This conference paper has not been peer reviewed.

Any opinions stated herein are those of the

author(s) and are not necessarily endorsed by or representative of IFPRI or of the cosponsoring or
supporting organizations.

The Micro-Economics of Climate Change Adaptation in Maize Production
The Case of Murewa District in Zimbabwe

Medicine Masiiwa (PhD)
1

mmasiiwa@science.uz.ac.zw

Abstract:
This study analyses maize yield developments among smallholder farmers in the Mangwende
Area of Murewa District, Zimbabwe during the years 1995 and 2010. Mangwende is a high-
potential agricultural area located about 90 km east of the capital city, Harare. Study
respondents were drawn from different category of farmers and identified on the basis of their
productivity levels and were required to have used the same kind of seeds during the study
period. The study analysed the relationship between maize yield and fertilizer input (Y = f (fX
1
),
where Y is the maize output in kg/ha and X
1
is the fertiliser input in kg/ha.).
The study found out that the farmers are already experiencing the effects of climate change.
This is in the form of droughts, shift in the rainfall patterns, periodic hailstorms and floods.
There are three categories of farmers in the study areas. The first category realizes very low
yield because they hardly any fertilizer. The second average yields and the third one realizes
high yields due to high fertilizer use. Across all the three categories, yields were observed to
have declined at a rate of between 0.86 to 5 % per annum during the period under review. In
monetary terms, the farmers lost potential revenue to the tune of about US$37 per year. A
significant part of this loss can be attributed to climate change.
The study noted that farmers have adopted various forms of adaptation strategies, including
crop and livestock diversification, staggering the planting periods, planting drought-resistant
crops and venturing into non-agricultural activities. However, the cost of climate change
adaptation was found to be very high and the majority of the farmers cannot meet them on
their own. Worse still, some adaptations methods used are not unsustainable because they
damage the environment. Planting crops on wetlands, for example, damages the environment
by draining away the water and destroying the wetlands ecosystems. The study concludes that
climate change adaptation at the farm level is not sufficient; more adaptation strategies need to
be applied at the national level in order to reduce the negative impact of climate change.






1
Researcher with the Institute of Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe
2

1 Introduction
Climate change is a complex biophysical process where land and sea temperatures are warming
under the influence of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), mainly carbon dioxide (IPCC, 2007). The
increasing concentrations of GHG in the atmosphere are mainly due to the 80 per cent increase
in annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions since 1970. Most of this historical increase emanated
from the industrial activities of developed countries in Europe, North America and Japan,
although the burgeoning economies of Brazil, China, India and South Africa have contributed
significantly in the past decade. Developing countries like Zimbabwe have contributed very little
to the observed global warming because there is very little economic activity going on in these
countries.
Climate change has the potential to undermine economic development in all sectors of the
economy (agriculture, industry, infrastructure, health, housing etc.) and increase poverty.
Potential impacts include dwindling water resources, food insecurity, diseases, incidences of
extreme whether events, desertification, destruction of infrastructure as well as loss of
biodiversity.
Adaptation to climate change is the process of adjusting to the actual or expected climatic
stimuli and their effects or impacts (Smit et al., 2001). The adjustment can be done at the micro
(individual) level or at the macro (national) level. This study analyses the socio-economic
adaptation costs faced by maize farmers at the micro-level in Murewa District of Zimbabwe. The
study comes at a time when Zimbabwe is emerging from a serious economic crisis characterized
by hyperinflation, shortage of basic commodities and very high unemployment rate. During
2000 - 2007, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell by a cumulative 40 per cent (World Bank,
2010). It further plunged by 14 per cent in 2008. The World Bank estimated inflation to have
reached a record peak of 500 billion per cent in September 2008. The unemployment rate
reached about 90 % during the same period and continues to be very high. A high rate of
HIV/AIDS and gender inequality made the situation worse. The Human Development Report
(2010) estimated that 47 % of the population in Zimbabwe is undernourished and 17 % of the
children under the age of 5 are underweight. The economic challenges have a huge bearing on
the countrys capacity adapt.
1.1 Objectives of the study
The main objective of this study is to analyze the climate change adaptation strategies employed
by maize farmers in the Murewa District of Zimbabwe and assess the socio-economic costs
involved in the adaptation. The study further identifies areas where adaptation initiatives at the
individual level need support from government and international institutions.
1.2 Study methodology
This study is based on primary and secondary data sources. The primary data collection involves
two rounds of sample surveys carried out in the Mangwende Area of Murewa District. The first
one was a productivity base-line survey done in 1995. A stratified random sampling method was
used to select 98 farming households. The second survey was done in 2011 and it focused on
households previously selected during the first survey. A total of 84 households were
3

interviewed
2
. Data was collected with the assistance of 3 trained data enumerators on hand of a
standard questionnaire. The study analyzed the relationship between maize yield and fertilizer
input (Y = f (fX1), where Y is the maize output in kg/ha and X1 is the fertilizer input in kg/ha).
The secondary data sources include literature review and a web search of previous studies done.
Documents reviewed include government publications, studies and project reports done by
development partners, including Agritex, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World
Bank. The collected data was entered into a computer and analyzed using the Excel and SPSS
software packages.
1.3 Study limitations
Most of the farmers interviewed do not keep written farm or climatic records and therefore
most of the figures they gave are estimates. Perhaps the most significant limitation is that the
study did not analyze other factors that may influence maize productivity (e.g. farm labor and
skills, other inputs and management styles). It focused on the relationship between fertilizer
input and maize output. Fertilizer was chosen because, besides the seeds, it is the most
important input used by farmers in the study area. The study assumes that all other factors are
equal and maize yield variations during the study period are a result of climate change
3
.
1.4 Description of the study area
Mangwende Communal Area lies in natural region II in Murewa District of Mashonaland East
Province. It covers an area of about 2000 square kilometres and has a population of about
66000 people (CSO, 1995). The area lies at an altitude of about 1300 m above sea level and
receives a mean annual rainfall of between 750 and 1000mm (CSO, 1996). Mean annual
temperature stands at about 18.6 C. The soils are predominantly sandy, of granite origin, but
loamy soils are also found in some locations. Harare, the countrys capital city of about 2 million
people, lies about 86 km West of Mangwende. On the one hand, the city acts as a major market
for both agricultural inputs and outputs for Mangwende. On the other hand, the city draws
household labour from this area for use in its industries and commerce. About 90 km south of
Mangwende lies Marondera, a small town of about 30000 people. It is the administrative capital
for Mashonaland East Province and also plays an important role as a market source for
Mangwende. Murewa Growth Point
4
(approximately 5000 people) also acts as an important
market source because it lies within the study area. Surrounding smallholder farms are linked to
this growth point by gravel roads. The Growth Point itself is in turn linked by wide tarred roads
to Harare, Marondera and the neighbouring Mozambique, (about 350 km away).

2
Some households interviewed during the first survey were no longer available for the second one to
various reasons like deaths and relocation.
3
It is highly recommended that further detailed studies that analyze various productivity factors be carried
out in future.
4
Growth points are strategically located rural shopping centres which get preferential government
assistance in the development of infrastructure. The idea is to create industrial centres in the rural areas
so as to reduce rural-urban migration
4

2. Study results
2.1 Agriculture and climate change impacts
Agriculture plays a pivotal in Zimbabwes economy, contributing between 15 18 per cent to
the GDP, supplying 60 % of the raw materials to industry and contributing about 40 per cent of
total export revenue (GoZ, 2011). About 70 per cent of the population (the majority being
women) depends on it for food, income and employment. The performance of agriculture
strongly influences the rate of economic growth, economic stability, employment levels,
demand for other goods, food security as well as poverty reduction. Yet agricultural production
has declined in the past ten years with the country only able to produce about 45 % of its cereal
requirements in 2007. Part of the agricultural decline can be attributed to climate change
although the political and social-economic problems experienced in the country in the last ten
years are mainly to blame.
Climate change is already having an impact on peoples livelihoods in the study areas (and all
other areas in Zimbabwe). Frequent droughts were mentioned in the study area by over 90 % of
the respondents as the most evident impact of climate change that people can see. Other
impacts include shift in the rainfall patterns, periodic hailstorms and floods. Farmers now find it
difficult to plan their farming activities because unlike before, rains can come very late or very
early. In addition, the rainfall distribution pattern is no longer as uniform or as predictable as
before. Mid-season droughts are more frequent, longer and usually come at the most crucial
time when the crops need more rainfall. Sometimes the rains stop pre-maturely before the
crops have matured and sometimes the rains continue to fall well after the usual harvesting
period. Thisrenders crop conservation difficult and significant loses are incurred as a result of
rotting. Livestock are affected in the same manner because they die due to starvation during the
drought periods or die due to increased diseases during the excessive rain periods. The
developments stated above have exacerbated the food insecurity and poverty situations in
Zimbabwe and the situation is bound to worsen if no effective adaptation strategies are found.
2.2 Adaptation strategies

Interviews held with farmers showed that they apply different adaptation strategies which
include diversifying crops and livestock, staggering of planting periods, use of drought-tolerant
crops, planting different crop varieties, increasing use of irrigation, use of water and soil
conservation methods, use of wetlands,agro-forestry, migration as well as diversifying into non-
farm activities.These strategies are successful to varying degrees but considerable costs are also
involved in applying them.
2.2.1 Crop/livestock Diversification
More than 90 % of the farmers in the study areas employ diversification as a strategy to adapt
to climate change. The farmers grow more than one crop during one season and keep more
than one type of livestock. The different crops grown are maize, sorghum, millet, nuts, tubers
and oilseeds. Maize is the most common crop grown because it is the staple food. It is also
easier to manage and is relatively less labor intensive than other crops. Other crops include
small grains (grown by 45 % of the study respondents), groundnuts (42%) and mbambara
5

nuts(31 %). It is important to note that a lot of farmers had discarded growing small grains (or
drastically reduced planting area) in the early 1990s, citing low yields and high labor costs. The
survey carried in 1995 showed that only 38 % of the study households grew small grains, 39 %
grew groundnuts and 27 % grew mbambara nuts. Cattle remain the most common type of
livestock kept with over 85 % of the farmers keeping them. The cattle are mainly kept for draft
power, socio-economic security reasons and as a store of wealth. About 34 % of the study
respondents in 2011 stated that they keep goats, compared to 24 % in 1995. The proportion of
farmers keeping donkeys also grew from less than 2 % in 1995 to about 5 % in 2011. Whilst all
the farmers interviewed keep traditional chicken for own consumption, the proportion of
farmers keeping commercial chicken has grown from about 5 % in 1995 to 17 % in 2011. There is
also an increasing trend in keeping pigs, rabbits and other small stock for sale.
The diversification however comes at a considerable cost for the farmers. The farmers need
more land, seed, fertilizer, family labor and other inputs to grow the diversified crops. The
problem is that the land and the inputs are limited and expensive to acquire. The limited inputs
are usually reserved for maize at the expense of other crops. Even if maize is given the
preference, the level of inputs applied are very low, resulting in correspondingly low yields (see
section 2.5 of this study).
2.2.2 Planting of different crop varieties

Considerable research effort in Zimbabwe has gone into the development of different crop
varieties, especially in maize. Both public and private research institutions have come up with
early, middle and late maturing maize varieties. Over 30 % of the farmers interviewed plant the
different varieties as a way to deal with the negative effects of climate change. Crop inputs,
especially hybrid seeds and fertilizer are however very expensive.The cost of hybrid seed maize
increased from an average of $US1.50/kg in 1995 to $US2.3/kg in 2011. The average cost of
fertilizer almost doubled to about $US 0.60/kg during the same period. The price increasesare
mainly as a result of the removal of government subsidies and high operational costs faced by
the input producers. The input price increases came at a time when the farmers have already
been burdened by other economic problems like high unemployment rate, low commodity
prices and lack of access to credit facilities. As a result, the farmers apply sub-optimal levels of
inputs and this undermines the strategy of growing different crop varieties.
2.2.3 Staggering of planting dates
Instead of planting all their crops at the beginning of the rain season (usually October and
November), over 40 % of the farmers in the study area plant their crops at different periods.
Some crops are dry planted, some are planted just after the first rains and some are planted
during the mid-rain season. The idea is to take chances with the rain patterns. If the rains stop
early, the early-planted crops may do well and if the rains stop late, the late crop may benefit.
Like with other strategies, the problem is that the effectiveness of this strategy is reduced by the
lack of adequate capital to buy enough inputs that can cater for the categories of the crops
grown. Further, some inputs are put to waste since not all the staggered crops reach maturity.
6

2.2.4 Use of irrigation
Irrigation has been proven to be an effective climate adaptation strategy (JIMAT, 2008).
Households with access to irrigation have been shown to realize higher crop yields, are more
food secure and are less vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Very few farmers (about
2.5 %) in this study have access to irrigation. The few usually do the irrigation at a small-scale
level (e.g. watering vegetable gardens). High costs of irrigation equipment and material limit the
farmers from practicing the irrigation strategy. It is advisable that government and development
partners invest more in irrigation facilities targeted at small scale farmers.
2.2.5 Growing crops on wetlands
Over 70 % of the farmers in the study areas stated that they grow some of their crops in
wetlands so that the crops continue to have moisture even if there is no rain. The wetlands in
the study area are situated along valleys and streams. Good agricultural practices actually
discourage the cultivation of wetlands because doing so destroys the wetlands ecosystems and
threatens the availability of surface water in the future. This will certainly lead to more poverty
and food insecurity.
2.2.6 Horticulture
The study area, Mangwende is near two major urban areas Marondera and Harare. Therefore
horticulture is a potentially viable business, being practiced by about 60 % of the respondents.
Of these, about half take their produce for sale in the nearby urban centres. The common types
of vegetables grown are tomatoes, onions, green leaves and butter nuts.
Since last year, the farmers are facing stiff competition from imported products (especially
tomatoes and onions) from South Africa. As a result, prices have gone down. The farmers
expressed grave concern over these developments and have appealed to government to put in
place protective measures that ensure they stay in business.
2.2.7 Use of water and soil conservation methods
Soil and water conservation farming methods have been proven to be effective climate change
adaptation strategies. In a project supported by the European Union (EU) and the Food and
Agriculture organization (FAO), the Unions Project Trust (UPT) has demonstrated that farmers
can significantly reduce vulnerability to drought. Conservation agriculture has become one of
the most significant sources of livelihood in Domboshava. Average maize yield was recorded at
about 1.5 tons per hectare, compared the national average of 1.3 tons/ha for communal
farmers doing conventional maize growing. The advantage of the conservation agriculture is
that it reduces vulnerability during droughts. Moisture conserved through mulch enables the
crops to grow for a longer period without rain. In this study, only about 3 % of the respondents
practice conservation agriculture. There is therefore need to educate and train more farmers to
use conservation agriculture as a strategy to adapt to climate change.
2.2.8 Insuring crops and livestock
The issue of crop or livestock insurance is not new in Zimbabwe. Commercial farmers have
traditionally used it as a form of reducing losses caused by natural disasters like hailstorms,
7

floods and droughts. However, small scale farmers did not take it seriously as they viewed it as a
luxury. However, the thinking is now changing; farmers interviewed now feel that insurance is
no longer a luxury but a necessity, especially in the advent of climate change. Unfortunately the
thinking is not yet reflected in practice as only a negligible number of farmers (0.5 %) in the
study area have insured their crops and livestock. The farmers are impeded from taking the
insurance policies by a poor and fragile financial base. It is recommended that government and
the private sector work together to come up with special and affordable insurance packages
targeted at small scale farmers.
2.2.9 Diversification into non-farm activities
People in the rural areas are known to have always done non-farming activities such as artwork,
fishing and trading. This was however done by only a few and mostly during the off-peak
farming periods. There is now a clear trend where more households are devoting more time to
non-farm activities as a way of earning a living. The most common non-farm activities are
vending and cross-border trading. Over 10% of the study respondents stated that they do
vending and trading activities in order to complement household income. The problem is that
these activities draw labor from the farm and therefore undermine farm productivity.
2.2.10 Contract farming
Contract farming is where a farmer gets assistance from a second party (individual, private or
public institutions) to produce agricultural commodity with an obligation to sell part or the
entire commodity to the second party. Very few farmers in the study area (about 1 % in 2010
and 0.4 % in 1995) are involved in contract farming but over 50 % of the respondents stated that
they would consider it as a strategy to adapt to climate change. There is however need to
educate the farmers on contract farming since the majority of them do not fully understand the
concept. Some fear that they may end up being chronically indebted to the suppliers of inputs;
which may result in their assets being sold.
2.2.11 Agro-forestry
Agro-forestry can be a good climate change adaptation method. Mawire (2008) and Mtisi (2010)
have shown that farmers can increase household income by growing forestry products like
Jatropha.Only less than 2 % of the farmers in the study area were involved in agroforestry in
1995. The figure grew to about 6.5 % in 2010. This shows that more farmers now consider agro-
forestry as a climate change adaptation strategy.
2.2.12 Migration
Zimbabwe has experienced a drastic increase of people leaving the country in the last ten years
due to political and economic reasons. A study by the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (2011)
estimated that about 3 - 4 million Zimbabweans now live outside the country.Over 60 % of the
study respondents stated that they have relatives in the Diaspora who occasionally send
remittances to them.
8

2.5 The effectiveness of the adaptation strategies
While it is clear that farmers have adopted various climate change adaptation strategies, it is not
yet clear how effective these strategies are. What are the socio-economic involved in
implementing the strategies and to what extent are the farmers able to maintain their previous
productivity levels? To answer these questions, this study made a comparative analysis of two
sets of maize productivity results; those obtained in 1995 and those obtained in 2010 (Figures 2
and 3 and Table 1 below). Table1 shows that there are four categories of farmers in the study
area and these are: (i) those who do not apply fertilizer at all (ii) those who apply little fertilizer
(maximum of 150 kg/ha (iii) those who apply medium fertilizer (151 200 kg/ha) and (iv) those
who apply high amount of fertilizer (more than 200 kg/ha).
Figure 1 shows the physical relationship (production function
5
) between maize output and
fertiliser input per hectare in the sample areas in 1995. Fertiliser was chosen because it is the
major input used in maize. The relationship can also be presented in a mathematical form Y = f
(fX1), which says that crop output (Y) is some function of different levels of fertiliser input (X1)
i.e. Y = - 0.0342 X1 + 23.038 X + 86.641, where Y is the crop output in kg/ha and X1 is the
fertiliser input in kg/ha.
A farmer who did not apply any fertilizer (category i) in 1995 got an average maize yield of 86
kg/ha as shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. The yield would increase steadily according to the
amount of fertilizer applied till the marginal value added reaches zero at about 4000 kg/ha. At
this point, about 350 kg/ha is applied. It is interesting to note that the maximum yield that can
be reached is 4000 kg/ha, yet the potential yield in the country is estimated at about 6000 kg/ha
(Rukuni, 1994). The difference maybe due to management styles and seed varieties used.

5
Coefficient of determination (R): (1995) =0.6405; (2010) =0.4467: Error (a, b, c) at 0.05 level =0.0086,
3.041, 166.892 respectively for 1995 and 0.0136, 3.7569, 157.131 for 2010.
9


Figure 1: Maize production function in Mangwende in 1995


Source: based on survey results, 1995

The maize production function for 2010, as shown in figure 2 below is:
Y = - 0.0437 X1 + 18.739 X + 47.184. At about 47 kg/ha, the maximum yield achieved by a
farmer without applying any fertilizer is lower than that of 1995. Thereafter, the yield also
increases according to fertilizer applied but at a lower level than in 1995. In other words, for the
same amount of fertilizer applied, the maize yield in 2010 is lower than it was in 1995. For
instance, a farmer who applied fertilizer amount of 50 kg/ha in 1995 got a yield of 1150 kg/ha. In
2010, he/she got a yield of 900 kg/ha for the same amount of fertilizer. This gives a yield decline
of 150 kg/ha (about 13 %) in 15 years. A simple calculation shows that the rate of yield decline is
about 10 kg (or 0.86 %) per annum.


y =-0.0342x
2
+23.038x +86.641
R =0.6405
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 100 200 300 400 500
M
a
i
z
e

y
i
e
l
d

(
k
g
/
h
a
)

Fertiliser input (kg/ha)
10

Figure 3: Maize production function in Mangwende in 2010

Source: based on survey results, 2010
The productivity loss becomes more dramatic for a farmer who applies more fertilizer
(categories iii and iv). For instance, a farmer who applied 300 kg/ha fertilizer in 1995 got a yield
of 4000 kg/ha. For the same amount of fertilizer, the yield dropped by 50 % to 2000 kg/ha in
2010. The annual rate of yield decline is thus 133 kg/ha or 3.3 %. The dramatic decline may not
be attributable to climate change alone; there are other factors which can explain this. For
instance, communal farmers do not usually apply agricultural lime and this affects the pH value
of the soil. This in turn affects the absorption of minerals by the plants, thereby reducing yield.
Table 1: Climate change and maize productivity
Fert. input
(kg/ha)
Maize yield (kg/ha) Yield loss (kg/ha) Rate of yield decline
(% per annum) In 1995 In 2010 In 15 yrs. In 1 year
50 1150 900 150 10 0.86
100 2000 1500 500 33.3 1.7
150 2800 1750 1050 70 2.5
200 3250 2000 1250 83.3 2.6
250 3750 2000 1750 116.7 3.1
300 4000 2000 2000 133.3 3.3
350 4000 2000 2000 133.3 3.3

1242.9 82.8 2.5
Source: survey data, 1995 & 2010
Table 1 shows that on average (after combining all the farmer categories), a farmer realized a
yield loss of about 83 kg/ha per year during the period 1995 to 2010. Assuming maize prize of
US$300/tonne (which is the current price in the study area), this calculates to about US$25/ha in
monetary terms. Assuming that each farmer grows a total of 1.5 ha maize, the total loss
incurred by one farmer each year adds up to US$37.50. This is the adaptation cost incurred for
y =-0.0437x
2
+18.739x +47.184
R =0.4467
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
M
a
i
z
e

y
i
e
l
d

(
k
g
)

Fertiliser input (kg)
11

maize alone by 1 farmer. Assuming that there are about 1.2 million communal farmers in
Zimbabwe (see Masiiwa, 1998), the total adaptation costs for maize alone add up to US$45
million. Adaptation costs for other crops, livestock and other agricultural products have not
been estimated but it is assumed that they will be in the same range. More detailed and
comprehensive studies are needed.
3. Conclusions and recommendations
A conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that climate change adaptation measures are
necessary at the micro level in order to reduce the negative effects of climate change. However,
the initiatives done by individual farmers are not enough. Government needs to come up with
innovative policies that buttress the farmers adaptation strategies in order reduce the negative
impacts of climate change. Policy intervention is needed in the areas of education, research,
training, extension, value-addition, infrastructure, finance, irrigation, marketing and trade as
well as enhancing the capacities of agricultural institutions.
Government needs to invest more in research in order to come up with more adaptive seed and
livestock varieties. There is also need to provide farmers with education and agricultural training
that integrate issues of climate change and adaptation. The research and training should be
complemented by well-developed and targeted extension messages so that he farmers can be
able to use the latest adaptation methods. The need to improve infrastructure (roads, bridges,
storage facilities etc.) cannot be emphasized because this has seriously hampered agriculture in
Zimbabwe. It has been found out in this study that irrigation reduces vulnerability to climate
change. Therefore, there is need by government to invest more in irrigation facilities such as
building dams and extending electricity to rural areas. There is also need to provide better
market opportunities for farmers and that can be done through investment in value-addition
firms (which will buy products from farmers) and developing trade links with regional and
international partners. All these initiatives can only properly function if they are supported by
strong agricultural institutions, especially those involved in research, training, extension and
farmers unions. The government itself needs strengthening so that it can carry out its mandate
effectively.
All the above stated, measures constitute part of the climate change adaptation costs.
Zimbabwe as a poor developing country is currently not able to meet these costs. Therefore
there is need to seek assistance from international organizations and institutions like the United
Nations, IPCC and the World Bank.


12

ANNEXES

Annex 1: Questionnaire
6



Economics of climate change adaptation in Zimbabwe

Questionnaire

1. Name:

2. Age: under 25 years 25-39 yrs


40-59 yrs 60 yrs and above

3. Sex: Male Female

4. Marital status: Single Married

Divorced Widowed

5. Who makes the farming decisions in this household? Self Spouse

6. Which crops do you grow?

Crop Area grown (ha) Fertilizer input (kg) Crop output (kg)






7. Which types of livestock do you keep?

Livestock type Number Challenges







6
Questions 9 12 were not included in the first survey.
13

8. Besides agriculture, what are your other sources of income?



9. Have you ever heard of climate change? Yes No

10. Do you think climate change has affected your farming activities?

Yes No

10.1 If yes, in what way?







11. What are your adaptation strategies to climate change?

Adaptation strategy Advantages Disadvantages and costs







12. What do you think should be done to make the adaptation easier?








14

Annex 2: Physical relationship: fertilizer input versus maize yield (kg/ha)

1995 (N=98) 2010 (N=84)

1995 (N=98) 2010 (N=84)
Fertilizer
(kg/ha)
Maize
(kg/ha)
Fertilizer
(kg/ha)
Maize
(kg/ha)
Fertilizer
(kg/ha)
Maize
(kg/ha)
Fertilizer
(kg/ha)
Maize
(kg/ha)
0.00 95.00 0.00 450.00 65.00 1389.00 58.50 1100.00
5.00 360.00 0.00 540.00 65.00 925.90 58.50 444.43
0.00 550.00 0.00 950.00 65.00 972.20 63.00 466.66
0.00 680.00 2.25 540.00 70.00 1365.00 64.80 655.20
0.00 750.00 4.50 750.00 72.00 835.23 261.00 1450.00
5.00 650.00 4.50 200.00 75.00 1000.00 67.50 100.00
0.00 980.00 9.00 100.00 75.00 1037.00 67.50 1320.00
10.00 740.00 20.70 355.20 75.00 325.00 67.50 156.00
23.00 972.20 22.50 1800.00 75.00 3556.00 68.40 1706.88
25.00 670.00 22.50 860.00 76.00 1111.00 70.00 1860.00
25.00 571.40 22.50 274.27 77.78 2305.30 70.20 1106.54
25.00 571.40 22.50 274.27 78.00 3562.11 70.32 1709.81
25.00 700.00 22.50 336.00 78.13 2986.00 76.50 1433.28
25.00 444.40 25.00 213.31 85.00 1429.00 76.50 685.92
27.78 324.50 25.00 155.76 85.00 1500.00 77.40 720.00
27.78 450.00 25.71 216.00 86.00 2300.00 81.00 630.00
28.57 437.00 25.71 209.76 90.00 1000.00 82.50 480.00
28.57 793.70 27.00 1450.00 91.67 634.90 83.33 304.75
30.00 1020.00 27.00 489.60 92.59 1616.00 85.50 775.68
30.00 444.40 27.39 213.31 95.00 1650.00 90.00 985.00
30.43 634.90 27.50 304.75 100.00 1100.00 90.00 528.00
30.56 650.00 28.00 312.00 100.00 1650.00 94.50 2950.00
31.11 580.00 30.00 278.40 105.00 500.00 108.00 1950.00
33.33 710.00 30.00 340.80 86.00 2500.00 121.54 1666.50
33.33 500.00 31.50 50.00 86.00 890.00 133.31 3645.00
35.00 1560.00 31.50 748.80 90.00 650.00 207.38 3810.00
35.00 1200.00 31.50 576.00 91.00 1978.98 227.13 2857.50
35.00 740.70 32.50 355.54 94.00 2444.00 197.50 2500.00
36.11 800.00 32.72 384.00 100.00 1650.00 197.50 2300.00
36.36 1360.00 35.00 652.80 100.00 700.00 222.19 2000.00
38.89 1340.00 35.00 643.20 100.00 2634.36 237.00 1750.00
38.89 750.00 35.00 360.00 102.00 1680.00 276.50 1500.00
38.89 850.00 35.22 408.00 106.00 1778.00 281.44 1300.00
39.13 1333.00 35.22 639.84 120.00 972.20 266.63 1250.00
39.13 785.20 36.00 376.90 123.00 2030.00 276.50 2000.00
40.00 833.30 36.00 399.98 157.00 2222.00 - -
40.00 718.50 189.00 2500.00 186.00 4860.00 - -
41.67 1500.00 38.57 720.00 220.00 5080.00 - -
42.86 1065.00 40.50 2560.00 230.00 3810.00 - -
45.00 968.00 45.00 786.00 230.00 4500.00 - -
15

50.00 720.00 45.00 345.60 241.00 4900.00 - -
50.00 925.90 45.00 2150.00 250.00 2593.00 - -
50.00 3556.00 45.00 1420.00 250.00 4750.00 - -
50.00 833.30 45.00 399.98 254.00 5500.00 - -
50.00 888.90 48.60 426.67 275.00 5210.00 - -
54.00 1220.46 50.00 585.82 350.00 3500.00 - -
55.56 1222.00 54.00 586.56 365.00 2800.00 - -
60.00 1528.00 57.60 733.44 380.00 2900.00 - -
64.00 500.00 58.50 240.00 387.00 3780.00 - -


16

References
Central Statistical Office (1995). Quarterly Digest of Statistics, CSO, Harare
Central Statistical Office (1996). Quarterly Digest of Statistics, CSO, Harare
FAO (2007); Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries: Perspective,
framework and priorities; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1315/6/41/412045/ees9_6_412045.pdf?request-
id=f338a5ab-0177-412e-bdfd-73cf01a7e8f0 .
Government of Zimbabwe (2011). Medium Term Plan, January 2011 December 2015.
IPCC (2007) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der
Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 7-22.
JIMAT Development Consultants (2008). Coping with Drought and Climate Change Project:
Baseline Study, Final Report to EMA and UNDP, Harare
http://www.undp.org.zw/component/content/175.html?task=view&3a1ed061a28f8a5e62fd48
65066ea7fa=dirxelcs.
Masiiwa, M. (1998).The impact of livestock on household income in the smallholder farming
systems in Zimbabwe.WissenschaftsverlagVauk Kiel KG, Kiel.
Mawire, B. (2008). Biofuels and economic welafare. A cost-benefit analysis of Jatropha schemes
in Zimbabwe. Institute of Development Research and Development Policy, Ruhr University,
Bochum.
Mtisi, S, &Makore, G., (2010). Community participation in biofuels crop production in
Zimbabwe.A focus on the policy and practical aspects. Zimbabwe Environmental Law
Association, Harare.
Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (2011), Mid Term Monetary Review, 2011.Presentation by RBZ
Governor, G. Gono.
Rukuni, M. and Eicher, C. K. (eds) (1994). Zimbabwes Agricultural Revolution. Zimbabwe
University Publications, Harare.
Smit, B. &Pilifosova, O. (2001).Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable
Development, and Equity, 2001.UNFCCC.
The World Bank (2010). Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change: Mozambique, World Bank,
Washington DC.