Smallholder Farmers and Climate Smart Agriculture: Technology and Labor-productivity Constraints amongst Women Smallholders in Malawi

Abstract

Climate change and variability present a major challenge to agricultural production and rural livelihoods, including livelihoods of women smallholder farmers. There are significant efforts underway to develop, deploy, and scale up Climate-Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices and technologies to facilitate climate change adaptation for farmers. However, there is a need for gender analysis of CSA practices across different farming and cultural systems to facilitate adoption by, and livelihood improvements for, women smallholder farmers. Climate change poses challenges for maintaining and improving agricultural and labor productivity of women smallholder farmers. The labor productivity of many women smallholders is constrained by lack of access to labor-saving technologies and the most basic of farm tools. Poorer smallholders face a poverty trap, due to low agricultural and labor productivity, from which they cannot easily escape without access to key resources such as rural energy and labor-saving technologies. In Malawi, the agricultural system is predominantly rainfed and largely composed of smallholders who remain vulnerable to climate change and variability shocks. Despite the aspirations of women smallholders to engage in CSA, our research highlights that many women smallholders have either limited or no access to basic agricultural tools, transport, and rural energy. This raises the question of whether the future livelihood scenarios for such farmers will consist of barely surviving or “hanging in”; or whether such farmers can “step up” to adapt better to future climate constraints; or whether more of these farmers will “step out” of agriculture. We argue that for women smallholder farmers to become more climate change resilient, more serious attention to gender analysis is needed to address their constraints in accessing basic agricultural technologies, combined with participatory approaches to develop and adapt CSA tools and technologies to their needs in future climates and agro-ecologies.

Full text

Article
Smallholder Farmers
and Climate
Smart Agriculture:
Technology and
Labor-productivity
Constraints amongst
Women Smallholders
in Malawi
Una Murray1
Zewdy Gebremedhin1
Galina Brychkova1
Charles Spillane1
Abstract
Climate change and variability present a major challenge to agricultural
production and rural livelihoods, including livelihoods of women small-
holder farmers. There are significant efforts underway to develop, deploy,
and scale up Climate-Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices and technologies
to facilitate climate change adaptation for farmers. However, there is a
need for gender analysis of CSA practices across different farming and
cultural systems to facilitate adoption by, and livelihood improvements
for, women smallholder farmers. Climate change poses challenges for
maintaining and improving agricultural and labor productivity of women
1 3D4AgDev Program, Plant & AgriBiosciences Research Centre (PABC), School of Natural
Sciences, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland.
Corresponding author:
Charles Spillane, 3D4AgDev Program, Plant & AgriBiosciences Research Centre (PABC),
School of Natural Sciences, Ofce ADB-2006, Aras de Brun, National University of Ireland
Galway, University Road, Galway H91 REW4, Ireland.
E-mail: charles.spillane@nuigalway.ie
Gender, Technology
and Development
20(2) 1–32
©2016 Asian Institute
of Technology
SAGE Publications
sagepub.in/home.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0971852416640639
http://gtd.sagepub.com
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
smallholder farmers. The labor productivity of many women smallhold-
ers is constrained by lack of access to labor-saving technologies and the
most basic of farm tools. Poorer smallholders face a poverty trap, due
to low agricultural and labor productivity, from which they cannot easily
escape without access to key resources such as rural energy and labor-
saving technologies. In Malawi, the agricultural system is predominantly
rainfed and largely composed of smallholders who remain vulnerable to
climate change and variability shocks. Despite the aspirations of women
smallholders to engage in CSA, our research highlights that many women
smallholders have either limited or no access to basic agricultural tools,
transport, and rural energy. This raises the question of whether the future
livelihood scenarios for such farmers will consist of barely surviving or
“hanging in”; or whether such farmers can “step up” to adapt better to
future climate constraints; or whether more of these farmers will “step
out” of agriculture. We argue that for women smallholder farmers to
become more climate change resilient, more serious attention to gender
analysis is needed to address their constraints in accessing basic agricul-
tural technologies, combined with participatory approaches to develop
and adapt CSA tools and technologies to their needs in future climates
and agro-ecologies.
Keywords
Climate change, women smallholders, labor productivity, participatory
technology design, agriculture, economic growth
Introduction
Climate change and increased climate variability are emerging chal-
lenges facing agriculture globally (Allen et al., 2014). While climate
change impacts on biophysical parameters affecting agriculture and food
production are increasingly well understood, the social and gendered
impacts of climate change and climate variability remain less well under-
stood (Ashby et al., 2012; Brody, Demetriades, & Esplen, 2008; Jost
et al., 2016). There are a multiplicity of efforts underway to climate-
proof agricultural production, including through efforts to transition to
more “climate-smart agriculture” systems (Lipper et al., 2014). For instance,
the The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD Africa)
Africa Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) Alliance has set a target of 25
million African farmers practicing Climate-Smart Agriculture by 2025.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 3
Climate-smart agriculture is defined by the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR’s) CCAFS program and
others as “agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, enhances
resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes greenhouse gases (mitigation),
and enhances achievement of national food security and development
goals” (FAO, 2010; Lipper et al., 2014).
According to FAO (2008), the livelihoods of approximately 2.5 billion
people are derived directly from agricultural production systems, either
in full- or part-time farming, or in farming households. Sub-Saharan
Africa’s rural economy is strongly rooted in agriculture as compared to
other regions (Livingstone, Schonberger, & Delaney, 2011). Agricultural
systems are largely based on smallholder farms which Wiggins and
Keats, (2013) defines as being of two hectares or less. Such smallholder
farms represent 80 percent of all farms in the sub-Saharan Africa, con-
tributing up to 90 percent of the production in some countries (Wiggins
and Keats, 2013). A large percentage of these smallholders are women
(Livingstone et al., 2011).1
Labor productivity can be defined as the agricultural output per unit
labor or the income generated per unit labor. The low labor productivity
of smallholder farmers perpetuates rural poverty due to: (a) lack of
surplus (income); (b) consistently high time burdens for cultivation and
post-harvest tasks; and (c) knock-on impacts on household health and
livelihoods. Smallholder women farmers face major labor productivity
constraints, particularly where they have limited access to labor-
productivity enhancing resources, technologies, or tools (Carrand &
Hartl, 2010; Sosovele, 2000).
Labor was identified as a key barrier to achieving equality in productiv-
ity across six countries profiled by the World Bank (O’Sullivan, Rao,
Banerjee, Gulati, & Vinez, 2014). Labor concerns revolved around
women’s own labor ability to produce outputs and the quantity and quality
of the additional labor women are able to access (i.e., hired or often their
own children). Insufficient labor, poor supervision of labor, and family
responsibilities are constraints for smallholder farmers. Women’s labor is
also constrained because of their unpaid work in the care economy, which
can vary over their life (e.g., prior to childbirth, childcare, or caring for the
elderly) (Peterman, Quisumbing, Behrman, & Nkonya, 2010).
Labor productivity of outdoor workers is expected to be negatively
affected by climate change effects such as global warming and increased
frequency of extreme (e.g., heat, floods, etc.) weather events (Kjellstrom,
Kovats, Lloyd, Holt, & Tol, 2009). Climate change will increase average
temperatures but also shift distributions of daily temperature and
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
humidity highs. Such changes will require adaptation by outdoor farm
workers to new working cycles, and is likely to have impacts on daily
time-use and seasonal labor productivity.
Even in the face of climate change challenges, it is expected that
smallholder farmers will continue to play a significant role in agricul-
ture, particularly in developing countries (Wiggins & Keats, 2015). Yet,
not all smallholders will remain in agriculture, particularly when faced
with adverse climate change impacts. Dorward (2009) describes three
main options for smallholders: “hanging in,” “stepping up,” or “stepping
out” of agriculture. “Stepping out” of agriculture into the non-farm econ-
omy may be a realistic option for smallholders in areas where climate
change is expected to adversely affect agricultural production. Rural
youth who do not view farming as a source of sustainable livelihoods are
also stepping out of agriculture and rural areas in large numbers (White,
2012). While climate change and climate variability are expected to have
an impact on rural-to-urban mobility patterns due to displacement, vol-
untary migration and/or planned relocation, it should be noted that cli-
mate and weather effects are one amongst the many drivers of
rural-to-urban migration (Brown, 2008).
The most marginalized smallholders are described as “hanging in,”
currently barely subsisting from agriculture (Dorward, 2009). Many
smallholder households using handheld agricultural tools with limited
farm energy and labor constraints fall in this category. Climate change
will likely aggravate the risk of food insecurity for such groups. “Stepping
up” in agriculture, is where smallholder farmers have better opportuni-
ties for agricultural intensification, and to become more engaged in mar-
kets. For many smallholders, the lack of options to step up (or step out)
of agriculture means that the agriculture sector will remain important for
improving food security and rural livelihoods (Diao, Hazell, & Thurlow,
2010; Lipton, 2012; Wiggins & Keats, 2015). In general, CSA practices
are being promoted to assist those men and women farmers whose aim is
to stay in agriculture.
For farmers who plan to remain in agriculture, gender roles have
impacts on both farming and livelihood systems (Quisumbing &
Pandolfelli, 2010). Women farmers in particular may not have the same
power as men farmers to make important decisions relating to chang-
ing agricultural practices. For example, in Malawi, policies and sub-
sidy programs encourage tobacco and maize growing where women
are the core source of labor. However, when it comes to income gen-
eration, the men sell the produce and make decisions concerning the
use of the income earned.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 5
Just as CSA practices may be climate-smart in one context but not in
another, similarly they may have different implications for gender roles
in different regions and cultural contexts. The resources, knowledge, and
capacity required to adopt a new CSA practice can be significant (World
Bank, FAO, & IFAD, 2015). In the scale-up and scale-out of CSA prac-
tices, gender roles, access to and control of productive assets and power
relations need to be factored into design, delivery, and diffusion of each
CSA practice so that barriers or opportunities for CSA adoption are bet-
ter understood. The promotion of CSA practices needs to be underpinned
by more rigorous gender and socioeconomic analysis of direct and indi-
rect effects on farmers’ livelihoods (Huyer, Twyman, Koningstein,
Ashby, & Vermeulen, 2015; Twyman et al., 2015).
In particular, gender analysis can shed light on decision-making relat-
ing to specific climate smart agricultural practices, including intra-
household bargaining and resource allocation (Doss, 2013; Doss &
Meinzen-Dick, 2015). For instance, different smallholders (e.g., men or
women-headed households, women in men-headed households) experi-
ence different constraints. While such analysis will take time and
resources, they are necessary to help avoid the promotion of CSA prac-
tices that may be environmentally positive but socioeconomically regres-
sive or maladaptive.
Gender is not the only factor influencing CSA practice adoption.
Quisumbing and Pandolfelli (2010) highlight that other socioeconomic
parameters, such as age, marital status, education level, and size of land-
holding can also affect agricultural technology adoption. Understanding
why some smallholder farmers are early adopters of CSA practices is
important. For instance, it is important to determine whether early adopters
are those smallholders who (a) have capital, (b) have a particular ability or
power to adopt, or (c) are motivated to change their existing practices.
It is important to ensure that the promotion of climate smart agricul-
tural practices, considered to deliver agro-environmental benefits, does
not directly or indirectly generate co-disadvantages that adversely affect
the workloads of rural women and children (Giller et al., 2015; Giller,
Witter, Corbeels, & Tittonell, 2009). For instance, conservation agricul-
ture may increase the burden of labor on women due to increase in weed-
ing responsibilities, while decreasing the burden of labor on men due to
reduction in tillage responsibilities (Kaczan, Arslan, & Lipper, 2013).
Different approaches to weed control (e.g., hand hoe weeding versus
herbicides) can have differential impacts on the labor and time-use bur-
den on women smallholder farmers (Nyamangara et al., 2014; Thierfelder,
Bunderson, & Mupangwa, 2015).
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
A key challenge relates to how to sustain CSA practices that are
based on initial project supports to smallholders, or subsidies that
may not reach women farmers. The promotion of planting basins in
conservation agriculture programs was found to increase labor
demand, yet had no major impact on crop yields, suggestive of a
practice that may be unsustainable once project support has finished
(Rusinamhodzi, 2015).
For CSA practices to be adopted at scale, women smallholders must
have access to relevant inputs and tools (World Bank, FAO, & IFAD,
2015). Yet, women farmers continue to experience barriers to the adop-
tion of new labor-productivity enhancing technologies and practices or
CSA practices (Denton, 2002; Sims & Kienzle, 2006a; Sims, Bhatti,
Mkomwa, & Kienzle, 2012; UN-Women, 2015). A key question which
this article explores is whether women smallholder farmers in Malawi
are currently in a position to adopt CSA practices at scale based on cur-
rent rural energy and technology access levels.
Methodology
The research data in this article is derived from ongoing fieldwork in the
3D4AgDev project in Malawi, which is a participatory technology devel-
opment project to develop labor saving tools and technologies with
women smallholders. For this article, a systematic review of academic
and development literature was conducted on gender, climate change,
and labor productivity with a focus on women smallholder farmers.
Identification of articles was based on keyword searches. The field
research was undertaken through survey questions and focus group
discussions between February and March, 2014 in two areas (i.e.,
Nkhamenya and Kabudula) in Malawi with 1,592 women smallholder
farmers to determine their current level of access to labor productivity
enhancing tools and technologies, rural energy, and other livelihood
assets. The Kabudula Traditional Authority is in Lilongwe district,
while the Nkhamenya Traditional Authority falls in Kasungu district.
A subset of the 1,592 farmers provided more in-depth information on
labor and productivity constraints, including their access to agricul-
tural technologies. Focus group discussions were undertaken with
groups of up to 12 women, while research to document a 24-hour recall
of time use using activity clocks was also undertaken. Qualitative
research followed guidelines for conducting such research (Bryman, 2015;
Fraser & Restrepo-Estrada, 1998)
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 7
Results and Discussion
Vulnerability of Smallholder Farmers in Malawi to Climate
Change and Adverse Weather Events
In Malawi, agriculture accounts for over 30 percent of the country’s
gross domestic product (GDP) and employs about 85 percent of the labor
force (Mwanakatwe & Kebedew, 2015). Approximately 85 percent of
Malawians live in the rural areas and are involved in subsistence farm-
ing. Maize is the major staple crop in Malawi, while cash crops such as
tobacco (i.e., the major crop for foreign exchange earnings) are also of
major importance (World Bank, 2015). Whilst the 2008 census data
indicates a total population of 13 million people (National Statistics
Office, 2008), as of 2015, the population is estimated at over 16 million
(World Bank, 2015). Malawi is classified by the United Nations as a
Least Developed Country (LDC), with 54.2 percent of its population
classified as poor according to the 2009 SADC Gender Protocol
Barometer Baseline Survey (Ngeyi & Pasipau, 2009).
The 2007 United Nations Human Development Report has rated
Malawi as one of the most vulnerable countries in sub-Saharan Africa
to deleterious impacts of climate change (Malawi Government, 2015).
FAO (2012) considers that due to climate change, population growth,
urbanization, and environmental degradation, the frequency and inten-
sity of disasters has been largely increasing in Malawi, mostly affect-
ing rural households. The FAO states that prolonged mid-season dry
spells, flooding along river basins and poor rainfall distribution are
some of the challenges faced by farmers and the agriculture sector in
Malawi (FAO, 2012).
The smallholder farming sector and associated rural livelihoods in
Malawi are vulnerable to both climate variability and climate change
impacts. For instance, our analysis using the EM DAT disaster-monitoring
database indicates that Malawi is subject on a recurring basis to livelihood
shocks arising from extremes that are climatological (e.g., drought), hydro-
logical (e.g., floods) and/or meteorological (e.g., storms) (Table 1). While
such extreme events are responsible for deaths, such events also lead to
major disruption of livelihoods and economic losses. For instance, the
EM-DAT disaster-monitoring database indicates economic losses of USD
24 million from the 1991 floods in Malawi (Table 1).
Economic analysis suggested that the impacts of droughts can be
more severe than those of floods (Pauw, Thurlow, & van Seventer, 2010).
As many floods are localized, their economic effects are estimated to be
less severe than droughts.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Table 1. Livelihood Shocks in Malawi Due to Extreme Natural Events
(1990–2015)
Disaster
Subgroup
Disaster
Type Year
No. of
Occurrences
Total
Deaths
No. of People
Affected
Climatological Drought 1990 10 2,800,000
Climatological Drought 1992 10 7,000,000
Climatological Drought 2002 1500 2,829,435
Climatological Drought 2005 10 5,100,000
Climatological Drought 2007 10 520,000
Climatological Drought 2012 10 1,900,000
Hydrological Flood 1991 1 472 150,000
Hydrological Flood 1995 2 11,300
Hydrological Flood 1997 10 400,000
Hydrological Flood 1998 1 4 15,000
Hydrological Flood 1999 1 0 2,000
Hydrological Flood 2000 10 20,000
Hydrological Flood 2001 2 59 508,750
Hydrological Flood 2002 2 9396,340
Hydrological Flood 2003 2 12 19,500
Hydrological Flood 2005 1 1 44,500
Hydrological Flood 2006 2 8 16,000
Hydrological Flood 2007 42 201,965
Hydrological Flood 2008 10 16,380
Hydrological Flood 2010 10 21,290
Hydrological Flood 2011 3483,587
Hydrological Flood 2012 2 490,735
Hydrological Flood 2013 1 3 33,000
Hydrological Flood 2014 10 44,850
Hydrological Flood 2015 1276 638,645
Meteorological Storm 2005 1 11 8
Meteorological Storm 2012 10 6,000
Meteorological Storm 2015 15 350
Source: Data derived from EM-DAT International Disaster Database (www.emdat.be).
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 9
During 2014 and 2015, Malawi experienced floods and droughts that
reduced crop production. Indeed, economic growth during 2015 was
projected to slow down to 5.5 percent following the late arrival of
rains and severe flooding which damaged crops and infrastructure
(Mwanakatwe & Kebedew, 2015). The 2015 floods affected 15 out of 28
districts in Malawi, affecting over 1.1 million people. Over 230,000 peo-
ple were displaced, while 176 were killed and 172 were reported miss-
ing. The estimated cost of losses and damages incurred by Malawi floods
was USD 335 million, with recovery and reconstruction costs of USD
494 million (Malawi Government, 2015).
The change in timing of rains as well as the frequency of rainfall has
negatively affected Malawian labor productivity for on-farm activities.
In recent years, farmers are perceiving fewer and later onset of heavy
rains with flooding in some key agri-production areas (Coulibaly,
Gbetibouo, Kundhlande, Sileshi, & Beedy, 2015). Some areas are expe-
riencing droughts on a persistent basis and this is expected to worsen in
the coming years (Kambauwa, Mlamba, Delgado, & Kabambe, 2015).
The Malawi Agricultural Sector-Wide Approach 2011–2015 stated that
climate change effects, droughts, and floods were the major climatic
hazards affecting crop production (Malawi Government, 2011).
The Promotion of Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practices
amongst Smallholders in Malawi
Efforts are underway through government, non-governmental organiza-
tions, bilateral donor, and research institutions to enhance the resilience of
smallholder farming systems in the face of climate change and climate
variability shocks, particularly in the rainfed agriculture sector where pro-
ductivity is lowest. Such efforts include promotion of greater access to
CSA practices (e.g., conservation agriculture, drought tolerant crop varie-
ties and agro-forestry systems). For instance, the Malawian government’s
Greenbelt Initiative aims to increase the level of irrigation in farming as a
key national adaptation measure (Malawi Government, 2015).
The Malawi Agricultural Sector-Wide Approach (2011–2015) pro-
moted conservation farming technologies that build soil fertility, prevent
soil erosion, and conserve rain water (e.g., contour ridging, application
of manure, preparation of compost, minimum tillage, agro-forestry, box
ridges, tractor ploughing to break the hard hoe pan, and use of herbicides
as a labor saving technology) (Malawi Government, 2011). The next
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Sector-Wide Approach aims to increase agricultural productivity by
additionally recognizing gender roles and responsibilities.
The Malawian government’s Intended Nationally Determined Contri-
butions (INDC) 2015 Report submitted to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC’s) COP21 provides a roadmap
for climate change adaptation and mitigation activities in Malawi (Malawi
Government, 2015). Due to the low level of industrial economic activity
in Malawi, national greenhouse gas emissions are low (i.e., amounting to
0.04 percent of the total global emissions in 2015). The Malawian INDC
emphasizes that “vulnerability and adaptation assessments have shown
that most of Malawi’s socioeconomic sectors are prone to negative
impacts of climate change.” Malawi’s INDC further identifies gender
as a cross-cutting issue to be mainstreamed across all sectors, and
highlights that
[v]ulnerable and disadvantaged groups carry the burden of the impacts of
climate change. Women and girls are particularly impacted, as they have to
walk further in search of basic commodities for the family such as rewood
and water. Yet, women may not have the authority to decide on alternative
and climate-resilient solutions for the household. The adaptation interven-
tions proposed in this INDC are meant to enhance gender inclusiveness in the
adaptation programs and projects.
Climate change adaptation is a higher priority than mitigation for men
and women smallholder farmers in Malawi. Our research in this article
focuses specifically on women smallholder farmers in Malawi, and how
well they are equipped to adopt CSA practices.
Women Smallholders in Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas
of Malawi Have Limited Decision-making Power Over Land
The agricultural productivity (i.e., yields or financial returns per hectare)
of women farmers is often lower than that of men farmers (Croppenstedt,
Goldstein, & Rosas, 2013). In an analysis of six countries (Ethiopia,
Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda), the World Bank (2014)
highlighted that women farmers consistently produce less, in monetary
terms, per hectare than their men counterparts. The gender-related pro-
ductivity gap between men and women farmers has been estimated at
25 percent in Malawi (O’Sullivan et al., 2014). A United Nations/World
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 11
Bank study in three countries estimated that closing the gender gap in
agricultural productivity in Malawi could increase crop production by
7.3 percent, generating a USD 100 million increase in GDP and a USD
90 million increase in agricultural GDP. Closing the gender gap in agri-
cultural productivity in Malawi could potentially lift 238,000 people out
of poverty (UN-Women, UNDP, UNEP, World-Bank, 2015).
Women’s labor productivity can be negatively affected if they have
no control over the land or resources they need to farm (Meinzen-Dick
et al., 2011). Analysis of the Malawi Integrated Household Surveys indi-
cates that female ownership of land improves productivity only in women-
headed households (Dimova & Gang, 2013). While owning land
promotes female decision-making in cash crops, this is only if the woman
is also head of the household. According to their analysis, if a house-
hold is male-headed and a woman owns the land, the man spouse has
less incentive to use the land efficiently. In the Nkhamenya and Kabudula
areas of Malawi, our focus group discussions with 187 women smallholder
indicate that men typically own land, and that women smallholders have
limited decision-making capacity and little control over the land they use.
Rural Women and Girls are Engaged in More Tasks Than Men
and Boys in Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas of Malawi
Labor productivity is closely linked to the division of tasks and duties in
households. Gender analysis can help identify who is currently involved
in which tasks, and whether this is likely to change under possible climate
change, rural livelihood, or agriculture sector scenarios (Chaudhury,
Vervoort, Kristjanson, Ericksen, & Ainslie, 2013; Collier & Dercon,
2014). Our field research in Nkhamenya and Kabudula in Malawi high-
lights the gender role division of labor in the communities of the women
smallholders (Table 2). For instance, in rural Malawi caring for children
and food crops is typically the woman’s task, while production of the
tobacco crop is considered a task of both men and women. Selling cash
crops is predominantly men’s task, even when processing is done by all
household members (men, women, boys, and girls). Gender divisions of
labor also relate to children (Murray, 2013). For instance, in Malawi our
research indicates that girls typically assist in household tasks and food
production, while boys assist in construction.
The analysis in Table 2 suggests that women and girls may have
greater workloads than boys and men. Focus group discussions indicated
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Table 2. Gender Division of Labor in Communities in Nkhamenya and
Kabudula Areas of Malawi for Rural Livelihood Activities
Rural Livelihood Activity Men Women Girls Boys
Growing crops for home consumption ü ü
Growing crops for commercial purposes ü ü ü ü
Selling cash crops ü
Post-harvest processing of cash crops ü ü ü ü
Post-harvest processing of crops for home
consumption
ü ü
Care of small livestock (e.g., chicken, pigs) ü ü ü
Care and sale of cattle and goats ü
Preparing and managing irrigation land ü ü
Building houses, sheds, and granaries ü ü
Collecting water for home use and
Construction needs
ü ü
Collecting firewood ü ü
Cooking ü ü
Cleaning household and compound ü ü
Preparing baths for household ü ü
Taking care of children ü ü
Washing clothes and kitchen utensils ü ü
Tool production and/or maintenance ü
Income generating activities (e.g., piece
work, small businesses)
ü ü
Source: Data collected from men and women participants in communities in Nkhamenya
and Kabudula (n = 374, 50 percent women and 50 percent men) during activity
clock and focus group sessions.
that women typically spend 8 to 10 hours a day on agricultural tasks
alone, with an additional 5 to 6 hours of housework and other non-
agricultural tasks to complete in a given day.
Our research indicates that collecting firewood is predominately a
task of the women. Indeed, rural fuelwood for energy (e.g., cooking) is
a key area where co-benefits on human health and climate change miti-
gation can likely be achieved (Hofstad, Köhlin, & Namaalwa, 2009).
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 13
The unsustainable use of fuelwood and charcoal, as 97 percent of
Malawians rely on biomass energy for cooking fuel, combined with poor
agricultural practices is considered to be driving a high rate of deforesta-
tion and forest degradation in Malawi (Malawi Government, 2015).
Clean energy sources for rural livelihoods are needed in conjunction
with sustainable forest management practices to limit deforestation and
forest degradation (Malawi Government, 2015).
In some instances, gender divisions are not strict and can change
according to circumstances. In the Nkhamenya and Kabudula rural
communities, women can assist men in tasks that the rural communities
consider as predominantly meant for men, such as collecting water for
building sheds and granaries, transporting agricultural produce, and post-
harvest processing of tobacco. Our research indicates that in the rural com-
munities of Nkhamenya and Kabudula, men do not participate in
predominantly female activities like taking care of children and the
household, and planting staple food crops like maize, beans, soya, and
groundnuts. Rural women in these areas indicated that men take care of
children only when women are sick. This suggests that when gender
roles change over time, gender role swapping may not be the norm.
Instead gender role changes can be asymmetric, resulting in increased
labor burden for women.
Relieving time constraints can lead to significant improvements in
women farmers’ well-being and livelihoods. For instance, it can improve
the nutritional status of the household, specifically for women and chil-
dren, because women can spend more time on food preparation and feed-
ing and may use less energy in completing their responsibilities. Women
can also potentially use the available time for income-generating activi-
ties, including small retail businesses or engaging in value addition activ-
ities, such as processing and marketing their own produce. The majority of
women smallholder farmers involved in our focus group discussions in
Malawi confirmed their interest and willingness to start new businesses, if
their time could be freed up and they had adequate support.
Women Smallholders of All Ages in Malawi Have Extremely
Limited Access to Even the Most Basic of Irrigation Technologies
Irrigation technologies are one climate-smart agricultural practice that
are considered important for the climate resilience of smallholder farmers
(Burney & Naylor, 2012). Surface and sub-surface irrigation practices
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
can range from low technology approaches involving watering cans and
water diversion to higher technology sprinkler and precision irrigation
systems. In Malawi, many organizations are promoting smallholder
irrigation. Only a small number of studies have examined differentiated
adoption dynamics and dissemination approaches between men and
women. For instance, a study on the adoption of treadle pumps in
Malawi found that women smallholder adopters are more likely to
pay for subsidized treadle pumps in cash, whereas men smallholder
adopters mostly obtain a loan (Kamwamba-Mtethiwa, Namara, De
Fraiture, Mangisoni, & Owusu, 2012). Such findings may indicate
that women have less access to financing than men in relation to irri-
gation technology access.
To determine the extent and nature of irrigation practices, we sur-
veyed 1,589 smallholder women farmers in Nkhamenya and Kabudula
areas of Malawi. This revealed that less than half (i.e., 45 percent) of the
1,589 smallholder women farmers used irrigation methods during the
dry season (Table 3). Further examination of these responses revealed
that the vast majority of farmers claiming to use irrigation methods were
using only the most basic of irrigation methods (i.e., watering can), and
more advanced irrigation methods (e.g., treadle pumps, drip irrigation,
etc.) were rarely being used. Out of 223 respondents who indicated the
mode of irrigation that they used, 211 indicated they used a watering can,
while 6 used channel pump irrigation, 1 used a treadle pump, and 1 used
a solar powered pump.
We also investigated whether younger women smallholders were
more likely to employ any form of irrigation methods during the dry
season in both areas as compared to older women (Table 4). The results
indicate that there is no major difference in the proportion of women
Table 3. Irrigation Methods Used by Women Smallholders in Malawi in the
Dry Season (Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Marital
Status
Do Not Use Irrigation
Methods (Dry Season)
Use Irrigation
Methods (Dry Season)
Number of
Respondents
Married 792
54.36%
665
45.64%
1,457
Single 81
61.36%
51
38.64%
132
Total 873 716 1,589
Source: Author’s own.
Note: Dry season is between April and October.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 15
smallholders using or not using irrigation methods across different age
groups. This suggests that women smallholders of all ages are equally
constrained from adopting irrigation technologies, and only the most
basic of irrigation technologies (i.e., watering can) are employed by
women smallholders, irrespective of age.
We also investigated whether the household size of different women
smallholders was associated with the extent of irrigation use in the dry
season (Table 5). The survey results indicated little or no difference in
irrigation methods used across different household sizes.
Overall, our results indicate that the women smallholders in these two
districts either had no access to irrigation techniques or had extremely
limited access to the most basic of irrigation technologies. This raises
significant questions regarding whether women smallholder farmers are
currently in any position to adopt irrigation related CSA practices to
mitigate the climate change impacts.
Table 4. Extent of Use of Irrigation Methods in the Dry Season by Different
Age Groups of Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and Kabudula
Areas)
Women
Smallholder
Age Cohort
Do Not Use
Irrigation Methods
(Dry Season)
Use Irrigation
Methods
(Dry Season)
Number of
Respondents
16–25 120
50.63%
117
49.37%
237
26–30 146
53.48%
127
46.52%
273
31–35 124
51.24%
118
48.76%
242
36–40 134
59.56%
91
40.44%
225
41–45 83
50.30%
82
49.70%
165
46–55 139
54.30%
117
45.70%
256
56–94 128
65.98%
66
34.02%
194
Total 874 718 1,592
Source: Author’s own.
Note: Dry season is between April and October.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Despite the FISP, the Majority of Women Smallholders
in Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas of Malawi Do Not Use
Inorganic Fertilizers
A key aim of the Malawi Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP) has
been to increase the smallholder farmer’s access to fertilizers, although
the efficiency and impact of the fertilizer subsidy program on income
and cropland allocation has been debated (Chibwana, Fisher, & Shively,
2012; Chibwana, Fisher, Jumbe, Masters, & Shively, 2010; Denning et al.,
2009; Dorward & Chirwa, 2010; Jayne & Rashid, 2013). Dimova and
Gang (2013) have highlighted that in Malawi, the receipt of coupons for
the purchase of seeds or fertilizer for maize had a significant efficiency-
improving effect on men-headed households and an insignificant effect
on women-headed households. If coupons are directed at poorer women-
headed households, bartering may take place to alleviate immediate
consumption constraints. Fisher and Kandiwa (2014) indicated that the
FISP has narrowed the gender gap in relation to modern maize cultiva-
tion practices in Malawi.
We investigated the extent of use of fertilizer or manure by women
smallholders in the Nkhamenya and Kabudula areas and found that 79.5
percent of women surveyed used fertilizer or manure (Table 6). Our
results indicate that while married women were more likely than single
women to use fertilizer or manure (Table 6), there were no differences by
Table 5. Extent of Use of Irrigation Methods in the Dry Season by Different
Household Sizes for Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and
Kabudula Areas)
Household
Size of Women
Smallholder
Do Not Use
Irrigation Methods
(Dry Season)
Use Irrigation
Methods
(Dry Season)
Number of
Respondents
Up to 5 persons 403
56.21%
314
43.79%
717
6 to 7 persons 306
54.55%
255
45.45%
561
8 to 18 persons 165
52.55%
149
47.45%
314
Total 874 718 1,592
Source: Author’s own.
Note: Dry season is between April and October.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 17
Table 6. Use of Fertilizer or Manure by Women Smallholders in Malawi
(Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Marital
Status
No, Does Not Use
Fertilizer or Manure
Yes, Uses Fertilizer
or Manure
Number of
Respondents
Married 191
13.31%
1,240
86.41%
1,435
Single 40
32%
84
67.20%
125
Total 231 1,324 1,560
Source: Author’s own.
Table 7. Extent of Use of Fertilizer or Manure by Different Age Cohorts of
Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Women
Smallholder
Age Cohort
No, Does Not
Use Fertilizer
or Manure
Yes, Uses
Fertilizer or
Manure
Number of
Respondents
16–25 39
16.81%
191
82.33%
232
26–30 38
14.13%
231
85.87%
269
31–35 43
18.53%
188
81.03%
232
36–40 32
14.16%
194
85.84%
226
41–45 23
14.20%
139
85.80%
162
46–55 31
12.65%
212
86.53%
245
56–94 25
13.44%
161
86.56%
186
Total 231 1316 1,552
Source: Author’s own.
age in relation to the use of fertilizer or manure (Table 7). In addition, our
data indicate that use of fertilizer or manure by women smallholders in
the survey areas does not substantially differ according to the household
size (Table 8).
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
While our results indicate that the majority of women smallholders in
these two areas used either inorganic fertilizers or farmyard manure,
further investigation of the types of manure used among 990 respondents
revealed that the majority (i.e., 81.62 percent or 808 of 990 respondents)
of women farmers are using farmyard manure. Despite the presence of
the FISP in Malawi, our research indicates that only 12.63 percent (125
of 990) of women smallholders in Nkhamenya and Kabudula areas were
using inorganic fertilizers. Furthermore, only a fraction of the 990 women
smallholders were using green manure/crop residues (i.e., 4.95 percent
or 49 of 990 respondents) or compost (0.81 percent or 8 of 990 respond-
ents), which are promoted as climate-smart agricultural practices (Sakala,
Kumwenda, & Saka, 2003). This suggests that women smallholders in
these areas are badly positioned in relation to adoption of climate-smart
agriculture practices promoted through initiatives such as the Africa CSA
Alliance.
Women Smallholders in the Nkhamenya and Kabudula
Areas of Malawi Remain Highly Dependent on the Low-labor
Productivity Hand Held Hoe
The labor constraints facing women smallholder farmers arise from a
range of reasons, including poverty; low levels of education and aware-
ness of the importance of improved agricultural tools; use of poorly
Table 8. Extent of Use of Fertilizer or Manure by Different Household Sizes
for Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Household
Size of Women
Smallholder
No, Does Not
Use Fertilizer
or Manure
Yes, Use
Fertilizer
or Manure
Number of
Respondents
Up to 5 persons 63
14.69%
364
84.85%
429
6 to 7 persons 122
14.81%
699
84.83%
824
8 to 18 persons 46
14.98%
261
85.02%
307
Total 231 1,324 1,560
Source: Author’s own.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 19
manufactured tools; cultural perceptions limiting the adoption of tools
and implements; lack of linkages with local toolmakers; and inade-
quate market research by tool producers, particularly in relation to
tools used by women smallholders with limited purchasing power
(Tripathi et al., 2012).
Agricultural tools will be important for adopting and adapting new
CSA practices to respond to climate change. For instance, Bernier et al.
(2013) highlights that a key constraint for women’s tree planting lies in
digging holes, where women may lack access to the necessary agri-
tools as well as the labor required to dig the larger holes needed to
ensure better tree survival. This makes it difficult for women to fence
and protect investments in trees and adapt agro-forestry climate-smart
practices.
In line with other research, (Kienzle, Ashburner, & Sims, 2013;
Kienzle & Sims, 2014; Sims & Kienzle, 2006b), our research in the
Nkhamenya and Kabudula areas indicates that most of the 1,600 women
smallholders surveyed have limited access to farm energy, mechanization
and the most basic of agricultural and agri-processing tools. The major-
ity of these smallholders are using very basic labor-intensive agricultural
hand tools for onerous tasks, such as weeding, planting, harvesting, and
crop/food processing. With minimal access to alternative energy sources
(i.e., draught animals or mechanized farm equipment), these smallholders
remain largely dependent on human labor for transport, cultivation, and
agri-processing.
It is argued that access to energy and agricultural tools in rural areas
can directly increase agricultural productivity for women smallholder
farmers (Adkins, Oppelstrup, & Modi, 2012; Deichmann, Meisner,
Murray, & Wheeler, 2011; UNDP, 2004). However, for many smallhold-
ers not much has changed in the past decades. A 1997 review of available
tools indicated that the hoe was the most commonly used tool in Sub-
Saharan, Southern, and West Africa (IFAD, 1997). Our 2015 survey of
smallholder farmers in the Nkhamenya and Kabudula areas indicates
that the majority of women smallholder farmers only have access to the
traditional hoe for all core farming activities in cultivation and harvest-
ing. The core hand tool used by the women farmers surveyed is the hand
hoe, used for all land clearing, ridging, planting, and weeding activities.
Where the hoe does not work, the women rely on other small tools or
their hands and legs for planting and weeding. These alternatives are
labor intensive, inefficient, and time-consuming, in addition to causing
adverse physical effects.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Women Smallholders Face Major Constraints in Access to
Draught Animals in the Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas of
Malawi
The majority of smallholder farming communities in the Sub-Saharan
Africa experience significant “energy poverty” (Szabó, Bódis, Huld, &
Moner-Girona, 2013). For instance, 85 percent of Malawi’s 15 million
population lives in rural areas, of which only 1 percent has access to
electricity. Both human and animal power continue to constitute signifi-
cant sources of rural energy in many developing countries (Fuller & Aye,
2012). After biomass (e.g., fuel wood), these remain the most important
energy sources for many rural populations. While there is much empha-
sis on renewable energy, including in the context of global goals for
“sustainable energy for all” (Rogelj et al., 2013), it is important to recog-
nize that the percentage of energy contributed by human and animal
power is estimated at twice that of wind power and 13 percent of hydro
power, the largest renewable energy sources (Fuller & Aye, 2012).
While substitution of human labor (especially where associated with
drudgery) with alternative on-farm energy sources and systems (e.g.,
draught animals, mechanization) is desirable for the rural millions in
poverty, the reality is that such substitution pathways are not being built
at the pace and scale that is needed (Baudron et al., 2015). Hence, there are
compelling arguments for improving the efficiency of hand, foot, and
animal-powered equipment and tools for women smallholders. While
animal traction is often posited as a possible source of farm energy for
smallholders, there are significant gender issues associated with women
smallholders gaining access to animal traction. Doss has highlighted the
need for greater emphasis on how women and men access mechanization
(Doss, 2001). Indeed, even when animal power is used by women small-
holders, they tend to own fewer draught animals (which are a relatively
large capital investment). In addition, ploughing with draught animals in
many cultures is considered a male task, although there are instances
when women do use draught animals for ploughing (Doss, 2001).
We investigated the extent of access to draught animals by women
smallholders in the Nkhamenya and Kabudula areas and found that
16.3 percent of the women smallholders had access to a draught animal
(Table 9), with no consistent or major differences observed across age
(Table 10) or household size (Table 11).
Overall, our survey indicates that the majority of women smallhold-
ers in the areas surveyed do not have access to a draught animal. Further
investigation of the social networks of the women smallholders was
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 21
Table 9. Access to a Draught Animal among Women Smallholders in Malawi
(Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Marital
Status
No Access to a
Draught Animal
Access to a
Draught Animal
Number of
Respondents
Married 1,211
83.17%
244
16.76%
1,456
Single 116
88.55%
15
11.45%
131
Total 1,327 259 1,587
Source: Author’s own.
Table 10. Access to a Draught Animal among Different Age Groups
of Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Women Smallholder
Age Cohort
No Access to a
Draught Animal
Access to a
Draught Animal
Number of
Respondents
16–25 211
89.03%
26
10.97%
237
26–30 222
81.62%
50
18.38%
272
31–35 205
84.71%
37
15.29%
242
36–40 192
85.71%
31
13.84%
224
41–45 132
80.00%
33
20.00%
165
46–55 212
82.81%
44
17.19%
256
56–94 156
80.41%
38
19.59%
194
Total 1,330 259 1,590
Source: Author’s own.
conducted to assess whether they know anyone in their community
who owns draught animals and/or farm machinery. Out of the 145
women smallholders who provided answers to this question, 106 (i.e.,
73 percent) knew someone who owned a tractor, while 24 (i.e., 16.6
percent) knew someone who owned an ox cart and 14 (i.e., 9.7 percent)
knew someone who owned a plough. This suggests that while there
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
may be at least one tractor, ox cart or plough in their community, there
are significant barriers for women to access labor-productivity enhanc-
ing technologies.
Women Smallholders in the Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas
of Malawi Have Limited Access to Mechanized Rural Transport
Women and girls in rural areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, including rural
Malawi, commonly face mobility challenges because of patriarchy. In
addition to poor roads and inadequate transport, Porter (2011) has high-
lighted how attitudes about women’s mobility limits their access to mar-
kets, education, and health services (Porter, 2011). Despite the Malawi
National Transport Policy, our research indicates that women smallholders
in Nkhamenya and Kabudula areas have limited access to rural public
transport with only two women out of 1,589 women reporting that public
transportation is their main transport source for daily activities (Table 12).
The vast majority (i.e., 83.8 percent) of women smallholders surveyed
consider walking as their main transportation mode for daily activities,
with 13 percent considering cycling as their main form of transportation
(Table 12). A small percentage (i.e., 3 percent) of married women cited a
motorcycle as their main source of transport (Table 12). In general, the
proportion of women using different forms of transport do not differ sub-
stantially across age (Table 13) and household size (Table 14), indicating
that access to mechanized transport is constrained across all ages and
household sizes of women smallholders.
Table 11. Access to a Draught Animal by Different Household Sizes for
Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Household Size of
Women Smallholder
No Access to a
Draught Animal
Access to a
Draught Animal
Number of
Respondents
Up to 5 persons 608
84.92%
107
14.94%
716
6 to 7 persons 466
83.07%
95
16.93%
561
8 to 18 persons 256
81.79%
57
18.21%
313
Total 1,330 259 1,590
Source: Author’s own.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 23
Table 12. Transportation Sources for Daily Activities of Women
Smallholders in Nkhamenya and Kabudula Regions of Malawi
Marital
Status Bicycle Motorcycle
Public
Transport Walking
Number of
Respondents
Married 194
13.32%
49
3.36%
2
0.14%
1,212
83.18%
1,457
Single 13
9.85%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
119
90.15%
132
Total 207 49 21,331 1,589
Source: Author’s own.
Table 13. Transportation Sources for Daily Activities among Different Age
Groups of Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Women
Smallholder
Age Cohort Bicycle Motorcycle
Public
Transport Walking
Number of
Respondents
16–25 31
13.08%
8
3.38%
0
0.00%
198
83.54%
237
26–30 58
21.25%
8
2.93%
0
0.00%
207
75.82%
273
31–35 36
14.88%
12
4.96%
0
0.00%
194
80.17%
242
36–40 27
12.00%
9
4.00%
0
0.00%
189
84.00%
225
41–45 25
15.15%
7
4.24%
1
0.61%
132
80.00%
165
46–55 13
5.08%
7
2.73%
0
0.00%
236
92.19%
256
56–94 17
8.76
0
0.00%
1
0.52%
176
90.72%
194
Total 207 51 2 1,332 1,592
Source: Author’s own.
Conclusions
At present, women smallholder farmers in Nkhamenya and Kabudula
have extremely limited access to rural energy and labor-productivity
enhancing innovations. Routes out of poverty for smallholder rural
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
communities will require a swathe of innovations to improve labor pro-
ductivity in agricultural systems, as well as to generate income (Chand,
Prasanna, & Singh, 2011). A key challenge is how to enable smallholders
to increase their income and agricultural production, while at the same
time reducing the labor burden on women and children.
While ambitions to encourage smallholders (including women small-
holders) to adopt climate-smart agricultural practices at scale are laudable,
our research indicates that women smallholders in the Nkhamenya and
Kabudula areas of Malawi have extremely limited access to agricultural
productivity-enhancing inputs and resources. Women farmers not only
lack capital but also many resources such as animal power, irrigation, and
credit. Even if they are motivated to adopt CSA practices, they may not
have the decision-making power to embrace such practices. This poses
major challenges for women smallholders to adopt climate-smart practices
currently being promoted (e.g., by the Africa CSA Alliance) in Malawi.
Our research raises the question of whether (and how) such smallholder
farmers can be reached by CSA practices for climate change adaptation,
and whether (and how) such CSA practices will be developed and locally
adapted to meet the needs of women smallholders.
If CSA practices, particularly novel or unfamiliar ones, are expected to
be adopted by women smallholder farmers, there are significant knowledge,
technology, energy, and capacity building gaps that must be bridged before
adoption can be considered by women farmers. In situations where they
have limited access to extension, financing, and other support services for
adoption of new agricultural productivity-enhancing options, the likelihood
Table 14. Transportation Sources for Daily Activities by Different Household
Sizes for Women Smallholders in Malawi (Nkhamenya and Kabudula Areas)
Household
Size of Women
Smallholder Bicycle Motorcycle
Public
Transport Walking
Number of
Respondents
Up to 5 persons 105
14.64%
21
2.93%
1
0.14%
590
82.29%
717
6 to 7 persons 72
12.83%
16
2.85%
0
0.00%
473
84.31%
561
8 to 18 persons 30
9.55%
14
4.46%
1
0.32%
269
85.67%
314
Total 207 51 2 1,332 1,592
Source: Author’s own.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 25
of CSA adoption may remain low. We consider that participatory technology
development and adaptation approaches are needed to increase the extent
of access and utility of CSA practices to women smallholder farmers
(Ashby & Sperling, 1995; Gupta, 2013). An analysis of the current situation
of men and women farmers (i.e., their current roles, access to resources
and technologies, and their decision-making power) is necessary, so that
both women and men farmers can better identify the challenges and
opportunities they face in relation to climate change adaptation.
As the effects of climate change intensify, rural and urban “Green
Economy” markets is likely to expand for products and services that sup-
port climate resilience (Nhamo, 2013). From a climate justice perspec-
tive (Jafry, 2012), it is critical that the poor and women are not
marginalized in green growth and sustainable energy pathways due to
the general failure to integrate development with environmental goals
(Abdallah, Bressers, & Clancy, 2015; Resnick, Tarp, & Thurlow, 2012).
Acknowledgments
The authors from the 3D4AgDev program at the National University of Ireland,
Galway are grateful for nancial support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
(BMGF) Grand Challenges Phase I Program, from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, and from the CGIAR Research
Program (CRP) on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS)
led by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Research work
in Malawi was conducted in partnership with CIAT and Concern Malawi under
a research agreement with the National University of Ireland, Galway. We are
extremely grateful for the logistical and project support offered by partners at CIAT
Malawi, Concern Worldwide in Malawi, Catholic Relief Services, and the Mzuzu
Catholic Development Commission in Malawi (CADECOM) services.
Note
1. Agriculture remains the largest sector for women’s employment in Oceania,
Southern Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, with approximately 60 percent of
women employed in this sector (ILO, 2013).
References
Abdallah, S.M., Bressers, H., & Clancy, J.S. (2015). Energy reforms in the
developing world: Sustainable development compromised? International
Journal of Sustainable Energy Planning and Management, 5, 41–56.
Adkins, E., Oppelstrup, K., & Modi, V. (2012). Rural household energy
consumption in the millennium villages in sub-Saharan Africa. Energy for
Sustainable Development, 16(3), 249–259.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Allen, M.R., Barros, V.R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., Church, J.A.,
Clarke, L., Dahe, Q., Dasgupta, P& Dubash, N.K. (2014). IPCC fifth
assessment synthesis report-climate change 2014 synthesis report. Geneva:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Ashby, J., Kristjanson, P., Thornton, P., Campbell, B., Vermeulen, S., &
Wollenberg, E. (2012). CCAFS gender strategy (Report No.). Copenhagen,
Denmark: CGIAR research program on Climate Change, Agriculture and
Food Security (CCAFS).
Ashby, J.A., & Sperling, L. (1995). Institutionalizing participatory, client driven
research and technology development in agriculture. Development and
Change, 26(4), 753–770.
Baudron, F., Sims, B., Justice, S., Kahan, D.G., Rose, R., Mkomwa, S.,
Kaumbutho, P., Sariah, J., Nazare, R., & Moges, G. (2015). Re-examining
appropriate mechanization in Eastern and Southern Africa: Two-wheel
tractors, conservation agriculture, and private sector involvement. Food
Security, 7(4), 889–904.
Bernier, Q., Franks, P., Kristjanson, P., Neufeldt, H., Otzelberger, A., & Foster, K.
(2013). Addressing gender in climate-smart smallholder agriculture (ICRAF
Policy Brief No. 14). Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
Blackden, C.M., & Wodon, Q. (2006). Gender, time use, and poverty in sub-
Saharan Africa (vol. 73). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Publications,
World Bank.
Brody, A., Demetriades, J., & Esplen, E. (2008). Gender and climate change:
Mapping the linkages. A scoping study on knowledge and gaps. Sussex:
BRIDGE, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.
Brown, O. (2008). Migration and climate change. (IOM Migration Research
Series No. 31). Geneva: International Organization for Migration.
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Press.
Burney, J.A., & Naylor, R.L. (2012). Smallholder irrigation as a poverty
alleviation tool in sub-Saharan Africa. World Development, 40(1), 110–123.
Carrand, M. & Hartl, M. (2010). Lightening the load: Labor-saving technologies
and practices for rural women. Rugby, UK: International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) /Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
Chand, R., Prasanna, P.L., & Singh, A. (2011). Farm size and productivity:
Understanding the strengths of smallholders and improving their livelihoods.
Economic and Political Weekly, 46(26), 5–11.
Chaudhury, M., Vervoort, J., Kristjanson, P., Ericksen, P., & Ainslie, A. (2013).
Participatory scenarios as a tool to link science and policy on food security
under climate change in East Africa. Regional Environmental Change, 13(2),
389–398.
Chibwana, C., Fisher, M., Jumbe, C., Masters, W.A., & Shively, G. (2010).
Measuring the impacts of Malawi’s farm input subsidy program. African
Journal of Agriculture and Resource Economics, 9(2), 132–147.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 27
Chibwana, C., Fisher, M., & Shively, G. (2012). Cropland allocation effects of
agricultural input subsidies in Malawi. World Development, 40(1), 124–133.
Clancy, J.S., Skutsch, M., & Batchelor, S. (2002). The gender-energy-poverty
nexus: Finding the energy to address gender concerns in development
(DFID Project Document No. CNTR998521). London: UK Department for
International Development (DFID).
Collier, P., & Dercon, S. (2014). African agriculture in 50 years: Smallholders in
a rapidly changing world? World Development, 63, 92–101.
Coulibaly, J.Y., Gbetibouo, G.A., Kundhlande, G., Sileshi, G.W., & Beedy, T.L.
(2015). Responding to crop failure: Understanding farmers’ coping strategies
in Southern Malawi. Sustainability, 7(2), 1620–1636.
Croppenstedt, A., Goldstein, M., & Rosas, N. (2013). Gender and agriculture:
Inefficiencies, segregation, and low productivity traps. World Bank Research
Observer, 28(1), 79–109.
Deichmann, U., Meisner, C., Murray, S., & Wheeler, D. (2011). The economics
of renewable energy expansion in rural sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Policy,
39(1), 215–227.
Denning, G., Kabambe, P., Sanchez, P., Malik, A., Flor, R., Harawa, R., …
Magombo, C. (2009). Input subsidies to improve smallholder maize
productivity in Malawi: Toward an African Green Revolution. PLoS Biol,
7(1), e1000023.
Denton, F. (2002). Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: Why
does gender matter? Gender & Development, 10(2), 10–20.
Diao, X., Hazell, P., & Thurlow, J. (2010). The role of agriculture in African
development. World Development, 38(10), 1375–1383.
Dimova, R., & Gang, I. (2013). Good and efficient? Women’s voice in agriculture.
A roadmap for promoting women’s economic empowerment. Retrieved
March 9, 2016, from www.womeneconroadmap.org
Dorward, A. (2009). Integrating contested aspirations, processes and policy:
Development as hanging in, stepping up and stepping out. Development
Policy Review, 27(2), 131–146.
Dorward, A., & Chirwa, E.W. (2010). The Malawi agricultural input subsidy
programme: 2005–6 to 2008–9. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, 9(1), 232–247.
Doss, C. (2013). Intrahousehold bargaining and resource allocation in developing
countries. World Bank Research Observer, 28(1), 52–78.
Doss, C.R. (2001). Designing agricultural technology for African women
farmers: Lessons from 25 years of experience. World Development, 29(12),
2075–2092.
Doss, C.R., & Meinzen-Dick, R. (2015). Collective action within the household:
Insights from natural resource management. World Development, 74, 171–183.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2010). “Climate-smart” agriculture:
Policies, practices and financing for food security, adaptation and mitigation.
Rome: Author.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

28 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2012). Plan of action for Malawi
(2012–2016). Rome.
Fisher, M., & Kandiwa, V. (2014). Can agricultural input subsidies reduce the
gender gap in modern maize adoption? Evidence from Malawi. Food Policy,
45, 101–111.
Fraser, C., & Restrepo-Estrada. S. (1998). Focus group discussions in development
work: Some field experiences and lessons learned. The Journal of
Development Communication, 9(1), 68–84.
Fuller, R., & Aye, L. (2012). Human and animal power–The forgotten renewables.
Renewable Energy, 48, 326–332.
Giller, K.E., Andersson, J.A., Corbeels, M., Kirkegaard, J., Mortensen, D.,
Erenstein, O., Vanlauwe, B. (2015). Beyond conservation agriculture.
Frontiers in Plant Science, 6, 870.
Giller, K.E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., & Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation
agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: The heretics’ view. Field
Crops Research, 114(1), 23–34.
Gupta, A.K. (2013). Tapping the entrepreneurial potential of grassroots innovation.
Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://www.iimahd.ernet.
in/~anilg/file/TappingtheEntrepreneurialPotentialofGrassrootsInnovation.pdf?
Hofstad, O., Köhlin, G., & Namaalwa, J. (2009). How can emissions from
woodfuel be reduced? In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, M. Kanninen, E.
Sills, W.D. Sunderlin, & S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff (Eds), Realising REDD+:
National strategy and policy options (pp. 237–248). Center for International
Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia. Retrieved from http://www.cifor.org/
publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf
Huyer, S., Twyman, J., Koningstein, M., Ashby, J., & Vermeulen, S. (2015).
Supporting women farmers in a changing climate: Five policy lessons
(CCAFS Policy Brief No. 10). Copenhagen, Denmark: CCAFS.
IFAD. (1997). Agricultural implements used by women farmers in Africa.
Technical Advisory Division of the International Fund for Agricultural
Development, Rome: IFAD.
ILO. (2013). Estimates and Projections of the Economically Active Population
(EAPEP). In The World’s Women 2015: Trends and Statistics (p. 97).
New York: United Nations.
Jafry, T. (2012). Global trade and climate change challenges: A brief overview of
impacts on food security and gender issues. International Journal of Climate
Change Strategies and Management, 4(4), 442–451.
Jayne, T.S., & Rashid, S. (2013). Input subsidy programs in sub Saharan Africa:
A synthesis of recent evidence. Agricultural Economics, 4(6), 547–562.
Jost, C., Kyazze, F., Naab, J., Neelormi, S., Kinyangi, J., Zougmore, R., Aggarwal,
P., Bhatta, G., Chaudhury, M., & Tapio-Bistrom, M-L. (2016). Understanding
gender dimensions of agriculture and climate change in smallholder farming
communities. Climate and Development, 8(2), 1–12.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 29
Kaczan, D., Arslan, A., & Lipper, L. (2013). Climate-smart agriculture: A review
of current practice of agroforestry and conservation agriculture in Malawi
and Zambia. Rome: United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
Kambauwa, G., Mlamba, J., Delgado, J.A., & Kabambe, V. (2015). Conservation
strategies to adapt to projected climate change impacts in Malawi. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 70(5), 109A–114A.
Kamwamba-Mtethiwa, J., Namara, R., De Fraiture, C., Mangisoni, J., & Owusu,
E. (2012). Treadle pump irrigation in Malawi: Adoption, gender and benefits.
Irrigation and Drainage, 61(5), 583–595.
Kienzle, J., Ashburner, J.E., & Sims, B. (2013). Mechanization for rural
development: A review of patterns and progress from around the world.
Rome: Plant Production and Protection Division, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
Kienzle, J., & Sims. B. (2014). Agricultural mechanization strategies for
sustainable production intensification: Concepts and cases from (and for)
sub-Saharan Africa. Rome: FAO.
Kjellstrom, T., Kovats, R.S., Lloyd, S.J., Holt, T., & Tol, R.S. (2009). The
direct impact of climate change on regional labor productivity. Archives of
Environmental & Occupational Health, 64(4), 217–227.
Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B.M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya,
M., … Henry, K. (2014). Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature
Climate Change, 4(12), 1068–1072.
Lipton, M. (2012, January). Learning from others: Increasing agricultural
productivity for human development in sub-Saharan Africa (Working Paper
No. 2012–007). UNDP Regional Bureau for Africa: New York.
Livingstone, G., Schonberger, S., & Delaney, S. (2011, January 24–25). Sub
Saharan Africa: The state of smallholders in agriculture. Paper presented at
the Conference on New Directions for Smallholder Agriculture. International
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD): Rome.
Malawi Government. (2011). Malawi agricultural sector wide approach.
Lilongwe, Malawi: Government of Malawi.
———. (2015). Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). Lilongwe,
Malawi: Government of Malawi.
Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Behrman, J., Biermayr-Jenzano, Wilde, V.,
Noordeloos, M., Ragasa, C., & Beintema, N. (2011). Engendering agricultural
research, development, and extension (IFPRI Research Monograph).
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington DC, USA.
Murray, U. (2013). Rural child labor: Views of extension agents in Ethiopia. The
Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 19(5), 505–519.
Mwanakatwe, P., & Kebedew, G. (2015). Malawi Country Profile. Africa
Economic Outlook, African Development Bank, OECD, UNDP, p.15.
Retrieved from http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/fileadmin/uploads/
aeo/2015/CN_data/CN_Long_EN/Malawi_GB_2015.pdf
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

30 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
National Statistics Office Malawi. (2008). Malawi 2008 Population and Housing
Census Main Report (Report No.). Government of Malawi: Lilongwe, Malawi.
Ngeyi, R.K. & Pasipau, W-C. (2009). SADC gender protocol barometer baseline
study Malawi. Report of the Southern African Gender Protocol Alliance.
Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nhamo, G. (2013). Green economy readiness in South Africa: A focus on the
national sphere of government. International Journal of African Renaissance
Studies-Multi-, Inter-and Transdisciplinarity, 8(1), 115–142.
Nyamangara, J., Mashingaidze, N., Masvaya, E.N., Nyengerai, K., Kunzekweguta,
M., Tirivavi, R., & Mazvimavi, K. (2014). Weed growth and labor demand
under hand-hoe based reduced tillage in smallholder farmers’ fields in
Zimbabwe. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 146–154.
O’Sullivan, M., Rao, A., Banerjee, R., Gulati, K., & Vinez, M. (2014). Levelling
the field: Improving opportunities for women farmers in Africa. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
Pauw, K., Thurlow, J., & van Seventer, D. (2010). Droughts and floods in Malawi:
Assessing the economywide effects (IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 00962),
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Peterman, A., Quisumbing, A., Behrman, J., & Nkonya, E. (2010). Understanding
gender differences in agricultural productivity in Uganda and Nigeria.
IFPRI Discussion Paper 1002, International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI): Washington, DC.
Porter, G. (2011). ‘I think a woman who travels a lot is befriending other men
and that’s why she travels’: Mobility constraints and their implications for
rural women and girls in sub-Saharan Africa. Gender, Place and Culture,
18(1), 65–81.
Quisumbing, A.R. (1996). Male-female differences in agricultural productivity:
Methodological issues and empirical evidence. World Development, 24(10),
1579–1595.
Quisumbing, A.R., & Pandolfelli, L. (2010). Promising approaches to address
the needs of poor female farmers: Resources, constraints, and interventions.
World Development, 38(4), 581–592.
Resnick, D., Tarp, F., & Thurlow, J. (2012). The political economy of green
growth: Cases from Southern Africa. Public Administration and Development,
32(3), 215–228.
Rogelj, J., McCollum, D.L., & Riahi, K. (2013). The UN’s ‘sustainable energy
for all’ initiative is compatible with a warming limit of 2oC. Nature Climate
Change, 3(6), 545–551.
Rusinamhodzi, L. (2015). Tinkering on the periphery: Labor burden not crop
productivity increased under no-till planting basins on smallholder farms in
Murehwa district, Zimbabwe. Field Crops Research, 170, 66–75.
Sakala, W., Kumwenda, J.D., & Saka, A. (2003). The potential of green manures
to increase soil fertility and maize yields in Malawi. Biological Agriculture
& Horticulture, 21(2), 121–130.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Murray et al. 31
Sims, B.G., Bhatti, A.M., Mkomwa, S., & Kienzle, J. (2012). Development
of mechanization options for smallholder farmers: Examples of local
manufacturing opportunities for sub-Saharan Africa. In International
Conference of Agricultural Engineering, Jul 8–12, 2012, Valencia, Spain.
Sims, B.G., & Kienzle, J. (2006a). Farm power and mechanization for small
farms in sub-Saharan Africa. United Nations, Rome.
———. (2006b). Farm power and mechanization for small farms in sub-Saharan
Africa. Agricultural and Food Engineering Technical Report. United
Nations, Rome.
Sosovele, H. (2000). Constraints to the adoption of animal-powered weeding
technology in Tanzania. In P. Starkey & T. Simalenga (Eds), Animal power
for weed control. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern
and Southern Africa (ATNESA). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Technical
Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA).
Szabó, S., Bódis, K., Huld, T., & Moner-Girona, M. (2013). Sustainable energy
planning: Leapfrogging the energy poverty gap in Africa. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 28, 500–509.
Thierfelder, C., Bunderson, W.T., & Mupangwa, W. (2015). Evidence and
lessons learned from long-term on-farm research on conservation agriculture
systems in communities in Malawi and Zimbabwe. Environments, 2(3),
317–337.
Tripathi, R., Chung, Y.B., Deering, K., Saracini, N., Willoughby, R., Wills, O.,
Mikhail, M., Warburton, H., Jayasinghe, D., & Rafanomezana, J. (2012). What
works for women: Proven approaches for empowering women smallholders
and achieving food security. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Agriculture, Food
and Land, 12(1), 113–140.
Twyman, J., Bernier, Q., Muriel, J., Paz, L., Ortega, L., & Koningstein, M. (2015).
Ensuring climate-smart agriculture is gender-smart: A participatory method
for local adaptation planning with a gender focus. Poster. Cali, Colombia:
Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and International
Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT).
UN-Women. (2015). Women in power and decision-making. The Beijing platform
for action turns 20. New York: United Nations.
UN-Women, UNDP, UNEP, World-Bank. (2015). The cost of the gender gap in
agricultural productivity in Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda (Working Paper
No. 100234). Washington, DC: World Bank.
UNDP. (2004). Gender and energy for sustainable development: A toolkit and
resource guide. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
White, B. (2012). Agriculture and the generation problem: Rural youth,
employment and the future of farming. IDS Bulletin, 43(6), 9–19.
Wiggins, S & Keats, S. (2013). Smallholder agriculture’s contribution to
better nutrition/ Report Commissioned by the Hunger Alliance. Overseas
Development Institute (ODI) 20 March 2013. Overseas Development
Institute, London.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from

32 Gender, Technology and Development 20(2)
Wiggins, S., & Keats, S. (2015). Topic guide: Stepping out of agriculture.
Evidence on demand. London, UK: DFID. Retrieved from DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.12774/eod_tg.february2015.wigginssetal
World Bank. (2015). Country profile Malawi. Washington, DC: World Bank.
World Bank, FAO, & IFAD. (2015). Gender in climate-smart agriculture
module 18. In Gender in agriculture sourcebook (p. 96). Washington, DC:
World Bank.
at NUI, Galway on May 31, 2016gtd.sagepub.comDownloaded from