Analysis shows input subsidies impact adoption willingness in smallholder farmers, highlighting need for tailored interventions.
Conservation Agriculture has emerged as a dominant paradigm for enhancing agricultural resilience in the face of climate change. The Zimbabwean government introduced the Pfumvudza climate-smart agriculture initiative to promote climate-resilient agriculture, offering input subsidies to encourage adoption among smallholder farmers. However, subsidizing farmers may not be a sustainable choice in the long run, given the negative trade-offs on macroeconomic stability. This article investigates whether farmers would still embrace the Pfumvudza model without subsidies, using an endogenous switching probit model to address unobservable factors and endogeneity. Data was collected from a representative sample of 408 smallholder farmers selected using a combination of multistage and simple random sampling and twelve focus group discussions in Mashonaland East province, Zimbabwe. Key findings reveal that input subsidies do not significantly impact the willingness to adopt the Pfumvudza climate-smart concept for the entire sample without extrinsic incentivization. However, regarding Pfumvudza adoption, further analysis indicated that subsidies positively influence communal farmers while negatively affecting A1 and old resettlement farmers. The frequency of extension access, land use model, and the household perception of the Pfumvudza concept positively affect adoption willingness, whereas livestock ownership and involvement in tobacco or cotton production have negative effects. Policymakers must recognize that subsidies alone are insufficient to drive adoption. Tailored interventions and support mechanisms are essential considering local contexts, farming practices, and land sizes. Ultimately, the motivation to adopt Pfumvudza lies in its perceived benefits. Therefore, efforts should focus on increasing awareness of the Pfumvudza benefits while demystifying the negatives.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ruzhani et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: