Evaluates policies influencing Zimbabwe's conservation agriculture programme, revealing significant gaps and implications for farmers.
This study evaluates the policies and statutory instruments influencing Zimbabwe’s Pfumvudza/Intwasa programme implementation in semi-arid communal areas of Gwanda district, examining whether policy frameworks adequately support climate resilience for smallholder farmers. Grounded in the sustainable development framework and climate resilience framework, the research employed a convergent parallel mixed-methods design and surveyed 307 smallholder farmers in southwestern Zimbabwe, conducted 20 key informant interviews and held 16 focus group discussions. Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS (v.30) with chi-square tests and descriptive statistics, while qualitative data were thematically coded using NVivo (v.14), with triangulation matrices integrating both datasets. Results reveal significant policy-practice disconnects. While 39% of respondents recognized the presidential input scheme, 26% reported no policy awareness. Most of the respondents (86%) perceived current policies as ineffective, with women significantly more likely than men to report inadequate policy support (χ 2 = 13.83, p = 0.008). Implementation deficits including bureaucratic delays, politicized distribution, and weak quality controls systematically undermine programme effectiveness. Some farmers (35% of responses) prioritized water security interventions over current plot-level conservation practices, suggesting policy-practice misalignment. The study concludes that current frameworks build only short-term coping capacity, failing to develop the adaptive and transformative capacities needed for enduring climate resilience. The study recommends developing explicit sustainability frameworks with subsidy phase-out timelines, integrating water security with conservation agriculture policy, depoliticising input distribution, and institutionalising participatory governance platforms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dube et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: