Evaluation of the Role of Small-Scale Farmers in Soil and Water Conservation Management in the Context of Climate Change

Abstract

The global land resource is increasingly under pressure due to both anthropogenic and natural factors such as unsustainable land management practices and climate change, respectively. Land degradation and climate change are among the major global threats to the resilience of agro-ecosystems and stability of food production systems. Small-scale resource-constrained farmers, who account for the majority of farmers across the world, are the hardest hit due to the scale of their operations, operating environment, and circumstances. Despite these global challenges, small-scale farmers have continued to adjust their farming systems to withstand the vagaries of climate change, while at the same time aiming to achieve land degradation neutrality. This chapter sought to evaluate the role played by small-scale farmers in soil and water conservation management in attempt to address land degradation and climate change. Further, the chapter investigated key characteristics and circumstances of small-scale farmers as well as their constraints, strengths, and opportunities. The chapter argues that farmers’ indigenous knowledge system has been and continues to be a key strength and offers an opportunity for which more specialized scientific and agricultural extension support can build upon in developing lasting solutions to climate change and soil and water conservation management.

1. Introduction

Land degradation and climate change are among the major global threats to the resilience of agro-ecosystems and stability of food production systems. Globally, 3.2 billion people are affected by land degradation, most of whom are the small-scale farmers residing in rural communities of Africa [1]. These African small-scale farmers generally practice rain-fed crop and livestock production, which makes them vulnerable to climate change and droughts [2, 3]. The effects and impacts of climate change are felt the hardest in small-scale farming systems of Africa due to the scale of operation, biophysical conditions of their farms, and operating circumstances of the farmers particularly their poor resource endowment [4]. However, life has to go on for these farmers. They have to produce enough food to feed their families and communities, despite the aforementioned challenges. To do this, they have to build resilience of their farming systems to withstand the effects of climate change and to better manage their natural resources (soil and water) as they aim to achieve land degradation neutrality (LDN).

Worldwide there are approximately 570 million farms, 470 million of which are small-scale farms [5]. Of these, approximately 33 million are located in Africa, thus constituting 80% of all farms on the continent [2, 6]. Due to them being the overwhelming majority for both Africa and the world at large, small-scale farmers are uniquely placed at the center of it all—bearer of the brunt of the climate and land degradation challenges on the one hand and on the other, an integral part of efforts to address or manage these challenges. However, this does not seem to be the case, particularly for the African small-scale farmers who are often overlooked and misunderstood in terms of their importance in finding lasting solutions to these land resource challenges threatening their very livelihoods. Yet, for effective implementation of agricultural policies, there is need for the inclusion and incorporating features of small-scale farmers, as agricultural policy and statutory instruments affect different farming sectors differently [7].

It is for this reason that this chapter sought to evaluate the role played by small-scale farmers in soil and water conservation management in attempts to address the impacts and effects of land degradation and climate change to their farming systems. To achieve this goal, it is imperative to start by understanding the small-scale farming sector, its key characteristics, strengths, and constraints. To this end the chapter attempts to achieve five objectives, namely: defining small-scale farmers; determining the characteristics and circumstances of small-scale farming systems in Africa; exploring constraints and strengths of small-scale farmers; evaluating the soil and water conservation strategies employed by small-scale farmers in adapting to climate change; and assessing the land degradation neutrality in small-scale farming systems.

The chapter utilized both primary and secondary data. Secondary data in the form of a review of literature, primarily journals and published technical reports pertaining to small-scale farming systems, were conducted. Conversely, primary data were gathered through focus group discussions (FGDs) with African small-scale farmers, observations, and key informant interviews (KIIs) conducted with public extension agents from Zimbabwe, Zambia, and South Africa.

This chapter proceeds as follows. Section 2 explores the definition of small-scale farmers, including the various factors that have been used in defining the small-scale farmers. Further, key attributes or characteristics of small-scale farmers are also examined. Section 3 evaluates the numerous constraints confronting small-scale farmers due to their scale of operation. Despite all the challenges small-scale farmers face, they still have their strengths, which have kept them going for generations—these strengths are also outlined and discussed in this section. The penultimate section, Section 4 deals with leveraging on the strengths and opportunities of small-scale farmers in adapting to climate change and achieving land degradation neutrality. The final section offers some concluding remarks.

2. Definition, characteristics, and circumstances of small-scale farmers

2.1 Misconceptions about small-scale farmers

A lot of misconceptions arose about the African small-scale farmers due to their circumstances and operating conditions compared to their counterparts in developed world. Among the notable misconceptions, small-scale farmers are often viewed as backward and unproductive farmers operating in native lands [8]. This is further from the truth as small-scale farmers are among to be the main contributors to national food security in most developing countries such as Zimbabwe and Zambia [9]. Further, in most African countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe, small-scale farmers are generally associated with the black population, while large-scale farmers are generally associated with the white population [8]. These misconceptions seem to stem from the history of land tenure systems under Apartheid regime, and before Independence in South Africa and Zimbabwe, respectively, where blacks were overcrowded in native/rural areas characterized with infertile soils as opposed to the fewer whites who owned prime extensive agricultural lands. Thus, the political and historical development of the Zimbabwe particularly during the 90 years of colonial and settler government also shaped farming systems [10].

Prior to the fast-track land reform program (FTLRP) of the year 2000 in Zimbabwe, there were three distinct farming subsectors: communal lands, resettlement areas, and large-scale commercial farming [10]. The first two subsectors constituted the small-scale farming systems. These were located in areas known as Reserves, which were characterized by poor agricultural potential and were merely established as a labor pool for the white commercial farming community [11].

The FTLRP introduced two farm models, namely: A1 (small self-contained farms) and A2 (slightly larger-scale or medium-scale), focusing on subsistence and more commercial production, respectively [12]. Thus, after the implementation of the FTLRP, a tri-modal structure of Zimbabwe’s farming systems ensued namely small-scale farms, and medium-scale commercial and large-scale estates [12]. The Zimbabwean small-scale farming sector currently comprises old resettlement areas (settled before 2000), communal lands, and the A1 farms.

The foregoing indicates that it is inadequate to use only one or two factors to define or categorize farming sectors. There is need to properly define and constitute small-scale farmers in a manner that encompasses all the other key factors. The next two parts of this section attempted to do achieve that.

2.2 Defining small-scale farms/farmers

While it is almost impossible to have a universally accepted definition of small-scale farmers, most attempts to understand these farmers and their farms have used certain attributes or criteria including land size, resources, and income. Of these farm size is probably the most obvious and easily used criterion to define small-scale farmers [5, 13]. However, the World Bank views small-scale farmers as those with cropland sizes less than 2 hectares and with the added condition of having little or no assets [14]. A similar definition for small-scale farmers is given in a study by FAO, which emphasizes limited/stretched resources in comparison with medium- and large-scale farmers [15]. The limited resources include land holding sizes, livestock, access to inputs and markets, agro-ecological factors, level of technology use, and income levels [10, 13].

Although farm size is the mostly used indicator to identify or define small-scale farmers, it is not a good criterion and has its limitations [8, 16]. As such small-scale farms should not be generalized as simply scaled-down versions of large-scale farms [8]. One reason for this is that land qualities vary across different types of farms, implying that a small land area of high fertility will likely result in a higher yield output compared to a much larger land area characterized by low fertility [16]. As such land size is not a proper determinant of farm-scale categories. Computing net farm profitability would be a much better determinant [8, 16]. Europe has been using this approach in categorizing farms.

Standard gross margins (SGMs) of all farm enterprises are undertaken to evaluate the farm’s potential income generation and total farm profitability [7]. In this way, the SGM tool provides information about the scale of a farm’s business. The SGM tool can also be adjusted to cater for farms in different localities. This approach is a move-away from using farm area and intensity of production in classifying farms. This is one way to go about defining small-scale farms and farmers. However, it may present two main challenges particularly for small-scale farmers in Africa. Firstly, profitability is not the primary purpose for farming, household consumption and food security are. Secondly, it ignores the non-monetary aspects and attributes that cannot be easily expressed in monetary terms. As such, it is submitted that there is need for inclusion of other characteristics and circumstances in defining small-scale farmers, most of which are discussed under the next subheading.

2.3 Characteristics and circumstances (constraints and strengths) of small-scale farmers

Several factors frame the characteristics of farmers of any scale. Under this subheading, key unique characteristics and circumstances of small-scale farmers are discussed. From these, some constraints, strengths, and opportunities within the small-scale farming sector can be discerned:

2.3.1 Primary purpose

The main objective of small-scale farming systems is for household consumption as opposed to large-scale commercial farming systems that respond to market demand [17]. In all the FGDs conducted with small-scale farmers in Zimbabwe and Zambia, farmers highlighted that while their main reason for farming was for household consumption (Table 1). If and when there is a surplus, it will be sold to generate income for their other needs.

Crop type	Crop grown	Reasons for growing
Cereals	Maize	Household consumption, income generation from selling surplus. Stock feeding.
	Sorghum	Household consumption and income generation from selling surplus. Beer brewing for selling and traditional ceremonies.
	Rapoko	Beer brewing for selling and traditional ceremonies.
Legumes	Groundnuts	Household consumption and income generation from selling surplus. Fixing nitrogen into the soil.
	Sugar beans	Household consumption, income generation from selling surplus. Fixing nitrogen into the soil.
	Cowpeas	Household consumption, income generation from selling surplus. Fixing nitrogen into the soil.
	Round nuts	Household consumption, income generation from selling surplus. Fixing nitrogen into the soil.
Tubers	Sweet potatoes	Household consumption and income generation from selling surplus.
	Potatoes	Household consumption.
Vegetables	Including butternuts, onions, tomatoes, cabbage, spinach, chomolia, tsunga, pumpkins, carrots, tomatoes.	Income generation and household consumption.

Table 1.

Crops grown by small-scale farmers and reasons for growing them (source: FGDs).

2.3.2 Land tenure and size issues

The majority (85%) of small-scale farmers in Africa operate in farms of less than 2 hectares [2]. In addition to their already small farm sizes, African small-scale farmers are also challenged by the ever rising populations, which are absorbed into farming leading to further shrinkage of their farm sizes. This fragmentation of small-scale farms to accommodate high population growth in Africa confines small-scale farmers to subsistence crop production. In addition to small land sizes, small-scale farmers are typically located on lands with marginal production potential (degraded lands). Furthermore, lack of clear and sound system of land rights transfer has been noted as one of the causes of food insecurity and underdeveloped agriculture [3].

2.3.3 Semi-arid environment and over reliance on rain-fed agriculture

Most of small-scale farmers in Africa are located in semi-arid environments with low, erratic rainfall (with high prevalent of severe dry spells) and high temperatures—further limiting crop productivity [2, 10, 18]. Further, these semi-arid environments are characterized by marginal and infertile soils [10]. These conditions make meaningful crop production very difficult even for drought resistant crops such as sorghum [10]. Climate change is expected to worsen these poor conditions resulting in crop yield reductions leading to severe food security challenges especially so if household food requirements are not met [2, 3].

2.3.4 Self-reliance

Farmers’self-reliance relates to the extent to which they depend on their capacity and capability as reflected by their knowledge, skills and labor, or lack thereof, to take charge of the factors that affect their farm operations [19, 20]. This entails that small-scale farmers are going to utilize knowledge/information/training available to them as they go about their operations. According to respondents in this study, the majority of small-scale farmers are not formally trained in agriculture. The only training they have is from the public extension workers who often target progressive small-scale farmers and provide them with relevant farming information and technologies, which they are expected to disseminate to other farmers [21]. The training includes planting methods, and soil and water conservation techniques, among other technologies.

Lack of access to agricultural information, particularly farm management information, is a common characteristic of small-scale farmers [22, 23]. In Zimbabwe, they are particularly reliant on extension workers, other farmers through their farmers’ clubs and, to a small extent, radio [18, 22, 23]. This was also confirmed during FGDs and KIIs. The public extension workers (via KIIs) in all the three countries acknowledged that farmers self-organize into farmers’ clubs whose responsibilities include conducting field days, which offers an informal platform where small-scale farmers exchange experiences and agricultural information through open discussions. This farmer-to-farmer extension can also be an important way to disseminate and encourage adoption of new technology [18].

2.3.5 Family labor

Small-scale farmers and their families provide labor requirements to meet all the farm operations including land preparation, cultivation, weeding, and harvesting [13, 24, 25]. A large family consisting of able-bodied members is thus more likely to be successful compared to a smaller family or families consisting mainly of young children and the aged [17]. In most cases, small-scale farmers and their family are willing to and actually invest more energy and time in their farms than those justified at standard market wage rates because the rewards accrue directly to the family [17]. Both FGDs and KIIs across study sites indicated that small-scale farmers do not place a monetary value to the labor they put into their own farms because they do not perceive it as a cost. This again speaks to the primary purpose for farming, discussed above, that most small-scale farmers are mostly growing crops and rearing livestock for household consumption.

2.3.6 Technology paradigm

As already discussed in the preceding subheading above, small-scale farmers have often relied on their indigenous knowledge, family labor, and influence of social networks on technology adoption for all their farm operations. Use of simple farming technologies is common among small-scale farmers. In both the FGDs and KIIs, it was noted that most small-scale farmers of Southern Africa own hoes, ox-drawn plow, axes, wheelbarrow, and cultivators. The better-off small-scale farmers additionally own scotch carts, harrows, rippers, and ridgers.

Cattle are the main source of power for tilling the land and other farm operations [11, 23]. However, about 40% of the small-scale farmers do not own cattle and must hire them for the required operations [23]. This is consistent with FGDs’ findings, where farmers highlighted that some farmers owning implements but without cattle enter into reciprocal cooperative arrangements with farmers who have cattle but lack some implements for tillage and cultivation purposes.

Social function (processes and systems) influences farmer decision making around technology adoption. Small-scale farmers may actually adopt an unfavorable technology to them only because it is preferred by his/her social referent group [26]. In this manner, “social influence” can thus be taken to mean the extent to which members of a referent group affect one another’s behavior and experience social pressure to perform particular behaviors.

2.3.7 Use of indigenous knowledge

Most small-scale farmers depend on their own indigenous knowledge generated through many years of farming experience in their own communities to guide crop management decisions [18, 22, 23, 25] (Table 2). Although reliable, indigenous knowledge keeps farmers operating at low levels of productivity [11]. This reliance on indigenous knowledge-driven methods of farming had been inaccurately taken to mean that small-scale farmers are mostly uneducated, illiterate, and backward. In this study, it was observed that most small-scale farmers were literate and educated at least to the basic primary school level. Their continued reliance on indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) is mainly because of lack of proven alternatives and lack of access to modern technologies.

IKS technology	Description of the IKS method/technology	Reason and/ advantages of the IKS method
Harvest and seed preservation	Use of fire smoke to preserve dried maize cobs of high yielding local open pollinated varieties (OPVs) to be used a seed next season.	This technology is easy to operate and there are no costs involved, instead they save the cost of buying hybrids.
	Burning gumtree (eucalyptus) leaves and cow dung to repel weevils inside the granaries.	The burning is aimed at eliminating oxygen in the granary to ensure no weevils will survive. This is a no-cost technology to farmers.
	Mixing paraffin and ash for treating and preserving cowpeas seed from weevils,	It is a low cost and easy to implement technology
Crop protection	Use of sand soil and donkey manure to control pest and diseases in field crops, for example control of maize stalk borer.	No-cost technology to farmers.
Seasonal rainfall forecasting	Studying local indigenous indicators like fruiting of certain indigenous tree species, position of the moon, wind direction and behavior of birds to indicate a “good” and “poor” rainfall season.	The indigenous indicators are more reliable in predicting the nature of rainfall season than the official/scientific seasonal climate forecast.; The indigenous is readily available to farmers unlike the scientific technology which they may not get on time or at all.
Soil fertility	Mixing poultry droppings with water to form what small-scale call “chicken soup” which they use as a top dress fertilizer	Easy to implement and use. It is also a no-cost technology to farmers.
Multiple cropping and intercropping	Growing multiple crops in one field for example cover crops and runner crops like pumpkins to ensuring total ground cover.	It minimizes the impact of raindrops and thus controls soil erosion.
Tree and hedge planting (Live fencing)	Live fencing for marking homestead and field boundaries and protecting crops from straying animals through planting of trees, shrubs and hedges.	The live fence also acts as windbreaks which reduce wind velocity and hence erosion by wind.; Vegetation binds the soil making it less vulnerable to soil erosion.
Spot irrigation	Applying water to the immediate areas around a plant only as opposed to the whole garden.	The technology is water use efficient technology which saves water especially in poor rainfall seasons.

Table 2.

Technology developed by farmers through their indigenous knowledge systems (IKS).

Despite the lack of access to modern technologies, small-scale farmers have shown a willingness to learn about modern farming technologies if given the opportunity [18, 23]. This is consistent with FGDs’ findings where farmers indicated that whenever their lives are at stake, they are ready to learn and try out new methods or technology when resources are permitting.

2.3.8 Production paradigm

Small-scale farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa are characterized by low yields as a result of the low level of production they usually operate at. Average crop yields in small-scale farming systems are usually very low and sometimes fail to meet the household requirements or income needs due to persistent droughts, poor soils, lack of good quality inputs, limited or no access to credit, and extension services [23, 25, 27]. Further, small-scale farmers normally use local resources in their farming operations although they may occasional make use of external inputs [2, 13]. Moreover, the small-scale farmers employ risk-averse strategies and aim to maximize yields from constraining resources [28].

2.3.9 Lack of access to credit facilities and markets

Lack of access to credit is the most critical resource constraint to small-scale farmers [11, 22, 23]. The majority of small-scale farmers are unable to access credit from banks and micro-credit firms due to lack of collateral [3]. As a result, these farmers rely on their own meager savings and remittances, thus thwarting any meaningful attempts to expanding their farm productivity [3]. Lower Gweru farmers indicated during FGDs that lack of access to credit facilities one of the major reasons why they have not adopted modern technologies that have high initial costs.

Lack of access to markets is twofold: firstly, lack of access to markets to acquire inputs, and, secondly, lack of access markets to sell their produce. The input and output markets are either missing or incomplete. This presents another challenge—higher transaction costs [8]. Thus, small-scale farmers often fail to use quality inputs due to inaccessibility and high costs [21]. Lack of a ready market to sell produce has resulted in large post-harvest losses in Africa [29]. Post-harvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa are estimated to amount to more than 40% and are even as high as 70% for perishables [30].

Closely related to access to markets are the infrastructural circumstances for most small-scale farmers. A poor road network hinders smooth distribution of inputs to the farms as well as output (agricultural produce) from the farms to the market. Due to poor road systems in small-scale farming areas of Zimbabwe and most developing sub-Saharan Africa farmers resort to inefficient modes of transportation such as animal-drawn scotch carts [3].

2.3.10 Mixed farming systems/integrated crop-livestock systems

Most small-scale farming systems are characterized as mixed farming systems, comprising both crop production and livestock production. Small-scale farmers often grow staple crops such as maize, sorghum, groundnuts and also rearing cattle, goats, and poultry [23]. FGD respondents across the three countries indicated that they mostly grow maize, sunflower, groundnuts, finger millet, and sorghum. These crops are also usually intercropped.

There are numerous advantages of this mixed farming systems including reduction of risk normally prevalent in a monoculture farming system [2]. Although not every small-scale farmer in Zimbabwe, Zambia, and South Africa owns cattle, the majority of them have goats, sheep, and poultry. Most of these farmers give priority to the crop production over livestock production [31]. This is mainly because they want to meet their household food security requirement first. This section discusses the advantages of the integrated crop-livestock systems.

Source of income: The livestock production enterprise presents opportunities for regular income generation including the selling of products such as milk and meat. Combining this income to that generated seasonally or regularly from the crop production enterprise improves the cash flow of the farmers [32]. Poor small-scale farmers with goats can meet short-term immediate needs for cash and meat. Farmers with cattle can also generate income through hiring out their cattle as draft power to those without for draft power purposes [24, 31]—this was observed and confirmed through FGDs and KIIs in the three study countries. Cash from livestock sales is also used for meeting other important household needs including education, family health, and acquiring farming inputs.

Draft power: Despite the majority of small-scale farmers not having tractors, those with cattle can use their cattle for draft power to pull implements for their farming operations [24, 31]. While farmers without cattle may be able to hire draft power from those who own cattle, they are inconvenienced as they will have to wait until the owners finish their own farm operations first, leading to delayed land preparations and planting [24].

Food security enhancement: Milk and meat produced from the livestock production enterprise enhance the household food security while simultaneously improving the general nutrition status of households [31]. Additionally, the income generated from selling meat and milk that can be used to supplement food supplies when necessary.

Spreading agricultural risk: Integrated crop-livestock production systems provide an insurance against the risk of total failure. If part or all of the crop production enterprises fail, farmers will fall back on the livestock enterprise, and vice versa.

Synergies between crop and livestock enterprises: In the FGDs, respondents highlighted that in addition to crop residues, they also reserve some grains for livestock and poultry feeding. In turn, the livestock and poultry provide manure, which farmers used in their fields. As already discussed, these farmers rely mostly on organic fertilizer (cattle and poultry manure and mulches) and rarely acquire inorganic fertilizers due to their low input and risk aversion nature. The income to purchase such fertilizers is again generated from the sale of livestock products and surplus crop produce. FGDs’ respondents as well as KII findings highlighted those farmers who practiced a technique known as mobile kraals experienced significant increases in crop yield. The technique is also noted for improving soil fertility through cow dung and urine [33].

3. Leveraging on farmers’ strengths and opportunities in adapting to climate change and achieving land degradation neutrality

Small-scale farmers, despite all the challenges they face, still have their strengths, which have kept them going for generations. These include use of indigenous knowledge, family labor, low cost of production, integrated crop and livestock systems, spreading of agricultural risk, and conservation of natural resources. These strengths can be leveraged and built upon in the quest to enhance the resilience of farming systems to adapt and better cope with climate change and land degradation. Equally some constraints, already discussed in the previous section, can also be viewed as opportunities. For example, the lack of cattle for tillage purposes has become an opportunity for adoption of conservation agriculture. Further, some small-scale farmer constraints present opportunities for scientists, extension agencies, technology developers, government, and other key stakeholders to work with farmers in introducing relevant interventions. The strengths and opportunities of small-scale farmers and their systems toward soil and water conservation and achieving land degradation neutrality are discussed in detail below:

3.1 Soil and water conservation in small-scale farming systems

Small-scale farmers are usually better at conserving and managing natural resources through their traditional multiple cropping systems (beans, corn, potatoes, and fodder), which reduce soil erosion [34]. Soil erosion is a major form of land degradation and is very costly in that it involves loss of organic matter and nutrients from the soil and the deposition of such nutrients in receiving waters such as rivers and dams where it presents other costly off-sites problems. Multiple cropping reduces yield losses caused by weeds, pests and diseases, and utilizes water, radiation, and nutrients more efficiently, thus resulting in yield advantages of between 20 and 60%, thereby contributing as much as 20% of global food supply [34].

Other indigenous knowledge systems used by respondent farmers to improve soil fertility and water conservation include mulching, composting, animal manure, intercropping, use of crop residues to cover the soil, and use of anthill and ashes to improve the soil structure and to lime the soil, respectively. Most these indigenous technologies are closely linked to the climate smart agriculture technologies, which have been promoted by most public extension agencies and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Africa. Technologies such as conservation agriculture and thermal composts are highly adopted by small-scale farmers due to their having traits similar to farmers’ own indigenous practices such as gatshombo (planting basins) and makeshift composts made from crop residues and grass, respectively [23]. Respondents felt they owned these technologies although they acknowledged the technologies had been upgraded and improved by experts. This emphasizes the need for scientists, extension agencies, and technology developers to build on farmers’ indigenous knowledge and experiences in coming up with relevant interventions to challenges affecting farmers.

Conservation agriculture was highly adopted mainly because farmers found it to increase crop yields, reduce soil erosion, and use water and nutrients efficiently as application of these resources will be done in the planting area only. In a study across 13 districts in Zimbabwe, crop yield increases of up to 300% were observed for three seasons (2004/05 up to 2006/07) [35]. More important to the most small-scale farmers, conservation agriculture does not require draft power to establish. As such it was very popular among farmers with fewer or no cattle. However, it was noted that even farmers who owned cattle also adopted it. For these farmers (who owned cattle), their other option for soil moisture conservation was deep tillage of fields a couple of months before the onset of the rainy season to increase permeability and thus water absorption capacity during the rainy season.

Similarly, thermal compost technology was highly adopted because for a number of reasons. Firstly, it is less costly to implement and use. Secondly, it was considered a locally available option to mineral fertilizer and cattle manure (particularly for farmers owning few or no cattle). Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it improved crop yields at similar rates to mineral fertilizers. According to FGDs, the use of compost also helps to reduce leaching of nutrients from the soil. Further, soil fertility is maintained or improved by using composts as opposed to using inorganic fertilizers, which some farmers in Zimbabwe argued that it hardens the soil.

3.2 Toward land degradation neutrality in small-scale farming systems

Land degradation is taking place at unprecedented levels, contributing to a dramatic decline in the land productivity throughout the world. Further, when land degradation occurs, soil carbon and nitrous oxide are emitted from the soil to that released into the atmosphere, thus making land degradation one of the most important contributors to climate change [1, 33]. About 24 billion tons of fertile soil is estimated to be lost annually, largely because of unsustainable agriculture practices, and if this trend continues unabated, 95% of the Earth’s land areas could become degraded by 2050 [1]. Hence, there is need for concerted efforts to arrest and reverse land degradation in all its forms as acknowledged in Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals Target 15.3, which states the need to strive for a land-degradation-neutral world.

Land degradation neutrality [LDN] is defined as “a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporal and spatial scales and ecosystems” [36]. It is concerned about managing land more sustainably to reduce degradation, while increasing rates of land restoration. The two ends (reducing degradation and land restoration) converge to give a zero-net rate of land degradation [33, 36].

As already discussed, small-scale farming is among the worst affected by land degradation due their farms’ biophysical conditions and locality. As such they also have a role to play in ensuring attainment of land degradation neutrality at their level. In the previous sections, it was discussed how small-scale farmers, through their own indigenous knowledge system and practices, are managing their natural resources. Among them are the multiple cropping systems, intercropping, and no-tillage practices, which ensure total soil cover to reduce soil erosion and surface runoff. Such actions can contribute toward achieving land degradation neutrality.

Some of the constraints of small-scale farmers have indeed become opportunities, as already discussed. The lack of adequate livestock and money for hiring cattle for purposes of conventional tillage purposes have meant increased adoption of the no-till and reduced and minimum tillage strategies. These strategies align well with the three tenets of conservation agriculture, which are as follows: no or minimum mechanical soil disturbance (through no-till seeding); maintenance of soil mulch cover (with crop residues, stubbles, and cover crops); and diversified cropping (involving annuals and perennials, including legumes, in sequences/rotations).

The benefits of implementing conservation agriculture include limiting of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, as carbon is kept in the soil where it is needed for crop production as opposed to being emitted into the atmosphere. This provides huge ecological and economic benefits in the fight against climate change. Thus, the use of conservation agriculture as a means to achieve land degradation neutrality has the potential to contribute to the attainment of other related SDGs, for instance, poverty eradication (SDG 1), food security (SDG 2), water (SDG 6), and climate change (SDG 13). This is the reason why LDN is considered as an SDG accelerator, which offers cost-effective and ecological sound means of meeting these goals [33].

4. Conclusions

The chapter suggests that small-scale farmers who are in the majority across Africa and the world are the most hit by global environmental challenges such as climate change and land degradation due to their scale of operation, circumstances, and the biophysical conditions of their farms. As such, they are uniquely placed to play an important role in the development of lasting solutions to the land degradation and climate change. However, this has not been the case as small-scale farmers are often ignored and misunderstood, and their farming systems are often deemed backward and unproductive. The chapter thus attempted to define small-scale farmers, their key characteristics, strengths, and opportunities as well as how these may be leveraged on in adapting their systems to climate change effects and impacts and achieving land degradation neutrality. The chapter outlined that small-scale farmers have been managing their natural resources (soil and water) through their indigenous knowledge systems and practices, most of which aligns well with the three interlinked principles of conservation agriculture (no or minimum mechanical soil disturbance; maintenance of soil mulch cover; and diversified cropping). These farmers may not know or fully comprehend the potential scientific and ecological benefits and implications of some of their tried and tested indigenous practices toward reversing, reducing, and avoiding land degradation and climate change. This then offers gaps and opportunities for scientists and researchers to build capacity of the farmers and perfect some of their indigenous technologies. Thus, instead of ignoring, trivializing, and wrongly perceiving them as backward and unproductive, there is need to engage small-scale farmers and embracing their indigenous knowledge systems and practices as they are uniquely placed to do their part in the contributing toward addressing global challenges, which threatens their very livelihoods. The chapter acknowledges that more work still needs to be done in Southern Africa with regard to the actual assessment of land degradation neutrality using the land restoration indicators: land cover; land productivity; and carbon bank/stock. The numerous economic and ecological benefits of implementing conservation agriculture and related variants of climate smart agriculture, toward attainment of land degradation neutrality (SDG 15), poverty eradication (SDG 1), and climate change (SDG 13), were noted.

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the respondents for their valuable time, which they gave generously to provide data for this study.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.