**3.3 Social buy-in into CA**

The social acceptance of the CA project was assessed to get the level of social acceptance of the project. Social discourse and verbatim around the CA project was used as indicators. 72% of participating groups under Focus group discussions described their role in CA as beneficiaries, refer to **Figure 2** below and very few had an active verbatim concerning their role under CA.

Verbatim assessment by Wards showed that only 28% of participant Wards had a positive view about their role in CA. Ward 21 and 24 showed an active role in CA (**Figure 3**). Ward 10 besides it being the first ward to be introduced to CA in 1995, over two decades ago it showed a passive role in CA project.

Focus group participants of about 72% admitted to being passive beneficiaries of CA and had no active or decisive role in the project. The community described NGOs as the "owners" of the project while AREX officials were described as "trainers". Throughout the whole cycle from its formulation to implementation community members are passive participants. On the discussion surrounding difference between CA and the conventional farming, 77% of participants showed that there is no difference in terms of benefits, this contradicted the views of NGOs and AREX officials, whom most of them pointed out the difference in yields per hectare in which CA has better yields. Social discourse on CA project was characterised by undertones of disassociation and negativity. The community coined the main principle of CA, zero tillage "Dhiga ufe" meaning dig and die, alluding to its labour intensive nature. Commenting on CA benefits the focus group participants who did not adopt the initiative said,

**167**

**Figure 4.**

**Figure 3.**

*Role of Chivi community in CA by Wards.*

risk reduction tool.

*Reasons behind CA adoption in Chivi District.*

*Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Disaster Risk Reduction Tool in Chivi District…*

*"Hapana akamborarama nedhiga udye, gore rezhara tose toforera mukomondera".* A Shona translation to no one has ever survived on CA, during drought, we all queue for food relief. This shows the community's negative view of CA as a disaster

Results on community buy-in showed that 80% of AREX officials described

Chivi CA project buy-in as low. "Reluctant" and "not eager" were the most

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94318*

**Figure 2.** *Role of Chivi community in CA.*

*Adoption of Conservation Agriculture as a Disaster Risk Reduction Tool in Chivi District… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94318*

**Figure 3.** *Role of Chivi community in CA by Wards.*

*Natural Hazards - Impacts, Adjustments and Resilience*

**3.3 Social buy-in into CA**

plots. However 100% admitted to have adopted at least one of the CA principles and are using them in their conventional agriculture system. 52% of these farmers adopted planting on time, 80% crop rotation and 38% use of small grains. No CA farmers have adopted planting basins and mulching onto their traditional systems. NGOs supported these findings and added that planting basins and mulching principles are the most unpopular. These two principles could be the hindrance to

The social acceptance of the CA project was assessed to get the level of social acceptance of the project. Social discourse and verbatim around the CA project was used as indicators. 72% of participating groups under Focus group discussions described their role in CA as beneficiaries, refer to **Figure 2** below and very few had

Verbatim assessment by Wards showed that only 28% of participant Wards had a positive view about their role in CA. Ward 21 and 24 showed an active role in CA (**Figure 3**). Ward 10 besides it being the first ward to be introduced to CA in 1995,

Focus group participants of about 72% admitted to being passive beneficiaries of CA and had no active or decisive role in the project. The community described NGOs as the "owners" of the project while AREX officials were described as "trainers". Throughout the whole cycle from its formulation to implementation community members are passive participants. On the discussion surrounding difference between CA and the conventional farming, 77% of participants showed that there is no difference in terms of benefits, this contradicted the views of NGOs and AREX officials, whom most of them pointed out the difference in yields per hectare in which CA has better yields. Social discourse on CA project was characterised by undertones of disassociation and negativity. The community coined the main principle of CA, zero tillage "Dhiga ufe" meaning dig and die, alluding to its labour intensive nature. Commenting on CA benefits the focus group participants

effective adoption of CA as a disaster risk reduction tool in Chivi.

an active verbatim concerning their role under CA.

who did not adopt the initiative said,

over two decades ago it showed a passive role in CA project.

**166**

**Figure 2.**

*Role of Chivi community in CA.*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Reasons behind CA adoption in Chivi District.*

*"Hapana akamborarama nedhiga udye, gore rezhara tose toforera mukomondera".*

A Shona translation to no one has ever survived on CA, during drought, we all queue for food relief. This shows the community's negative view of CA as a disaster risk reduction tool.

Results on community buy-in showed that 80% of AREX officials described Chivi CA project buy-in as low. "Reluctant" and "not eager" were the most

commonly used adverbs to describe community buy-in. Drought was also mentioned as a barrier to community buy in. The benefits of CA are said to be less visible due to recurrent droughts. Chivi community through focus group discussions also confirmed low buy into the CA project but had different reasons, refer to **Figure 4**.

The focus group participants who adopted CA in Chivi, did it for diverse reasons, 34% adopted for new farming ideas, 32% adapted to curb drought effects, 17% for free inputs and 17% to increase production. The participants who did not adopt CA had also their own reasons, 34% did not see the need as they have enough resources to continue with conventional farming, 34% mentioned use of primitive farming and labour intensive methods, and 32% did not prefer small grains and changing their traditional farming system. All, 100% of participants who did not adopt CA were aware of the challenges faced in agricultural production however they did not see CA as the solution to their challenges. The interesting argument was that CA is affected by drought the same way as conventional agriculture system. This was also indirectly brought up by AREX and NGOs interviews. They attributed the negative attitude of farmers towards CA to lack of tangible benefits which are being washed away by recurrent drought in Chivi.
