, shifting residues from, forexample, feed or fuel to surface mulching is likely to have significant impacts on genderdynamics. It is possible that the deployment of residues for CA may increase women’s timesearching for alternative fuel and fodder sources (Beuchelt & Badstue, 2013). Livestock-owning female-headed households may depend on crop residues – including from neighbour-ing farms – to feed their livestock and thus be negatively affected by residue retention. Forvulnerable households – including some female-headed households – the functions livestockfulfil in addition to the production of milk and meat may be very important due to the lackof easily accessible alternatives. For example, manure may be very important as a source ofnutrients when inorganic fertilizers are too costly. Similarly livestock often operate as key‘banking’ and insurance’ assets, and as collateral (Turmel, Speratti, Baudron, Verhulst, &Govaerts, 2014). Conversely, female-headed households focusing on crop production andwilling to adopt CA may not be able to prevent cattle belonging to more powerful householdsfrom consuming their residues.

In northern Ethiopia, preference for particular livestock species is partly not only generated byagro-ecologies, but also by gendered roles in the farming system. Male-headed households tend toprefer oxen as they can be used for ploughing (a male task), whereas female-headed householdswith access to credit prefer breeding cattle. Female-headed households with a small number ofdependents select chickens, and women more broadly often manage small ruminants. Giventhe shortage of grazing land in the region, access to crop residue is critical for cattle/oxen-owning households (Tegebu et al., 2012).

5.4. Crop diversification and gendered crop choices

Crop choice in CA is partly determined by the requirement to diversify the species grown, eitherin sequence or association. This helps prevent the build-up of disease, which can occur when resi-dues are retained in monocultures. Crop rotations and mixtures help us to control weed, disease,and pests; generate biomass; and fix atmospheric nitrogen. Concern Universal in Malawi encour-aged CA-adopting farmers to grow a main carbohydrate crop – maize or sorghum, in rotationwith a legume crop – groundnuts, cowpeas, soybean, and a third crop chosen by the farmer,usually a cash crop – soybean, sunflower, or a food reserve crop – sorghum (Concern Universal,2011).


Little is known about the way CA affects, and is affected by, gender differences in crop pre-ference. Data are very limited on whether CA projects generally target men for market crops,and women for household crops, or whether they directly support women in developing and main-taining market links. One Malawian study showed a ‘gender divide’ in crop choice whereby mentypically selected maize and soya as cash crops under CA, whereas women selected groundnuts forhousehold use (Concern Worldwide, 2013). It would appear in this case that women were selectinggroundnuts in order to fulfil their role as providers of household food requirements, and becausegroundnuts are generally seen as a low input ‘women’s crop’. Given that many agricultural womenin Malawi appear to experience particular difficulties in retaining monies from crop sales (http://genderindex.org/country/malawi), it is possible that they find it difficult to acquire funds for ferti-lizers and thus restrict their participation in CA to household crops. In Southern Ethiopia, researchin progress indicates that the extra moisture in CA plots, achieved through increased infiltrationand reduced evaporation, enables the production of an extra crop through relay planting. This isfrequently a legume, customarily often defined as a ‘women’s crop’ (Baudron, 2014). Therefore,CA may create new niches to increase the production of crops favoured by women.

However, other evidence shows women do have strong interests in selling crops (Doss,Bockius-Suwyn, & D’Souza, 2012; KIT, 2012; Momsen, 2010; World Bank, 2008a, 2008b;Sikana & Kerven, 1991; Shiundu & Oniang’o, 2007). In Zambia, women exploited the longergrowing season afforded by CA by producing and selling groundnuts at high prices to neighboursin times of shortage (Nyanga, 2012b). In Malawi, women in CA-adopting households reported farhigher decision-making power with respect to sale or retention of crops than did women in con-ventional households (Concern Worldwide, 2013). It is interesting to speculate that CA-adoptingwomen may be less reliant on male labour inputs during land preparation and thus have more‘say’ over the disposal of crops grown on that land.

5.5. Post-harvest processing

If CA increases yields, an increase in post-harvest processing and storage requirements will be theconsequence. This implies more work in women’s typical work domains – more threshing, morepounding, etc. as well as the necessity for effective storage facilities. An increased harvest mayalso mean more produce to transport to the market. This is often performed by women throughhead-loading. Such ‘ripple out’ effects of CA in terms of their impact upon women’s andmen’s labour, and on whether the gender distribution of any benefits are commensurate withincreased labour inputs, are not known.

6. Food and nutrition security

Although the positive impact of CA on yields under experimental conditions is contested (Pit-telkow et al., 2014), it is generally accepted that for yield benefits to occur, CA needs to be prac-tised for several years, and requires high (N) input use (Rusinamhodzi et al., 2011). Very little dataexist on CA yields under farmer conditions and the impact of CA on household-level food andnutrition security. This is important, since a lack of adequate food and nutrition security is amajor concern in many Sub-Saharan African countries. Stunting can impair cognitive develop-ment and result in significant direct and indirect development costs to the individual concernedand the national economy as a whole (Ashworth, 1998; Brems & Berg, 1989; Rush, 2000).

An important research area is the potential tension at the household level between the need torecoup investments in herbicides, fertilizer, and machinery, such as rippers – and thus the pressingnecessity to sell crops, and achieving household-level food and nutrition security. In manycountries, achieving household-level food and nutrition security is primarily a woman’s


http://genderindex.org/country/malawi

http://genderindex.org/country/malawi

responsibility. This may be made more difficult to achieve when the bulk of a household’s resourcesare directed to a man’s cash crop field under CA. One of the most fundamental misapprehensions ofpolicy-makers and development planners is that increasing household incomes will automaticallyresult in improved food and nutrition security within the household. Countless programmes arebuilt and justified on this premise. Yet, it has been documented for decades that men are lesslikely than women to spend the money thus gained on household welfare (De Schutter, 2012;OECD, 2010; United Nations, 2010; Luke & Munshi, 2010; Ruvalcaba, Teruel, & Thomas, 2009).

Research in Zambia indicates that food and nutrition security can be strengthened by CAinterventions focusing on pulse-maize cropping. Women tend to dig basins close to theirhomes. This may enable them to manage their time more easily, and help us to prevent theft ofproduce by people or animals. Theft can be a particular concern for poor, single women ‘unpro-tected’ by an association with a powerful man (Chiwona-Karltun et al., 1998). CA basins close tohome may also function well because they receive more manure, household waste, etc. than fieldsfurther away, and thus become more fertile and productive. In Malawi, food availability at thehousehold level was extended by an average of one month among women practising CA, andsimilar figures are reported for Zambia (Concern Worldwide, 2013; Nyanga, 2012b). In bothstudies, women reported household members consuming more pulses. However, the reasonsfor discrepancies in dietary diversity between adopting and non-adopting households, and thedecisions women and men are taking which underpin these changes, were not provided.

Concern has been raised about the impact of herbicides (particularly glyphosate in combi-nation with other ingredients) upon human health (Kruger et al., 2014; Richard, Moslemi, Sipa-hutar, Benachour, & Seralini, 2005) and upon insects, birds, and mammals. This is importantbecause glyphosate is a key herbicide used in many CA systems (Chauhan, Singh, & Mahajan,2012). Diverse, healthy ecosystems can be vital to food and nutrition security in some locations.A literature review of 101 studies showed that the mean use of wild foods by agricultural andforager communities in 22 countries of Asia and Africa (36 studies) is 90–100 species perlocation. Aggregate country estimates can reach 300–800 species (e.g. India, Ethiopia, andKenya). The mean use of wild species is 120 per community for indigenous communities inboth industrialized and developing countries. Many of these wild foods are actively managed,including by cultivators (Bharucha & Pretty, 2010). A large number of wild plants may not bedefined locally as weeds (Beuchelt & Badstue, 2013; Concern Worldwide, 2013; Nyanga,2012b). For instance, in Northern Zimbabwe, women harvest Amaranthus and Cleome and usethem as a leafy vegetable. The impact upon wild flora and fauna, and by extension uponhuman health, of herbicide use in CA has not been investigated. The trade-off between promotingherbicide use to reduce women’s labour burdens in weeding, and potential reductions in foodsources, is not yet understood.

7. Towards a gender research agenda in CA

CA offers a number of benefits to degraded soils of eastern and southern Africa whilst increasingresilience to climatic variability. It is built around a core set of interlocking soil and water-conser-ving practices, including minimum tillage, soil cover, and promotion of crop diversity. However,although gender is a fundamental structuring principle in agricultural systems, it has been almostcompletely overlooked by analysts seeking to understand the generally low adoption rates of CAin SSA. Our analysis of the literature shows that understandings of how gender relations and CAtechnologies interact in specific contexts are weakly researched apart from a few significantinsights provided by limited cases in Malawi and Zambia.

It is not yet possible to answer the ‘big’ research question as to whether CA technologies differ fromother technologies in how they interact with, shape, and are shaped by, gender relations. Our review


suggests that existing gender relations have a large effect upon CA adoption and adoption mechanisms.There is some evidence to suggest that the position of women is worsened, particularly when only one ortwo CA principles are adopted, or when no herbicides are used. Conversely, there is some tantalizingevidence that women are using their agency by adopting certain CA technologies, at least in part, toimprove their own situations. The degree to which women are exploiting the space offered by CA tonegotiate their own agendas remains to be investigated as a stand-alone research topic.

In order to obtain a broad understanding of how gender and CA technologies interact, it wouldbe useful to develop a series of smaller research projects to develop detailed empirical knowledgefrom a number of sites across Eastern and Southern Africa. This will help build up the body ofevidence required to fully understand whether gender relations do play a significant role inintra-household decision-making around whether to adopt CA. Interest here would focus onunderstanding the ways in which particular configurations of gender dynamics – includingaccess to services (business development, finance, extension, etc.), control over resources, andintra-household decision-making influence willingness to adopt CA technologies. Furtherresearch is likewise needed upon the impact on gender relations of various CA technologies,and whether this impact potentially contributes to disadoption.

Comparative gender studies would be useful to help draw together commonalities in relationto smallholder systems targeted for CA interventions, as well as to develop understandings ofcritical gender variations. In all cases, it would be useful to distinguish – within the diversityof households in any location – between women-headed households, and women in male-headed households. Attention here could focus on differences in access to, and control over,resources, and intra-household decision-making. The preferences of women within male-headed households are a critical locus of enquiry. Focusing on the opportunities and constraintsoffered by CA to young men and women farmers, and also to hired labour, could form furtherresearch projects. Finally, given that the benefits of CA appear to improve with increasing invest-ment, particularly in mechanization and herbicides, it is essential to establish the overall capacityof smallholders to invest, and specifically by gender.

We conclude this section by providing guiding research questions for detailed empiricalresearch. Some of the questions are taken from Beuchelt and Badstue (2013).

7.1. Overarching questions

. What criteria do smallholders apply in intra-household decision-making processes regard-ing selecting and implementing CA technologies?

. What are the gendered differentials in women’s and men’s ability to access CA-related ser-vices (extension, inputs, etc.) and invest in various CA technologies? To what extent doesacquisition of particular CA technologies impact upon women’s and men’s ability to deepenand expand their asset portfolios?

. What are the opportunity costs to women’s, men’s and children’s labour at the householdlevel of specific CA technologies?

. If CA involves increased labour requirements, how are these requirements met – throughmachinery, through hiring in labour, or through redeploying household labour? Conversely,if labour requirements decrease, what are the implications for household and hired labour?

7.2. Minimum tillage

7.2.1. Land preparation and seeding

. What are the gendered opportunities and constraints of different minimum tillage technol-ogies, ranging from basin-based CA to magoye rippers and direct seeders? A range of


variables could be studied, including the opportunity costs to adult and child labour, andhired labour, of specific options. Other study variables could include gender differentialsin women’s and men’s ability to invest financially in these technologies – particularly inmechanization; effects on time management including with respect to caring and domesticroles; effects of using particular CA technologies on other farm operations; the effects onhuman health including energy requirements of different technologies.

. Do contracting services for hire of specific machinery provide opportunities to overcomegender-based constraints to mechanization in CA, both for women heads of household,and for women within male-headed households?

. In cases where women are using magoye rippers and direct seeders, how has this situationarisen? How do the women and men involved view the opportunities and constraints ofmechanization?

. What are the ergonomic effects on women when using the chaka hoe, and other CAtechnologies?

7.2.2. Weed control

. What factors do men and women farmers consider when evaluating the use of herbicidesvis-a-vis manual weeding or mulching to control weeds?

. What are the opportunity costs for each household member of potentially increasedweeding when herbicides are not used?

. What are the impacts upon hired labour of labour displacement, where it occurs?

7.3. Soil cover

. What are the trade-offs, for women and men, of the use of residues for surface mulch?

. In what ways does residue retention impact upon livestock keeping practices by women andmen?

7.4. Crop diversification

. What are the gendered opportunities, constraints, and trade-offs of CA-based crop diversi-fication/rotation?

. Which criteria do women, and men, bring to bear around decisions whether to diversifycrops, and if so which crops, in CA systems?

. Do the crops selected for diversifying the system support improvements in food and nutri-tion security for all household members?

. If external actors (agronomists, development agencies, and health workers) are involved ininfluencing crop selection in CA programmes, to what degree do they (i) consider intra-household food and nutrition security requirements, (ii) development and promotion ofvalue chains in targeted crops – and how to support women’s participation in these, and(iii) intra-household decision-making processes around expenditures?

. If herbicides are used, what impact do these have upon biodiversity, and upon the presenceand use of wild foods important to the target population?

7.5. Creation of gender-equitable knowledge networks

A whole nexus of questions can be built around the degree to which information and training pro-grammes on CA are gender-responsive. Do they map and respond to women and men’s poten-tially different information and investment requirements (based on their existing roles andknowledge in the farming system)? In what ways do they work with, support, and extend


women’s and men’s often different learning and knowledge exchange networks? Areas of enquiryinclude:

. How effective are the extension services in targeting women as well as men farmers? Atten-tion should focus on the targeting of women within male-headed households as well aswomen heads of household.

. Do the means of learning and dissemination recognize and work with potential differencesin women’s and men’s capabilities and opportunities to understand and act on theinformation?

. Do the advisory services challenge gender and social norms around membership of ruralinstitutions, access to and participation in CA training events etc. to ensure that women,hired labourers, and other marginalized people are trained and supported in implementingCA?

. What are the key features of gender-equitable advisory services compared to advisory ser-vices targeting women specifically?

. In addition to formal sector provision, through which institutions do women in general, andpoorer women and men, access and share information and training on CA practices?

AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge the financial support from CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) on Climate Change, Agri-culture and Food Security (CCAFS) and International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT)for synthesis of this work.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ReferencesAmin, S. (1972). Underdevelopment and dependence in Black Africa: Historical origin. Journal of Peace

Research, 9(2), 105–119.Andersson, J. A. (2006). Informal moves, informal markets: International migrants and traders from Mzimba

District, Malawi. African Affairs, 105(420), 375–397. doi:10.1093/afraf/adi128Andersson, J. A., & D’Souza, S. (2014). From adoption claims to understanding farmers and contexts: A

literature review of conservation agriculture (CA) adoption among smallholder farmers in SouthernAfrica. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 187, 116–132.

Andersson, J. A., & Giller, K. E. (2012). On heretics and God’s blanket salesmen: Contested claims for con-servation agriculture and the politics of its promotion in African smallholder farming. In J. Sumberg & J.Thompson (Eds.), Contested agronomy: Agricultural research in a changing world (pp. 22–46).London: Routledge.

Anriquez, G., Croppenstedt, A., Doss, C., Gerosa, S., Lowder, S., Matuschke, I., . . . Skoet, J. (2010). Therole of women in agriculture (ESA working paper No 10–03). Rome: FAO.

Araya, T., Cornelis, W. M., Nyssen, J., Govaerts, B., Getnet, F., Bauer, H., . . . Deckers, J. (2012). Medium-term effects of conservation agriculture based cropping systems for sustainable soil and water manage-ment and crop productivity in the Ethiopian highlands. Field Crops Research, 132, 53–62.

Arslan, A., McCarthy, N., Lipper, L., Asfaw, S., & Cattaneo, A. (2014). Adoption and intensity of adoptionof conservation farming practices in Zambia. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 187,72–86.

Ashworth, A. (1998). Effects of intrauterine growth retardation on mortality and morbidity in infants andyoung children. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 52(Supp. 1), S34–S42


http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adi128








Ayieko, M. (1997). From single parents to child-headed households: The case of children orphaned by AIDSin Kisumu and Siaya Districts (Study Paper No. 7). New York, NY: United Nations DevelopmentProgram (UNDP).

Barnett, T. (2005). HIV/AIDS, childhood and governance: Sundering the bonds of human society. AfricanJournal of AIDS Research, 4(3), 139–145.

Baudron, F. (2011). Agricultural intensification: Saving space for wildlife? (Doctoral dissertation).Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

Baudron, F. (2014). Translation of scientific findings into practical technologies dissemination: managingcrop-livestock biomass tradeoffs in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia as an example. Proceedings ofthe Agroecology for Africa International Conference, 3–7 November 2014. Antananarivo, Madagascar.

Baudron, F., Andersson, J. A., Corbeels, M., & Giller, K. E. (2012). Failing to yield? Ploughs, conservationagriculture and the problem of agricultural intensification: An example from the Zambezi Valley,Zimbabwe. Journal of Development Studies, 48, 393–412.

Baudron, F., Sims, B., Justice, S., Kahan, D. G., Rose, R., Mkomwa, S., . . . Gerard, B. (2015). Re-examiningappropriate mechanization in Africa: Two-wheel tractors, conservation agriculture, and private sectorinvolvement. Food Security. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0476-3

Baudron, F., Mwanza, H. M., Triomphe, B., & Bwalya, M. (2007). Conservation agriculture in Zambia: Acase study of Southern Province. Nairobi: African Conservation Tillage Network. Centre de CooperationInternationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le Developpement, Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations.

Baudron, F., Tittonell, P., Corbeels, M., Letourmy, P., & Giller, K. E. (2011). Comparative performance ofconservation agriculture and current smallholder farming practices in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Field CropsResearch, 132, 117–128.

Berti, P. R., Krasevec, J., & FitzGerald, S. (2004). A review of the effectiveness of agriculture interventionsin improving nutrition outcomes. Public Health Nutrition, 7(5), 599–609.

Beuchelt, T. D., & Badstue, L. (2013). Gender, nutrition- and climate-smart food production: Opportunitiesand trade-offs. Food Security, 5(5), 709–721. doi:10.1007/s12571-013-0290-8

Bharucha, Y., & Pretty, J. (2010). The roles and values of wild foods in agricultural systems. PhilosophicalTransactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365, 2913–2926. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0123

Bishop-Sambrook, C., Kienzle, J., Mariki, W., Owenya, M., & Ribeiro, F. (2004). Conservation agricultureas a labour saving practice for vulnerable households: A study of the suitability of reduced tillage andcover crops for households under labour stress in Babati and Karatu Districts, Northern Tanzania.Rome: FAO and IFAD.

Boahen, P., Dartey, B. A., Dogbe, G. D., Boadi, E. A., Triomphe, B., Daamgard-Larsen, S., & Ashburner, J.(2007). Conservation agriculture as practised in Ghana. Nairobi. African Conservation Tillage Network,Centre de Cooperation Internationale de Recherche Agronomique pour le cedaw/39sess.htm (underKenya).

Brems, S., & Berg, A. (1989). Eating down during pregnancy: Nutrition, obstetric, and cultural consider-ations in the third world. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Chauhan, B. S., Singh, R. G., & Mahajan, G. (2012). Ecology and management of weeds under conservationagriculture: A review. Crop Protection, 38, 57–65.

Chauncey, G. (1981). The locus of reproduction: Women’s labour in the Zambian Copperbelt, 1927–1953.Journal of Southern African Studies, 7(2), 135–164.

Chiwona-Karltun, L., Mkumbira, J., Saka, J., Bovin, M., Mahungu, N. M., & Rosling, H. (1998). The impor-tance of being bitter: A qualitative study on cassava cultivar preference in Malawi. Ecology of Food andNutrition, 37, 219–245.

Christiansen, C. (2005). Positioning children and institutions of childcare in contemporary Uganda. AfricanJournal of AIDS Research, 4(3), 173–182.

Concern Universal. (2011). Conservation agriculture research study 2011. Blantyre, UK: Author.Concern Worldwide. (2013). Empowering women through conservation agriculture: Rhetoric or reality?

Evidence from Malawi. Retrieved from https://www.concern.net/sites/www.concern.net/files/media/page/conservation_agriculture_and_women.pdf

Cooper, E. (2012). Women and Inheritance in Sub-Saharan Africa: What can change? Development PolicyReview, 30(5), 641–657.

Crush, J., & McDonald, D. A. (2000). Transnationalism, African immigration, and new migrant spaces inSouth Africa: An introduction. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 34(1), 1–19.

Crush, J., Jeeves, A., & Yudelman, D. (1991). South Africa’s labor empire: A history of black migrancy to thegold mines. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0476-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-013-0290-8

http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0123

https://www.concern.net/sites/www.concern.net/files/media/page/conservation_agriculture_and_women.pdf

https://www.concern.net/sites/www.concern.net/files/media/page/conservation_agriculture_and_women.pdf

Dendooven, L., Patino-Zuniga, L., Verhulst, N., Luna-Guido, M., Marsch, R., & Govaerts, B. (2012). Globalwarming potential of agricultural systems with contrasting tillage and residue management in the centralhighlands of Mexico. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 152, 50–58.

De Schutter, O. (2012). Women’s rights and the right to food. Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur onthe right to food, Olivier De Schutter. Human Rights Council Twenty-second session. United Nations.Agenda item 3.

Dixon, J. A., Gibbon, D. P., & Gulliver, A. (2001). Farming systems and poverty: Improving farmers’ liveli-hoods in a changing world. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Dodson, B., Simelane, H., Tevera, D., Green, T., Chikanda, A. & de Vletter, Fion. n.d. Gender migration andremittances in Southern Africa. Migration Policy Series No. 49.

Dolan, C., & Sorby, K. (2003). Gender and employment in high-value agriculture industries (Agricultureand Rural Development Working Paper 7).Washington, DC: World Bank.

Doss, C. R. (1999). Twenty-Five Years of Research on Women Farmers in Africa: Lessons and Implicationsfor Agricultural Research Institutions, CIMMYT Economics Paper No. 99-02, CIMMYT, Mexico, DF.

Doss, C., Bockius-Suwyn, Z., & D’Souza, S. (2012). Women’s economic empowerment in agriculture:Supporting women farmers. Washington, DC: UN Foundation.

Doss, C., Kovarik, C., Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., & van den Bold, M. (2013). Gender inequalities inownership and control of land in Africa: Myth versus Reality. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01308.

Ekbom, A., & Akpalu, W. (2010). Bio-economics of conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestrationin developing countries (Working Papers in Economics No. 143). Department of Economics. School ofBusiness, Economics and Law at University of Gothenburg.

Erenstein, O. (2003). Smallholder conservation farming in the tropics and sub-tropics: A guide to the devel-opment and dissemination of mulching with crop residues and cover crops. Agriculture Ecosystem &Environment, 100, 17–37.

FAO. (2004). HIV/AIDS, gender inequality and rural livelihoods. The Impact of HIV/AIDS on RuralLivelihoods in Northern Province in Zambia. Rome: Author.

FAO. (2011). The state of food and agriculture 2010–2011: Women in agriculture – Closing the gender gapfor development. Rome: Author.

FAO. (2012). What is conservation agriculture. Retrieved September 22, 2013, from http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html

FAO/WFP. (2009). The state of food insecurity in the world: Economic crises – Impacts and lessons learned.Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

Farnworth, C. R. (2010). Gender and agriculture. Bonn: Platform Policy Brief No. 3.Global Donor Platform.Farnworth, C. R., Akamandisa, V. M., & Hichaambwa, M. (2011). USAID Zambia feed the future gender

assessment. Retrieved from http://www.pandiawarleggan.com/cathy_farnworth_publications.shtmlFarnworth, C. R., & Colverson, K. E. (2015). Building a gender-transformative extension and advisory

facilitation system in Africa. Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security, 1(1), 20–39.Farnworth, C. R., Nzioki, A., Muigui, S., Kimani, E. N., Olungah, C., & Moyoncho, K. (2012). Kenya

gender analysis and action plan. Nairobi: USAID Kenya.Flinton, F. (2007). Gender and pastoralism. Vol. 2: Livelihoods & income development in Ethiopia. Addis

Ababa: SOS Sahel Ethiopia.Fontana, M., & Paciello, C. (2009). Gender dimensions of rural and agricultural employment: Differentiated

pathways out of poverty DRAFT. Paper presented at the FAO-IFAD-ILO Workshop on Gaps, trends andcurrent research in gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment: differentiated pathways outof poverty.

Gabrielsson, S., & Ramasar, V. (2012). Widows: Agents of change in a climate of water uncertainty. Journalof Cleaner Production, 60, 34–42.

Gebregziabher, S., Mouazen, A. M., Van Brussel, H., Ramon, H., Nyssen, J., Verplancke, H., . . . DeBaerdemaeker, J. (2006). Animal drawn tillage, the Ethiopian ard plough, maresha: A review. Soiland Tillage Research, 89(2), 129–143.

Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittoneel, P. (2009). Conservation agriculture and smallholderfarming in Africa: The heretics view. Journal of Field Crops Research, 114(1), 23–34.

Govaerts, B., Verhulst, N., Castellanos-Navarrete, A., Sayre, K. D., Dixon, J., & Dendooven, L. (2009).Conservation agriculture and soil carbon sequestration: Between myth and farmer reality. CriticalReviews in Plant Sciences, 05/2009, 28, 97–122. doi:10.1080/07352680902776358

Gyasi, E., & Uitto, J. I. (1997). Environment, biodiversity and agricultural change in West Africa.Perspectives from Ghana. United Nations University Press. http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80964e/80964E0f.htm


http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html

http://www.fao.org/ag/ca/1a.html

http://www.pandiawarleggan.com/cathy_farnworth_publications.shtml

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352680902776358

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80964e/80964E0f.htm

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80964e/80964E0f.htm

Haddad, L., & Maluccio, J. A. (2003). Trust, membership in groups, and household welfare: Evidence fromKwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of ChicagoPress, 51(3), 573–601, April.

Haggblade, S., & Tembo, G. (2003). Conservation farming in Zambia: EPTD discussion paper No. 108.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Hellin, J., Erenstein, O., Beuchelt, T., Camacho, C., & Flores, D. (2013). Maize stover use and sustainablecrop production in mixed crop–livestock systems in Mexico. Field Crops Research, 153, 12–21. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2013.05.014

Herrera, J. M., Verhulst, N., Trethowan, R. M., Stamp, P., & Govaerts, B. (2013). Insights into genotype ×tillage interaction effects on the grain yield of wheat and maize. Crop Science, 53, 1845–1859.

Hindin, M. J. (2006). Women’s input into household decisions and their nutritional status in three resource-constrained settings. Public Health Nutrition, 9(4), 485–493. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870021

Hobbs, P. R., Sayre, K., & Gupta, R. (2008). The role of conservation agriculture in sustainable agriculture.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 543–555.

Hoogmoed, W. B., Stevens, P. A., & Muliokela, S. (2003). Conservation tillage with animal draft in Zambia.International Proceedings of the 16th International Soil Tillage Research Organization (ISTRO)Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 13–18 July, 2007. Brisbane, Australia.

Howson, C. P., Harrison, P. F., & Law, M. (1996). In her lifetime: Female morbidity and mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Committee to Study Female Morbidity and Mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa. Institute ofMedicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

IAASTD. (2008). International assessment for agricultural science and technology for development.Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/index.html

Jaleta, M., Kassie, M., & Shiferaw, B. (2012, August 18–24). Tradeoffs in crop residue utilization in mixedcrop-livestock systems and implications for conservation agriculture and sustainable land management.International Association of Agricultural Economists 2012 Conference. Foz do Iguacu, Brazil.

Johansen, C., Haque, M. E., Bell, R. W., Thierfelder, C., & Esdaile, R. J. (2012). Conservation agriculture forsmall holder rainfed farming: Opportunities and constraints of new mechanized seeding systems. FieldCrops Research, 132, 18–32.

Jones, C. (1983). The mobilization of women’s labor for cash crop production: A game theoretic approach.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65, 1049–1054.

Kaumbutho, P., & Kienzle, P. J. (Eds.). (2007). Conservation agriculture as practiced in Kenya: Two casestudies. Nairobi: African Conservation Tillage Network, Centre de Cooperation Internationale deRecherche Agronomique pour le Developpement, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

KIT, Agri-ProFocus and IIRR. (2012). Challenging chains to change: Gender equity in agricultural valuechain development. Amsterdam: KIT publishers.

Kristjanson, P., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I., Grace, D., &MacMillan, S. (2010). Livestock and women’s livelihoods: A review of the recent evidence.Discussion paper No. 20, ILRI.

Kruger, M., Schledorn, P., Schrodl, W., Hoppe, H. W., Lutz, W., & Sheheta, A. A. (2014). Detection of gly-phosate residues in animals and humans. Journal of Environmental and Analytic Toxicoly, 4, 210. doi:10.4172/2161-0525.1000210

Lai, C., Chan, C., Halbrendt, J., Shariq, L., Roul, P., Idol, T. . . . Evensen, C. (2012). Comparative economicand gender, labor analysis of conservation agriculture practices in tribal villages in India. InternationalFood and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(1), 73–86.

Lastarria-Cornhiel, S. (2006). Feminization of agriculture: Trends and driving forces. Background Paper forWorld Development Report 2008. Prepared for RIMISP.

Leavy, J., & Hossain, N. (2014). Who wants to farm? Youth aspirations, opportunities, and rising food prices(IDS Discussion Paper 439). Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Luke, N., & Munshi, K. (2010). Women as agents of change: Female income and mobility in India. Journalof Development Economics, 94(1), 1–17.

Maal, B. (2011). Report from a fact finding mission: Women, gender and conservation Agriculture inZimababwe. Oslo: NORAD. Retrieved from http://www.norad.no/en/toolspublications/publications/2011/report-from-a-fact-finding-mission-women-gender-and-conservation-agriculture-in-zambia/

Manfre, C., Rubin, D., Allen, A., Summerfield, G. Colverson, K., Akeredolu, M., & MEAS project. (2013).Reducing the gender gap in agricultural advisory and extension services: How to find the best fit for menand women farmers. MEAS Discussion paper No. 2. MEAS Discussion paper series on good practicesand best fit approaches in extension and advisory service provision.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.05.014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.05.014

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870021

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16870021

http://www.unep.org/dewa/agassessment/index.html

http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000210

http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0525.1000210

http://www.norad.no/en/toolspublications/publications/2011/report-from-a-fact-finding-mission-women-gender-and-conservation-agriculture-in-zambia/

http://www.norad.no/en/toolspublications/publications/2011/report-from-a-fact-finding-mission-women-gender-and-conservation-agriculture-in-zambia/

Marongwe, S., Kwazira, K., Jenrich, M., Thierfelder, C., Kassam, A., & Friedrich, T. (2011). An Africansuccess: The case of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe. International Journal of AgriculturalSustainability, 9, 153–161.

Mashingaidze, N., Madakadze, I. C., & Thomlow, S. (2012). Response of weed flora to conservation agri-culture systems and weeding intensity in semi-arid Zimbabwe. African Journal of AgriculturalResearch, 36(7), 5069–5082.

Mashingaidze, N., Twomlow, S. J., & Hove, L. (2009). Crop and weed responses to residue retention andmethod of weeding in first two years of a hoe-based minimum tillage system in semi-arid Zimbabwe.Journal of SAT Agricultural Research, 7, 1–11.

McDonald, D. A. (Ed.). (2000). On borders: Perspectives on international migration in Southern Africa.New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Milder, J. C., Majanen, T., & Scherr, S. J. (2011). Performance and potential of conservation agriculture forclimate change adaptation and mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa (Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no.6). Washington, DC: Ecoagriculture Partners.

Momsen, J. H. (2010). Gender and development (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.MPI. (2014). Migration policy institute tabulation of data from the United Nations, Department of Economic

and Social Affairs (2013). Trends in International Migrant Stock: Migrants by Origin and Destination,2013 Revision. United Nations database.

Mrema, G. C., Baker, D., & Kahan, D. (2008). Agricultural mechanization in Sub-Saharan Africa: Time fora new look. Rome: Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper, Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Mtshali, S. M. (2002). Household livelihood security in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Wageningen:Wageningen University.

Munachonga, M., & Akamandisa, V. M. (2010). DRAFT – Zambia country report. Status of gender inequal-ity in the social, economic, and political sectors in Zambia: implications for the implementation andmonitoring of relevant international and regional commitments and social protection. Submitted toUnited Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA). JUDAI Associate Technical Support.

Muoni, T., Rusinamhodzi, L., Rugare, J. T., Mabasa, S., Mangosho, E., Mupangwa, W., & Thierfelder, C.(2014). Effect of herbicide application on weed flora under conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe.Crop Protection, 66, 1–7.

Ngoma, H., Mulenga, B., & Jayne, T. S. (2013). What explains minimal usage of minimal tillage practices inZambia: Evidence from districts. Representative Data. Powerpoint Presentation to the 4th InternationalConference of the African Association of Agricultural Economists, Hammaret, Tunisia. September 22–25, 2013. Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Zambia.

Ngwira, A. R., Johnsen, F. H., Aune, J. B., Mekuria, M., & Thierfelder, C. (2014). Adoption and extent ofconservation agriculture practices among smallholder farmers in Malawi. Journal of Soil and WaterConservation, 69(2), 107–119. doi:10.2489/jswc.69.2.107

Niang, I., Ruppel, O. C., Abdrabo, M. A., Essel, A., Lennard, C., Padgham, J., & Urquhart, P. (2014). Africa.In: ClimateChange 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: Regional aspects. Contributionof Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Barros, V. R., Field, C. B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D.,. Mach, K.J.,Bilir, T.E.,Chatterjee, M.,Ebi,K.L.,Estrada, Y.O.,Genova, R.C.,Girma,B.,Kissel, E.S.,Levy, A.N.,MacCracken, S.,Mastrandrea,P.R.,andWhite,L.L.(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Nigussiel, A., Hoag, D., & Alemu, T. (2014). Women’s workload and role in livestock production in pastoraland agro-pastoral communities of Ethiopia: The case of afar. African Journal of Agricultural Economicsand Rural Development, 2, 138–146.

Njuki, J. M., Kihiyo, V. B. M., O’ktingati, A., & Place, F. (2004). Male vs. female labour in an agro-forestrysystem in the central highlands of Kenya: Correcting the misconception. International Journal ofAgricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 3(1–2), 154–170.

Nyanga, P. H. (2012a). Factors influencing adoption and area under conservation agriculture. Journal ofSustainable Agricultural Research, 1(2), 27–40.

Nyanga, P. H. (2012b). Food security, conservation agriculture and pulses: Evidence from smallholderfarmers in Zambia. Journal of food Research, 1(2), 120–138.

Nyanga, P. H., Johnsen, F. H., & Kalinda, T. H. (2012). Gendered impacts of conservation agriculture andparadox of herbicide use among smallholder farmers. International Journal of Technology andDevelopment Studies, 3(1), 1–24.

OECD. (2010). At issue: Gender inequality and the MDGs: What are the missing dimensions? Retrievedfrom www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/56/45987065.pdf


http://dx.doi.org/10.2489/jswc.69.2.107

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/56/45987065.pdf

O’Laughlin, B. (1998). Missing men? The debate over rural poverty and women-headed households inSouthern Africa. Journal of Peasant Studies, 25(2), 1–48.

Oleke, C., Blystad, A., & Rekdal, O. (2005). “When the obvious brother is not there”: Political and culturalcontexts of the orphan challenge in Northern Uganda. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 2628–2638.

O’Sullivan, M., Rao, A., Raka, B., Kajal, G., & Margaux, V. (2014). Levelling the field: Improving oppor-tunities for women farmers in Africa. Vol. 1 of levelling the field: Improving opportunities for womenfarmers in Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/01/19243625/levelling-field-improving-opportunities-women-farmers-africa

Oyugi, W. (2000, December 13–15). Politicized ethnic conflict in Kenya: A periodic phenomena. A paperpresented at the DPMF/OSSREA conference on African conflicts their management, resolution and postconflict reconstruction. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved from unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/. . ./unpan010963.pdf

Pittelkow, C. M., Liang, X., Linquist, B. A., van Groenigen, K. J., Lee, J., Lundy, M. E., . . . van Kessel, C.(2014). Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature (2014)doi:10.1038/nature13809

Powlson, D. S., Stirling, C. M., Jat, M. L., Gerard, B., Palm, C. A., Sanchez, P. A., & Cassman, K. G. (2014).Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 4, 678–683. doi:10.1038/nclimate2292

Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture.International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1), 5–24. Retrieved from http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/6668/

Quisumbing, A. R., Rubin, D., Manfre, C., Waithanji, E., van den Bold, M., Olney, D., & Meinzen-Dick, R.(2014). Closing the gender asset gap: Learning from value chain development in Africa and Asia (IFPRIDiscussion Paper 01321).

Ragasa, C., Berhane, G., Tadessa, F., & Seyoum, A. (2013). Gender differences in access to extension servicesand agricultural productivity. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 19(5), 437–468.

Richard, S., Moslemi, H., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., & Seralini, G. (2005). Differential effects of glypho-sate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(6),716–720.

Rush, D. (2000). Nutrition and maternal mortality in the developing world. American Journal of ClinicalNutrition, 72(1 suppl), 212S–240S.

Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015). Tinkering on the periphery: Labour burden not crop productivity increased underno-till planting basins on smallholder farms in Murehwa district, Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research, 170,66–75.

Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., van Wijk, M. T., Rufino, M. C., Nyamangara, J., & Giller, K. E. (2011). Ameta-analysis of long-term effects of conservation agriculture on maize grain yield under rain-fed con-ditions. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31(4), 657–673.

Ruvalcaba, L., Teruel, G., & Thomas, D. (2009). Investments, time preferences, and public transfers paid towomen. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 57(3), 507–38.

Shiundu, M., & Oniang’o, R. (2007). Marketing African leafy vegetables: Challenges and opportunities inthe Kenyan context. African Journal of Food and Agriculture Nutrition and Development, 7(4), 4–12.

Sikana, P., & Kerven, C. (1991). The impact of commercialisation on the role of labour in African pastoralsocieties. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Slingo, J. M., Challinor, A. J., Hoskins, B. J., & Wheeler, T. R. (2005). Introduction: Food crops in a changingclimate. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1463), 1983–1989.

Tegebu, F. N., Erik Mathijs, E., Deckers, J. Haile, M., Nyseen, J., & Tollens, E. (2012). Rural livestock assetportfolios in Northern Ethiopia: A micro-economic analysis of choice and accumulation. TropicalAnimal Health and Production, 44, 133–144.

Temesgen, M., Hoogmoed, W. B., Rockstrom, J., & Savenije, H. H. G. (2009). Conservation tillageimplements and systems for smallholder farmers in semi-arid Ethiopia. Soil and Tillage Research,104(1), 185–191.

Thierfelder, C., Cheesman, S., & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2012). A comparative analysis of conservation agricul-ture systems: Benefits and challenges of rotations and intercropping in Zimbabwe. Field crops Research,137, 237–250.

Thierfelder, C., Matemba-Mutasa, R., & Rusinamhodzi, L. (2014). Yield response of maize (ZeaMays L.) toconservation agriculture cropping systems in Southern Africa. Soil and Tillage Research, 146, 230–242.

Thierfelder, C., & Wall, P. C. (2010). Investigating conservation agriculture (CA) systems in Zambia andZimbabwe to mitigate future effects of climate change. Journal of Crop Improvement, 24(2), 113–1.


http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/01/19243625/levelling-field-improving-opportunities-women-farmers-africa

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2014/01/19243625/levelling-field-improving-opportunities-women-farmers-africa

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/…/unpan010963.pdf



http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13809

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2292

http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/6668/

http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/6668/

Torell, E., Kalangahe, B., Thaxton, M., Issa, A., Pieroth, V., Fahmy, O., & Tobey, J. (2007). Guidelines formitigating the impacts of HIV/AIDS on coastal biodiversity and natural resource management.Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved from www.prb.org/Reports/2007/GuidelinesMitigatingImpactsHIVAIDS.aspx

Torkelsson, A., Tassew, B. (2008). Quantifying women’s and men’s rural resource portfolios – empiricalevidence from Western Shoa in Ethiopia. The European Journal of Development Research, 20, 462–481.

Tshuma, N., Maposa, M., Ncube, G., Dube, T., & Dube, Z. L. (2012). The impact of conservation agricultureon food security and livelihoods in mangwe district. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa,14(5), 107–125.

Turmel, M. S., Speratti, A., Baudron, F., Verhulst, N., & Govaerts, B. (2014). Crop residue management andsoil health: A systems analysis. Agricultural Systems, 134, 6–16.

Udry, C. (1996). Gender, agricultural production and the theory of the household. Journal of PoliticalEconomy, 104, 1010–1046.

Umar, B. B., Aune, J. B., Fred, H., Lungu, I., & Lungu, O.I.. (2012). Are smallholder Zambian farmers econ-omists? A dual-analysis of farmers’ expenditure in conservation and conventional agriculture systems.Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 36(8), 908–929.

UNEP. (2013). The Emissions Gap Report 2013: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.Retrieved from http://www.unep.org/emissionsgapreport2013/

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2010). The world’s women 2010: Trends andstatistics. New York, NY: United Nations.

UNICEF. (2009). UNICEF Rwanda background. http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/rwanda_1717.htmlUSAID. (2012). Youth in development policy: Realizing the demographic opportunity. Retrieved from http://

www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Youth_in_Development_Policy_0.pdfUSAID Kenya. (2013). Yes Youth Can/MwamkowaVijana! Retrieved June 13, 2014, from http://www.usaid.

gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/National%20YYC%20FACT%20SHEET_Jul%202013.pdfValle, F. D. (2012, March 19–21). Exploring opportunities and constraints for young agro-entrepreneurs in

Africa. Conference Paper Presented at Young people, farming and food international conference, Accra.Ghana, FAO.

Valbuena, D., Erenstein, O., Homann-KeeTui, S., Abdoulaye, T., Claessens, L., Duncan, A.J., . . . van Wijk,M.T. (2012). Conservation Agriculture in mixed crop–livestock systems: Scoping crop residue trade-offs in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Field Crops Research, 132, 175–184.

Verhulst, N., Govaerts, B., Sayre, K. D., Sonder, K., Perezgrovas, R., Mezzalama, M., & Dendooven, L.(2012). Conservation agriculture as a means to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A case studyfrom Mexico. In E. Wollenberg, A. Nihart, M.-L. Tapio-Bistrom, Grieg, & M. Gran (Eds.), Climatechange mitigation and agriculture (pp. 287–300). Abington, UK: Earthscan, ISBN:9781849713924.

Wall, P. C. (2007). Tailoring conservation agriculture to the needs of small farmers in developing countries:An analysis of issues. Journal of Crop Improvement, 19(1–2), 137–155.

Waters-Bayer, A. (1988). Dairying by settled Fulani agropastoralists: The role of women and implicationsfor dairy development. Kiel: Vauk Wissenschaftsverlag.

Wolpe, H. (1972). Capitalism and cheap labour-power in South Africa: From segregation to apartheid.Economy and Society, 1(4), 425–456.

Word Bank. (2008a). World development report: Agriculture for development. Washington, DC: WorldBank.

World Bank. (2008b). Gender in agriculture sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank.Yisehak, K. (2008). Gender responsibilities in smallholder mixed crop–livestock production systems of

Jimma zone, South West Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20(11). RetrievedAugust 2, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/1/yise20011.htm


http://www.prb.org/Reports/2007/GuidelinesMitigatingImpactsHIVAIDS.aspx

http://www.prb.org/Reports/2007/GuidelinesMitigatingImpactsHIVAIDS.aspx

http://www.unep.org/emissionsgapreport2013/

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/rwanda_1717.html

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Youth_in_Development_Policy_0.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/Youth_in_Development_Policy_0.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/National%20YYC%20FACT%20SHEET_Jul%202013.pdf

http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/National%20YYC%20FACT%20SHEET_Jul%202013.pdf

http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/1/yise20011.htm

gender and conservation agriculture in east and southern africa: towards a research agenda

Documents