Skip to main content

Tag: decision processes

Who does what in maize farming in Kenya?

Women’s involvement in maize production is often shrouded in assumptions. One might assume that women have minimal say in management decisions, especially regarding jointly managed plots, due to rigid gender norms that prioritize men’s decisions on farming-related matters. However, operating under such assumptions about women’s role in the management of maize farms risks confining women to specific roles and not meeting their needs in the maize seed system.

To break these assumptions, Rachel Voss, Gender Specialist at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), and a team of fellow researchers are conducting a study, “Unpacking maize plot management roles of women and men in smallholder households in Kenya.” The study, part of the Accelerating Genetic Gains in Maize and Wheat (AGG) project, aims to asses the gender dynamics of maize management in Kenya in order to categorize plots and households, analyzing intrahousehold decision-making and evaluating which women have the power and agency to apply their preferences for seed on their farms — and which ones do not.

Challenging perceptions

Take, for example, Sofa Eshiali, a 60-year-old farmer from Ikolomani, western Kenya, who participated in the study. She defies the stereotype of women having a limited role in maize farming, as she is deeply involved in decision-making on maize production in her household and represents an important client for new breeding efforts and more inclusive seed distribution programs. Together with her husband, she has grown maize primarily for family consumption since getting married, getting involved in all matters concerning their half acre farm. “For us, when we want to plant [our maize seeds], we sit together and discuss the cash we have at hand and decide if we can get two hands to help us work our half acre of land,” she says.

Eshiali and her husband make a joint decision on the maize seed variety they plant every season based on performance of the previous planting season. “We previously used the H614D [maize seed variety] and it did well in our farm — except when it gets very windy, as our crops fall and our bean crop gets destroyed before it is ready for harvest. Last season, we decided to use the H624 because it remains there even when it is windy,” she said, demonstrating her knowledge of maize seed variety.

In addition to seed choice and farm labour, Eshiali and her husband also discuss what fertilizer to use and when they need to shift to a new choice, and they make decisions together concerning their farm and farm produce. This includes deciding what amount of harvest they can sell and what to do with the sale proceeds. For a household like Eshiali’s, new maize varieties need to appeal to — and be marketed to — both spouses.

Sofa Eshiali, a 60-year-old maize farmer from Ikolomani, Western Kenya, who participated in the study. (Photo: Susan Umazi Otieno/CIMMYT)
Sofa Eshiali, a 60-year-old maize farmer from Ikolomani, Western Kenya, who participated in the study. (Photo: Susan Umazi Otieno/CIMMYT)

Farming roles

Eshiali’s reality of equitable engagement in the farm may not be the case for other households in her community and across Kenya, meaning that reaching women with new varieties is not always simple.

As Voss points out, women are often less involved in major household decisions than men, frequently due to longstanding social norms. However, there is little understanding of how decisions are negotiated at the household level, particularly when crops are jointly produced. Furthermore, in many places, men are perceived to be the “real” farmers, while women are viewed to only play a supportive role within household farming. This can lead to the exclusion of women from extension activities, trainings and input marketing efforts.

Against this background, Voss notes that the ongoing study aims to identify in which types of households women have control over seed choice and in which households other constraints might be more important.

“To get new maize varieties into men’s and women’s fields, we need to identify the bottlenecks to reaching women. This means understanding, among other things, how decisions about seed are made within households and how households source their seed,” she explains.

Vignettes showing five different decision-making scenarios based on fictitious husband and wife characters. (Photo: Susan Umazi Otieno/CIMMYT)
Vignettes showing five different decision-making scenarios based on fictitious husband and wife characters. (Photo: Susan Umazi Otieno/CIMMYT)

Best-case scenario

To overcome the challenge of discussing the sensitive topic of decision-making roles between spouses and to encourage more culturally unbiased, candid responses, the study uses vignettes, or short stories, to describe various scenarios. This enables farmers to relate with different farm management decision making scenarios without pointing fingers at their spouses.

The study’s coauthor and research team leader, Zachary Gitonga, explains that the use of vignettes is still a relatively new method, especially in agricultural research, but enables digging deeper into sensitive topics.

Data collection involved a joint survey with both men and women household heads about maize plot management before breaking into separate discussions using the vignettes. These presented five possible decision-making scenarios with fictitious husband and wife characters. The five scenarios were then used to discuss strategic seed choices, operational decisions related to issues such as planting date and hiring farm labor, and financial decisions such as the use of the income from the maize sales.

“By presenting a set of short stories, a farmer can determine what scenario they relate with. In the study, farmers can talk about sensitive interaction without having to assign responsibility to their spouse, especially negatively, in the way decisions are made,” Gitonga said.

The vignettes also made it easier for both the enumerators to explain the scenarios and the farmers to understand and freely give their feedback. Sometimes, he pointed out, what men and women perceive as joint decision-making might not be the same. For instance, some men may think informing their wives that they are going to buy a particular seed means involving them. Here, the vignette activity aims to unpack the reality of joint decision-making in households.

From East Africa to Asia

During a recent field visit to the study area in Kakamega, Kenya, Hom Gartaula, Gender and Social Inclusion Research Lead at CIMMYT, noted the study’s importance to the inclusion of women in the farming cycle. “We urgently need to better understand the reality of women’s and men’s situation in terms of access to maize seed and other needed inputs and services. Otherwise, we risk designing breeding and seed systems that do not address the needs of the most vulnerable farmers, including women,” he said, adding that data from the study will enable insights into and comparison with the gender dynamics of wheat production in South Asia through cross-regional learning.

Gartaula also noted that, even though men predominantly manage South Asia’s wheat agriculture, women significantly contribute to it, especially in smallholder farming systems. In recent years, women’s contribution to providing labor and decision-making in wheat agriculture has increased due to the feminization of agriculture and livelihood diversification among smallholders.

Since women’s contributions to wheat farming are often vital to pre- and post-harvest processes, Gartaula notes they ought to be part of the entire maize and wheat value chain. That includes building more equitable seed delivery systems. “It is therefore important to have seed products that address the needs of different users and include home consumption and commercial sales,” he says.

The study will inform future efforts to ensure equitable seed access for both men and women farmers. Ultimately, if both men and women farmers access the best seed based on their needs and priorities, incomes will rise, households will be better sustained, and communities will become more food secure.

Explore our coverage of International Women’s Day 2022.

Understanding decision support

Given the very heterogeneous conditions in smallholder agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa, there is a growing policy interest in site-specific extension advice and the use of related digital tools. However, empirical ex ante studies on the design of this type of tools are scant and little is known about their impact on site-specific extension advice.

In partnership with Oyakhilomen Oyinbo and colleagues at KU Leuven, scientists at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) have carried out research to clarify user preferences for tailored nutrient management advice and decision-support tools. The studies also evaluated the impact of targeted fertilizer recommendations enabled by such tools.

Understanding farmers’ adoption

A better understanding of farmers’ and extension agents’ preferences may help to optimize the design of digital decision-support tools.

Oyinbo and co-authors conducted a study among 792 farming households in northern Nigeria, to examine farmers’ preferences for maize intensification in the context of site-specific extension advice using digital tools.

Overall, farmers were favorably disposed to switch from general fertilizer use recommendations to targeted nutrient management recommendations for maize intensification enabled by decision-support tools. This lends credence to the inclusion of digital tools in agricultural extension. The study also showed that farmers have heterogeneous preferences for targeted fertilizer recommendations, depending on their resources, sensitivity to risk and access to services.

The authors identified two groups of farmers with different preference patterns: a first group described as “strong potential adopters of site-specific extension recommendations for more intensified maize production” and a second group as “weak potential adopters.” While the two groups of farmers are willing to accept some yield variability for a higher average yield, the trade-off is on average larger for the first group, who have more resources and are less sensitive to risk.

The author recommended that decision-support tools include information on the riskiness of expected investment returns and flexibility in switching between low- and high-risk recommendations. This design improvement will help farmers to make better informed decisions.

Community leaders talk to researchers in one of the villages in norther Nigeria which took part in the study. (Photo: Oyakhilomen Oyinbo)
Community leaders talk to researchers in one of the villages in norther Nigeria which took part in the study. (Photo: Oyakhilomen Oyinbo)
Members of the survey team participate in a training session at Bayero University Kano, Nigeria. (Photo: Oyakhilomen Oyinbo)
Members of the survey team participate in a training session at Bayero University Kano, Nigeria. (Photo: Oyakhilomen Oyinbo)
One of the sites of nutrient omission trials, used during the development phase of the Nutrient Expert tool in Nigeria. (Photo: Oyakhilomen Oyinbo)
One of the sites of nutrient omission trials, used during the development phase of the Nutrient Expert tool in Nigeria. (Photo: Oyakhilomen Oyinbo)

Extension agents go digital

While farmers are the ultimate recipients of extension advice, extension agents are most often the actual users of decision-support tools. In another study, the authors provided ex ante insights on the potential uptake of nutrient management decision-support tools and the specific design features that are more (or less) appealing to extension agents in the maize belt of northern Nigeria.

Using data from a discrete choice experiment, the study showed that extension agents were generally willing to accept the use of digital decision-support tools for site‐specific fertilizer recommendations. While extension agents in the sample preferred tools with a more user‐friendly interface that required less time to generate an output, the authors also found substantial preference heterogeneity for other design features. Some extension agents cared more about the outputs, such as information accuracy and level of detail, while others prioritized practical features such as the tool’s platform, language or interface.

According to the authors, accounting for such variety of preferences into the design of decision-support tools may facilitate their adoption by extension agents and, in turn, enhance their impact in farmars’ agricultural production decisions.

Interface of the Nutrient Expert mobile app, locally calibrated for maize farmers in Nigeria.
Interface of the Nutrient Expert mobile app, locally calibrated for maize farmers in Nigeria.

Impact of digital tools

Traditional extension systems in sub-Saharan African countries, including Nigeria, often provide general fertilizer use recommendations which do not account for the substantial variation in production conditions. Such blanket recommendations are typically accompanied by point estimates of expected agronomic responses and associated economic returns, but they do not provide any information on the variability of the expected returns associated with output price risk.

Policymakers need a better understanding of how new digital agronomy tools for tailored recommendations affect the performance of smallholder farms in developing countries.

To contribute to the nascent empirical literature on this topic, Oyinbo and colleagues evaluated the impact of a nutrient management decision-support tool for maize – Nutrient Expert — on fertilizer use, management practices, yields and net revenues. The authors also evaluated the impacts of providing information about variability in expected investment returns.

To provide rigorous evidence, the authors conducted a three-year randomized controlled trial among 792 maize-producing households in northern Nigeria. The trial included two treatment groups who are exposed to site-specific fertilizer recommendations through decision-support tools — one with and another one without additional information on variability in expected returns — and a control group who received general fertilizer use recommendations.

Overall, the use of nutrient management decision-support tools resulted in greater fertilizer investments and better grain yields compared with controls. Maize grain yield increased by 19% and net revenue increased by 14% after two years of the interventions. Fertilizer investments only increased significantly among the farmers who received additional information on the variability in expected investment returns.

The findings suggest including site-specific decision support tools into extension programming and related policy interventions has potential benefits on maize yields and food security, particularly when such tools also supply information on the distribution of expected returns to given investment recommendations.

The research-for-development community has tried different approaches to optimize fertilizer recommendations. In Nigeria, there are several tools available to generate location-specific fertilizer recommendations, including Nutrient Expert. As part of the Taking Maize Agronomy to Scale in Africa (TAMASA) project, CIMMYT has been working on locally calibrated versions of this tool for maize farmers in Ethiopia, Nigeria and Tanzania. The development was led by a project team incorporating scientists from the African Plant Nutrition Institute (APNI), CIMMYT and local development partners in each country.

Next steps

Some studies have shown that dis-adoption of seemingly profitable technologies — such as fertilizer in sub-Saharan Africa — is quite common, especially when initial returns fall short of expectations or net utility is negative, producing a disappointment effect.

In the context of emerging digital decision-support tools for well-targeted fertilizer use recommendations, it remains unclear whether farmers’ initial input use responses and the associated economic returns affect their subsequent responses — and whether the disappointment effect can be attenuated through provision of information about uncertainty in expected returns.

Using our three-year randomized controlled trial and the associated panel dataset, researchers are now working on documenting the third-year responses of farmers to site-specific agronomic advice conditional on the second-year responses. Specifically, they seek to better document whether providing farmers with information about seasonal variability in expected investment returns can reduce possible disappointment effects associated with their initial uptake of site-specific agronomic advice and, in a way, limit dis-adoption of fertilizer.

Cover photo: A farmer shows maize growing in his field, in one of the communities in northern Nigeria where research took place. (Photo: Oyakhilomen Oyinbo)

Supporting smallholder farmers to better combat drought

A farmer in Banke district during monsoon season drought in 2017. (Photo: Anton Urfels/CIMMYT)
A farmer in Banke district during monsoon season drought in 2017. (Photo: Anton Urfels/CIMMYT)

Researchers from the Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA) project have been exploring the drivers of smallholder farmers’ underuse of groundwater wells to combat in-season drought during the monsoon rice season in Nepal’s breadbasket — the Terai region.

Their study, published in Water International, finds that several barriers inhibit full use of groundwater irrigation infrastructure.

Inconsistent rainfall has repeatedly damaged paddy crops in Nepal over the last years, even though most agricultural lands are equipped with groundwater wells. This has contributed to missed national policy targets of food self-sufficiency and slow growth in cereal productivity.

A key issue is farmers’ tendency to schedule irrigation very late in an effort to save their crops when in-season drought occurs. By this time, rice crops have already been damaged by lack of water and yields will be decreased. High irrigation costs, especially due to pumping equipment rental rates, are a major factor of this aversion to investment. Private irrigation is also a relatively new technology for many farmers making water use decisions.

After farmers decide to irrigate, queuing for pumpsets, tubewells, and repairs and maintenance further increases irrigation delays. Some villages have only a handful of pumpsets or tubewells shared between all households, so it can take up to two weeks for everybody to irrigate.

To address these issues, CSISA provides suggestions for three support pathways to support farmers in combatting monsoon season drought:

1. Raise awareness of the importance of timely irrigation

To avoid yield penalties and improve operational efficiency through better-matched pumpsets, CSISA has raised awareness through agricultural FM radio broadcasts on the strong relationship between water stress and yield penalties. Messages highlight the role of the plough pan in keeping infiltration rates low and encouraging farmers to improve irrigation scheduling. Anecdotal evidence suggests that improved pump selection may decrease irrigation costs by up to 50%, and CSISA has initiated follow-up studies to develop recommendations for farmers.

Social interaction is necessary for purchasing fuel, transporting and installing pumps, or sharing irrigation equipment. These activities pose risks of COVID-19 exposure and transmission and therefore require farmers to follow increased safety and hygiene practices, which may cause further delays to irrigation. Raising awareness about the importance of timely irrigation therefore needs to go hand in hand with the promotion of safe and hygienic irrigation practices. This information has been streamlined into CSISA’s ongoing partnerships and FM broadcasts.

2. Improve community-level water markets through increased focus on drought preparedness and overcoming financial constraints

Farmers can save time by taking an anticipatory approach to the terms and conditions of rentals, instead of negotiating them when cracks in the soil are already large. Many farmers reported that pump owners are reluctant to rent out pumpsets if renters cannot pay up front. Given the seasonality of cash flows in agriculture, pro-poor and low interest credit provisions are likely to further smoothen community-level water markets.

Quantified ethnographic-decision tree based on households’ surveys of smallholder decision to use groundwater irrigation in Nepal’s Terai. (Graphic: Urfels et al. (2020))
Quantified ethnographic-decision tree based on households’ surveys of smallholder decision to use groundwater irrigation in Nepal’s Terai. (Graphic: Urfels et al., 2020)

3. Prioritize regional investment

The study shows that delay factors differ across districts and that selectively targeted interventions will be most useful to provide high returns to investments. For example, farmers in Kailali reported that land access issues — due to use of large bullock carts to transport pumpsets — and fuel shortages constitute a barrier for 10% and 39% of the farmers, while in Rupandehi, maintenance and tubewell availability were reported to be of greater importance.

As drought is increasingly threatening paddy production in Nepal’s Terai region, CSISA’s research shows that several support pathways exist to support farmers in combatting droughts. Sustainable water use can only be brought up to a scale where it benefits most farmers if all available tools including electrification, solar pumps and improved water level monitoring are deployed to provide benefits to a wide range of farmers.

Read the study:
Drivers of groundwater utilization in water-limited rice production systems in Nepal