CPWF SG 503 FINAL TECHNICAL REPORT
iiion-farm had high returns to land (TAS 1,301,425/ha
US$ 1033) and labour (TAS 21,154/person/day
US$ 16.8) in upland in coffee enterprise.
Biophysical and socio-economic determinants of adoption of the WMSIs
The results showed that determinants that positively and/or negatively influence adoption of innovations are mainly biophysical and socio-economic. The biophysical determinants includetopography (control erosion), yield increase/productivity, reduce inconvenience in irrigation schedule,irrigation task is simplified by controlling water, conserve soil, fertility and moisture, good crop growth,shortage of enough water to conserve, land shortage, increased production, rainfall shortage, protect water loss and poor working tools. The socio economic determinants include bye-laws for group theuse the same ndiva, cash crops, low education level, low income level, inadequate labour force, landtenure, cost involved, poor technology, unwillingness to take up the technology, having otheralternative activities, lack of expertise/technology, lack of collective action (kiwili), high cost toimplement, lack of information about technology, traditions and norms of using draught animals andlaziness, ignorance, jealousy, complacency. Between 62.5 and 70% of mentioned determinants thatpositively influence farmers to adopt WMSIs are of biophysical in nature. It was also found thatbetween 69.2 to 79% of all the factors negatively affect farmers to adopt WMSIs are socio-economic innature.Determinants of technology adoption at household level include household capital endowments(capital assets - human, natural, physical, financial and social), land tenure and access to market andservices have influenced adoption of WMSIs in Makanya Catchment. Results show that there arepositive relationships between adoption of WMSIs with human capital (education level, training of farmers, household labour and age of farmers); natural capital (farm size); physical (ownership of livestock and house type); financial capital (liquid asset - bank account) and social capital (farmerassociation sand networks). Other factors include access to market and policy environment. It is worthnoting that results showed negative relationship on adoption of most WMSIs for women except forcover crops. This is due to the fact that most women are dealing with leguminous crop which arecommonly use as cover crops, in their effort to provide food for their households.
Perceptions of the farmers and local communities on the WMSIs
Results showed that the need for conserving soil and water, improving food security, increasing productivity, low rainfall and increasing income were perceived as most important reasons for adopting most WMSIs at farm level. On the other hand farmers perceived that inadequateknowledge/education/skills and low income are the most important reasons for them not adopting some innovations they perceive to be good for their farm households. There are significant correlationsamong reasons for adopting the innovations. During focus group discussions women groups perceivedadvantages of adopting some WMSIs differently from groups of men farmers. For example, womenfarmers perceived that charco-dams and water tanks improved availability of water near homesteads which reduced their work load of walking long distances in search of water, therefore providing ampletime to do other households chores. On the other hand men emphasised that charco dams increased water availability for livestock, thus protecting livestock from dying while moving them to the River insearch of water.
Strategies and approaches that facilitate scaling up of WMSIs
The project assessed current strategies and approaches for scaling up of WMSIs. Results show thatscaling-up of potential WMSIs entailed communication, interaction and interrelation amongst key stakeholders through social and institutional networks. Sharing of knowledge and information is donemostly within the family members and farming communities within in the villages and between villageto village. A few farmers learned about WMSIs in schools and colleges while other throughinterventions by the government and change or development agents like NGOs and developmentprojects. The farmers response shows that interactive methods like on-farm trials, field/exchange