AnnexTools and Implements

This photographic appendix includes only the tools and implements actually

seen by the study team. It is, therefore, not an exhaustive representation

of other tools and implements that may exist.

6

their work routinely when their men are away, which they usually are. However, aswill be noted later, women often have great difficulty in using the present range ofox-drawn implements. Donkeys are used as well in many areas, especially in the east-

ern part of the countrywhere the severity of thedroughts in recent yearshas reduced the cattlepopulation more thanelsewhere. Between 1990and 1997, the price of adonkey increased twenty-fold in Zimbabwean dol-lar terms (from ZWD 20to at least ZWD 600 to-day, or about US$ 50).The loss of so many cattle

during the droughts is certainly responsible for the increased market for donkeys,and the demand fromZambia, where donkeysare relatively rare, mayalso have played a role.

Oxen vs. Donkeys: A

Debatable Issue with

Cultural Undertones

There are opposingviews about promotingthe use of donkeys for an-imal traction. The Di-rector of the Develop-

ment Technology Unit of the University of Zimbabwe, Mr. W. Tungamirai Ruku-ni, said it would be a mis-take to concentrate ondonkeys and that a pro-gramme for the generalimprovement of livestockwas required. Multi-pur-pose bovines play a cru-cial economic role in rur-al areas, whereas donkeyscannot be eaten and arenot useful for dairy pro-duction; and breeding

116

donkeys is not a worthwhile business.Mr. W. Rukuni also claimed that donkeys were not culturally acceptable, in the

sense that no one gives them as gifts for weddings and nobody has any regard forthem. In his view, to promotethem just for draught powerwhen many women alreadywork with cattle – which havemuch greater economic and so-cial value – would be incorrect.However, he did mention thevalue of donkeys for transport,commenting that they evenstop of their own accord at redtraffic lights in the city.

Different opinions were ex-pressed by a ruminant nutri-tionist and donkey researcher, Mr. Edward Nengomasha, at the Matapos Re-search Station in Bulawayo.He stated that donkeys haveno utilization problem withwomen, and even children,and that lightweight donkeyploughs that can be easilytransformed into cultivatorsare available.

According to Mr. Nengo-masha’s research, oxen workfaster than donkeys, but eventhough donkeys are slower theynever stop. The weight of ani-mals, whether oxen or donkeys, appears to be the key factor in the draught they candevelop and in their ability tosustain it without tiring unduly.Tests with oxen and donkeys,working for four hours in themorning and for the samelength of time in the afternoon,showed that there were largedifferences in the work outputdepending on the nutritionalstate of the animals. Mr. Nen-gomasha also commented thatthe weight of a plough makes

117

Annex 6 Tools and Implements

118

little difference to animals;what matters is the draughtforce required by the plough.For donkeys, a 5-6 in. furrowwidth is usual, whereas for oxen

Uganda

A forked-type hoe quite commonly found here

but not elsewhere. Said to be the best tool

for removing couch grass.

Uganda

The ‘Finland hoe’, imported into Uganda by a past

IFAD project, much appreciated for its quality and

light weight. There is nostalgia for this type of hoe.

it is usually 6-8 in.It is difficult to decide which side of the oxen vs. donkeys debate should be sup-

ported in Zimbabwe, because both sides make valid points. The authors of this re-port tend to come down moreon the side of donkeys, not somuch for ploughing but morefor inter-row hoeing. However,where there are no taboos onwomen using oxen, as in Zim-babwe, the case is clearer forsoft-pedalling the donkey causeand promoting more efficientanimal traction with oxen. Nev-ertheless, even if the authorstake the point about the low so-cial and economic status ofdonkeys and their users in Zimbabwe, as expressed by Mr. Rukuni, this situation hasanother side to the coin: thecash cost of donkeys is muchlower than that of cattle andthey are thus more accessible topoor women. And, finally, evenwhen drought kills off bovines,donkeys usually survive.

And What about

Mechanization with Small

Tractors?

Mr. Rukini stated that the in-creased agricultural productionof recent decades in Zimbabwehad been mainly achieved byenlarging the area under culti-vation, and that further increas-es must be based on higheryields per unit of area. Thiscalls not only for more and bet-ter inputs of seeds and fertilizerbut also of farm power, whichwould also improve the lot ofwomen on the land.

Mr. Rukuni believes that ani-mal traction has gone as far as it

119

Annex 6 Tools and Implements

can go in Zimbabwe; and, while he acknowledges the disaster of State tractor-hireschemes in many countries of Africa, he believes that in Zimbabwe the time hascome to encourage private sector involvement in motor-powered machinery hire

services. The culture ofhiring exists in Zimbab-we, and private hiringstations are a realistic op-tion. What is needed aresober, honest rural peo-ple who, given supportfor start-up and appro-priate technical and busi-ness training, could pro-vide motor-powered ser-vices.

A women’s NGO, Or-ganization of Rural Asso-ciations for Progress(ORAP), based in Bul-awayo and working insouthern and westernZimbabwe, also believesthat it is time to introducemotor-powered mecha-nization in the form ofsmall tractors, rather thancontinue promoting ani-mal traction. When re-minded of the history oftractor schemes in Africa,

and of all the support systems and factors that motorized mechanization requires(fuel, maintenance work-shops, spare parts, tools,skills, ownership clarifica-tion, responsibility andcommitment), the ORAPspokeswoman said that,through their approach,all these aspects would beclarified beforehand.

After such a short pe-riod in Zimbabwe, theauthors are not in a posi-

120

tion to agree or disagree withthese opinions about motor-powered mechanization, evenif it is obvious that Zimbabwehas advantages – comparedwith many other countries inAfrica – in terms of its generalagricultural economy, its infra-structure, and its potential fororganizing the provision ofspare parts, maintenance andrepair services in rural areas.

However, the authors wish to make the important point that, since weeding is thefactor which limits farm production in much of Africa, any motor-powered mech-anization services should not fall into the trap of concentrating only on ploughing.This was the experience ofmany State schemes in the past,when the area ploughed bytractor and planted was fre-quently more than could bekept weed-free by women withhand-hoes. Therefore, any at-tempt to promote motor-pow-ered mechanization hire ser-vices by the private sectorshould include proper creationof awareness – through discus-sions and analysis with the po-tential entrepreneurs and their clients – of the need to take a broader view of mo-tor-powered hire services thanjust ploughing. The tractor ser-vices should in all probabilitybe integrated with the use ofanimal traction – which mightalso be part of the hire services– to ensure mechanization ofthe various crop production op-erations. Yet another reason todownplay the ploughing aspectis that specialists are increas-ingly advocating minimum and

121

Annex 6 Tools and Implements

conservation tillagemethods in Africa, andthis means reducing therole of mouldboard anddisc ploughs in the farm-ing scene.

FAO is planning anAgricultural and RuralEngineering Support Ser-vices Project for Tanzaniaand this proposal setssome important criteriafor private hire services

that would be equally valuable in Zimbabwe. One of these is that the services shouldbe demand-driven andthat the choice of me-chanical equipment to beoffered should be madeby the entrepreneurs andfarmers after demonstra-tions in the field and adetailed analysis by them.Another important crite-rion is that, given theshort cultivation periodsthat predominate inAfrica, investment in ma-

chinery has to be made economically-viable by maximizing its utilization in off-sea-son, non-agricultural work, such as transport, road and track maintenance, soil con-servation, water pumping, rural construction, and the like.

If indeed private-sector mechanization hire services could be started up on a pilotbasis in Zimbabwe andTanzania, the experiencecould be invaluable forthe rest of the continent.And if the services in-cluded inter-row cultiva-tion and the mechaniza-tion of non-agriculturalactivities in the commu-nity, especially thepumping of water, theimpact on women’s

122

workload could be phenomenal.

Institutional AspectsThe Institute of Agricultural

Engineering at Borrowdale, onthe outskirts of Harare, has ananimal traction section (thehead of the section, a woman,was one of the field researchersfor this study). This sectionprovides training in all aspectsof animal traction, includingthe making of harnesses. It alsoconducts research into the effi-cient use of animal traction.

Most of the trainees thatcome to the section are extensionists and trainers-of-trainers. Some of the exten-sionists are women but, overallin Zimbabwe, only about 10%of all extension staff are womenfor it is difficult to find womenprepared to work in this field.

The Institute of AgriculturalEngineering also has a ruraltechnology centre which pro-vides training in blacksmithingand other skills, such as fibre-glass technology, leather tan-ning, production of rural trans-port devices, and the like. Theblacksmith training operation is impressive, and the staff now talk about having in-creasing numbers of womenblacksmiths pass through thecentre.

Another important initiativeis a German Agency for Techni-cal Cooperation (GTZ)-sup-ported project, ConservationTillage for Sustainable Crop Pro-duction Systems, known as the‘ConTill Project’. Researchers,working closely with farmers,have been developing a series of

123

Annex 6 Tools and Implements

low-draught implements with spe-cial focus on donkeys as an alter-native to draught oxen. A tool thatcan be pulled by a single donkeyhas been developed. It can be adapt-ed as a duckfoot weeder, rigid-tinecultivator, or tie-maker (to createsmall cross-dams between ridges as away of conserving moisture). Thistool is very light and easy for womento use. The project has also devel-oped a ripper-planter, also for don-key use, and a disc ridger that can bepulled by donkeys or oxen.

In addition, a wheeled push-hoe,very similar to those made andused in India and other Asiancountries, has been developed.(Nothing similar was found any-where else in Africa during thecourse of this study.) However, amember of the ConTill Projectteam stated that there had beenlimited success in having this hoeadopted, mainly because the up-right working position it allowedwas equated with laziness but alsobecause it was not as effective andfast in all conditions as a tradition-al hoe.

Producers of AgriculturalProduction Tools

Zimplow Limited

This company, which is based inBulawayo, was established in 1939.After a series of transformationsand mergers over the years, it isnow one of the most important ofits kind in Southern Africa. Thelatest merger was in April 1997,when Zimplow fused with the Bul-

124

awayo Steel Company (BST) which also manufactures animal-draught implementsand other tools. The Zimplow trade name is ‘Mealie Brand’ and BST’s was ‘MasterFarmer’.

Zimplow now makes arange of animal-drawn im-plements, some from its owndesigns and some that wereformerly made by BST. Abouthalf of Zimplow’s output issold in Zimbabwe, the otherhalf being sold in neighbour-ing countries of southern andcentral Africa. The range ofZimplow/BST implements isconsiderable, and the newly-merged companies are still inthe process of rationalizingtheir product line and market-ing strategy. In general, theyhave decided to continue withthe models that were sellingbest before the merger, irre-spective of who was makingthem.

As will be explained laterin this report, there waswidespread criticism fromfarmers, both men andwomen, of the weight ofBST/Zimplow implements,especially the five-tine culti-vator, although the ploughswere not excluded from thesame criticisms. When askedabout the weight of their im-plements, Zimplow spokes-men said that they were con-stantly concerned about thequality and durability of theirequipment, and that greaterweight was the inevitabledownside of providing thehigh quality they aim for.

125

Annex 6 Tools and Implements

Zimplow has no direct contact with farmers and it does no market research orfollow-up with clients. Many of their product lines have been in existence for years,with little modification, and they appear to find a ready market in Zimbabwe and

other countries. An ex-ception in terms of a newproduct is a donkeyplough that BST was de-veloping before themerger with Zimplow,and which has beenbrought to fruition withthe help of engineersfrom Agritex and fromSilsoe Research Institutein the United Kingdom.The initial rationale for

developing a donkey plough had nothing to do with the needs of women; rather, itwas provoked by thedroughts of recent yearsand the consequent re-duction in the availabilityof oxen. A donkey ploughseemed to be a way ofbetter utilizing Zimbab-we’s donkey resources.However, Agritex re-search staff later in-formed Zimplow aboutthe gender issue and thepotential usefulness to

women of a donkey plough.The new donkey

plough, despite weighingonly 30kg compared tothe 38kg of the normalox-plough and despitewinning medals at tradefairs, has not been a com-mercial success, at leastto date. One reason isthat, in order to lightenthe plough and at thesame time maintain its

126

durability, high-carbon steel forthe main beam has to be im-ported from South Africa. Thisextra cost brings the sale priceof the donkey plough up toabout the same level as the nor-mal ox-plough, and thereforefarmers have so far been reluc-tant to buy it.

However, it is also possiblethat there have been insuffi-cient attempts to promote itsince its fairly recent launch onthe market, and that Zimplow essentially prefers to take the line of least resistanceand continue to concentrate on selling its traditional ox-ploughs. This studyshowed widespread demand for lighter implements. Time alone will show whetherthe level of acceptance of the donkey plough confirms Zimplow’s view that farmersprefer implements that havebecome traditional or whetherwomen’s complaints about theheaviness of those implementswill result in a change in buyingpatterns. Needless to say, iffarmers are not informed aboutthe lighter tools that are nowavailable, there can be nochange in the status quo.

Zimplow also manufacturershoes of various shapes, fittingtypes and weights. The weightsrange from about 1 lb. (450 gr) to 3 lb. (1 361 gr).

Annex 6 Tools and Implements

B. What Women and Men Farmers Say

The Practices and Perceptions of Rural People Regarding ProductionTechnology

In addition to the fore-going general informa-tion, the FGDs producedthe following specific in-formation:

Time Spent by Women

Working in the Field

The research teamfound it easier to obtainthis information on a

crop-by-crop and time-per-acre basis, rather than by calculating the total numbersof days spent in the fieldthat were provided inother countries of thestudy. The authors wouldlike to draw special atten-tion to the enormousamount of extra timespent weeding whencrops are broadcast orwhen no inter-row culti-vation with animal trac-tion has been carried out(see, for example, the fig-

ures for maize in the following table).

Time Spent on Various

Field Operations

The Hardest Job done

by Women in the Field

Groups stated almostunanimously that weed-ing was the hardest andmost time-consumingtask they perform, asconfirmed by the table.Most groups said they

128

had to hoe a given field two-to-three times in a season. If a weed called fende is in-festing a maize plot, it may need hoeing as many as five or six times.

The very few groups that did not put weeding first stated that ploughing/plantingwas the hardest task of all, theirreasoning being that there wasenormous pressure to plant asquickly as possible to make themost of soil moisture and ob-tain a uniform crop by com-pleting the planting in a shortperiod of time. These fewgroups also said that weedingwas less stressing because theycould break off to do some-thing else. Just one group men-tioned harvesting as their mostdifficult task because it had to be done in a hurry to avoid thieving by baboons and cattle.

Differences in Tools Used

by Women and Men

There is a gender perceptionattached to different tools: someare seen as being ‘men’s tools’and others as ‘women’s tools’.Men’s tools are considered to beploughs, cultivators, ox-carts,axes, adzes, pickaxes and shov-els. Women’s tools are consid-ered to be hoes, watering cans,sickles, and other lightweight items.

These perceptions date fromthe times when men andwomen were more equally pre-sent in rural areas and whenthere were certain men’s tasksand certain women’s tasks inagriculture. But today, eventhough the gender perceptionsabout tools still persist, eventhe men freely state thatwomen now use all of them.Only the adze seems to have re-

129

Annex 6 Tools and Implements

tained its exclusive male connection because of ‘the skills needed to use it’. Heavyaxes are normally not used by women, although lighter ones are. Nowadays, therefore, there are few distinctions in prac-tice between the tools used by women and men.

Renewal of Tools

Tools are replaced less often in Zimbabwe than in the other countries covered bythis study, presumably because of their higher quality. Certainly, the old ploughsharesgenerally used by Zimbabwean blacksmiths to make hoes are far superior to thescrap steel from old vehicles used in many countries. One hoe encountered in thefield work had been in use since 1962, although this was hardly typical. It was moreusual for hand tools to be replaced every two-to-fifteen years.

In respect of animal-draught implements, and especially when referring to theox-carts that are available, there were numerous complaints about their qualitycompared with those of the past. The tyres fitted to ox-carts were said to last onlyabout two years. There were also frequent complaints about the short life of ploughhandles and landwheels, which needed frequent replacement. Ploughshares andother soil-engaging parts are changed regularly. Ploughshares normally last oneseason but, if the soils are very abrasive, they may need to be replaced twice duringa ploughing season. Mouldboards normally last four-to-five seasons.

Wheelbarrows came in for much criticism. Farmers said that the bottom of thesupporting legs wore out very quickly and that they needed to have them modifiedby a blacksmith if they were to last any reasonable length of time.

Where Tools are Purchased and At What Cost

Hoes, axes and similar hand tools are mainly bought from the local blacksmith,although Zimplow hoes are also on sale in the Farmers’ Coop – the Zimplow dis-tributors – in the towns. Other items, such as wheelbarrows and animal-draughtimplements, are bought in towns, sometimes very distant from the village. Typicalcosts are laid out in the following table. Prices reported by groups in Chinamorawere slightly lower than those reported for Manicaland, presumably because of therelative remoteness of the latter area.

Preference for Industrially- or Blacksmith-Produced Tools

Most blacksmiths in Zimbabwe only produce hoes, axes and adzes. Very few pro-duce animal-draught implements, so this discussion topic was automatically restrictedto those basic hand tools which are also made by industrial concerns such as Zimplow.

The groups all expressed their preference for buying tools produced by black-smiths, stating that hoes produced industrially and bought in town were generally notas good as those made by blacksmiths and were more expensive. They came withouthandles and, if one bought the handle separately, it often did not fit properly and cameloose in the field. Hoes, axes and adzes bought from local blacksmiths were generallyconsidered to be stronger, and they came complete with handle. In addition, with black-

130

smiths, it was always possible to negotiate credit, provide one’s own old ploughsharesas raw material, or arrange to barter chickens, maize or whatever, in exchange.

Other Tools and Implements Known by Groups but Seldom Owned

by Group Members

Planters were the most frequently mentioned implements that people knew of butdid not possess. They were recognized as being very efficient and people would liketo have them, but having money to buy them is the problem. In fact, Zimplow it-self recognizes that its planter, at about ZWD 2 000, or more than twice the cost ofa typical plough, is beyond the reach of most small farmers.

One group in Chinamora mentioned that a meeting had been organized by theirextensionist to demonstrate a water pump suitable for irrigating small gardens. Al-though it worked very well, it was beyond the financial reach of the farmers.

131

Prices of Tools and Implements

Hand Tools

Animal Draught

Ridgers were also mentioned as being known to the groups, but they were notwidely used because they were thought to require more draught power than theirsmall oxen could generate.

Who Decides What Tools to Buy

Since it is the women who spend so much time on the land, it is usually they whotake the initiative of mentioning to their husbands that a new tool is needed. Thisis usually followed by a discussion between husband and wife and, once convinced,the husband actually purchases the item. In the absence of their men, women maytake independent decisions about buying small items such as hoes or watering cans.However, it is usually the man who makes the decision about a major item such asa plough or cultivator.

Improvements That Women Would Like for Their Tools

There was a widely-expressed opinion by farmers that implements made in the1960s were much more durable than those being made today, even though they werelighter. Indeed, it was said that some items from those years were still in use. Onegroup made particularly favourable mention of implements with the brand name‘Sunshine’ 3. It was a widely held view that the ploughs and cultivators of those yearswere better than those on offer today.

By far the most common complaint – indeed it was voiced by almost every group ofwomen – was about the weight of the BST/Zimplow implements. The standard five-tine cultivator came in for harsh criticism from women, one group even using a vulgarphrase in English to describe it and going on to say that it was dangerous to use. Themen’s groups also said that the implements were too heavy for women to use easily.

The criticism was not limited to the weight of the cultivator: both women andmen said that the lever to adjust the row width was extremely difficult to use, althougha few did say that if it was properly greased it was just about manageable. Women’sand men’s groups wanted the adjustment lever to be easier to use, and placed nearor on the steering handles of the implement. Groups commented that their rowwidths were hardly ever constant and that easier adjustment of the cultivator wasvery important. Many women also said that the handles on the implements were toohigh for them (they are usually not adjustable).

Women have trouble handling harrows when there are rocks or other obstruc-tions in the field. They would like to have a handle on the harrows to make it easierto lift them around obstacles.

Some groups said they would prefer to have a tool bar that they could convert

132

from plough to cultivator, or ridger, rather than the mono-purpose implementsgenerally manufactured. They clearly had not heard of the tool developed by theConTill Project, as mentioned earlier.

In Manicaland, many groups said that the beam on new ploughs was too straight,with the result that they did not penetrate properly. Their local blacksmiths knewhow to modify the ploughs to make them penetrate better, and people took theirnew ploughs to them as a matter of course to have the modification done.

One group knew about a planting attachment that could be fitted to a plough andsaid that, since they could not afford a planter, it would be very useful. They werecritical about the lack of information available about the planter attachment.

The available ox-carts were criticized for their pneumatic tyres, which puncturedfrequently and did not last long. Women said it was very difficult for them to repaira punctured tyre and pump it up again, and this was echoed by men’s groups. Bothwomen and men would far prefer to have their ox-carts fitted with solid rubbertyres. Many groups also complained about the lack of brakes on today’s ox-carts,which made them quite dangerous to use. They mentioned that if their oxen hadbeen dehorned, the cart pushing from behind forced the harness over the heads ofthe animals – in effect uncoupling them from the cart, with unpredictable conse-quences.

A very few groups said that they believed that mini-tractors would be the answerto their problems.

Finally, irrigation pumps were mentioned as a means that could save them a lot oftime and heavy work in carrying water to their gardens in watering cans and buckets.

All groups, both women’s and men’s, said they would welcome a chance to talk andwork with researchers and designers to improve their tools. Some were even enthusi-astic about the idea, although one women’s group expressed the view that men areoften difficult to work with because they are not sensitive to women’s feelings and needs.

Willingness to Pay More for Better Tools

There was a general willingness by groups to pay more for better tools, providedthey in fact performed better or reduced the workload. However, there are obvious-ly limits as to how much people can afford, as witnessed by the remark about the water pump.

C. Conclusions

Constraints and OpportunitiesThe determining factors governing improved production technology for women

in Zimbabwe fall under two main categories: socio-economic and technical.

Socio-Economic Factors

Zimbabwe’s agricultural economy is the most advanced of the five countries in

133

which the study was conducted. The position of women is better, at least in the sensethat they appear to have a greater level of decision-making about the farming activitiesfor which they are, in effect, responsible, given the high level of male urban migration.

Despite this, however, women’s lack of access to land rights, and the fact thatmost of their work is not remunerated, gives them very limited access to cash orcredit. This, as elsewhere, is a major obstacle to improving the production tech-nology used by women.

Animal traction with oxen is more widely used by women than in the other countriescovered by the study. This is already a considerable advance. Furthermore, the wayin which women have risen to the challenge of taking on tasks that were normallyreserved for men, even with implements that are too heavy and difficult for them touse properly, is testimony to their remarkable will and determination.

Two professionals involved in development and interviewed for this study believedthat the time was ripe for the introduction of small mechanized power units for farmwork, and some women’s groups were of a similar opinion. And perhaps, indeed,Zimbabwe’s agricultural sector has reached the economic level where a private machinery hire service could be tried. A pilot initiative in an area where there wassufficient access to machinery skills and support services, and using machinery thathad been selected after demonstration, evaluation, and study by the entrepreneursand their potential clients, could make an interesting and worthwhile project for anNGO, or it could be an element in an IFAD-supported project.

An important aspect would be to ensure that the hire service was entirely private,and that the machinery provided to the carefully-trained entrepreneurs was on acredit basis. This would stimulate them to work well to pay off the loan – or lose themachinery – and also create a revolving fund to finance an expansion of the servicethrough additional entrepreneurs.

The work already done by projects, NGOs and various institutions in the area ofwomen’s groups must clearly be continued and expanded, but taking a family approachrather than one restricted to women only. Women themselves recognize that access toresources, e.g., land and credit, is crucial for their success, as is education to mobilizeand empower them and to sensitize men to women’s needs and capacities.

Technical

The problem of the weight of the available implements warrants close attention. Asalready mentioned, the complaints about ploughs and cultivators were commonplaceand almost unanimous – as they were also in Zambia, where implements are import-ed from Zimbabwe. However, these complaints were all in respect of the standard andmost widely sold ploughs and cultivators, mainly produced by BST/Zimplow.

What nobody in the discussion groups seemed to know was that BST/Zimplowalso make lightweight implements. For example, there is a Mealie Brand light cul-tivator with three sweeps, known as the Maun cultivator, which weighs only 25kgcompared with the 36-42kg of the standard five-tine cultivators; and the cost of theMaun cultivator is two thirds less than that of the larger ones.

134

Thus, a basic problem is that rural people do not know that different models ofindustrially-produced tools and implements exist. For their part, the manufacturersappear to make little effort to inform people, or even to have all their different mod-els available at sales points; and, overall, there is far too little contact or follow-upwith farmers by major players such as BST/Zimplow. It is hardly normal thatZimplow staff say ‘We do not bring the gender issue into our business’. Do they believe that, in the almost 60 years of their company’s existence, nothing has changedin rural Africa? Do they not know that their ‘farmer’ is now usually a woman, not aman, and that she has special needs with regard to the implements she uses? Allmanufacturers of implements should undertake market research and follow-up withthe users of their products.

Agritex is not blameless in this lack of knowledge among rural people about theimplements that are available. Their extension staff should act as honest brokers inhelping people make the right decisions about which implements to buy.

This study has shown that it is the men who normally take decisions about whichanimal-draught implements to buy; but, at the same time, men state that the im-plements are too heavy for women. So they are either so conservative that theywould rather buy the implements they have seen around for years, whether or notthey are too heavy for their women, or they are not informed about the alternatives.

The most striking result of the study in Zimbabwe is the enormous time savingin hand-hoeing that can be achieved when an animal-drawn cultivator goes throughthe crop first. It would seem, therefore, that this is the aspect that warrants the mostattention. Whatever the lack of prestige of donkeys in Zimbabwe, a lightweightdonkey-drawn cultivator that can be easily used by women and children might makea major impact in reducing women’s heavy burden of hoeing.

This is not to say that time saved hoeing will be used by women for some well-deserved rest, for the common attitude among rural men in Zimbabwe, and in theother countries of the study, too, is that women must be doing something all thetime! But at least the activity that could replace much of the hoeing might be lessback-breaking and more productive.

135

136

Produced by:

The Publications and Desktop Publishing Team of IFAD

Via del Serafico, 107

00142 Rome, Italy

Tel.: + 39 - 06 - 54591

Fax: + 39 - 06 - 5043463

Telex: 620330 IFAD - I

E-mail: ifad@ifad.org

Design: Andrea Wöhr

Printed in Italy by U. Quintil ly S.p.A.

Rome, September 1998