guest column:Eness Paidamoyo Mutsvangwa-Sammie MANY countries in sub-Saharan Africa commit resources to promote agricultural innovations. This is based on the assumption that rural livelihoods are mainly agricultural and that the innovations will increase agricultural production and household income. As resources come under pressure from growing populations and natural resource degradation, governments and donors want to see that agricultural research and innovation has an impact. They want to see “success” and “value for money”. But success is understood in different ways. It depends on how it’s framed and by whom. Studying conflict in agricultural innovations can lead to a better understanding of the appropriateness of certain technologies in terms of how they are designed, promoted and how they are linked to rural livelihoods. Conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe provides a good example of an innovation like this. This approach to farming has been widely promoted by non-governmental organisations, research institutes and the State. It’s also promoted in other countries in eastern and southern Africa. The method is based on minimal soil disturbance, mulching soil with crop residue and crop rotation. These are meant to conserve moisture, reduce soil erosion and build up soil organic matter to improve crop yields and rural livelihoods. We wanted to know how this innovation was promoted and implemented in Zimbabwe and how its “success” was framed and assessed. Our study found that there were differences in how farmers and promoters of conservation agriculture defined its success. These differences matter when investments are made in promoting agricultural innovations. It’s particularly important to understand the diversity of rural livelihoods. The research Our study was conducted in Gwanda and Insiza districts in south western Zimbabwe. Droughts are a common feature in the area, occurring on average every two or three years. We collected data via a household questionnaire survey, interviews and focus group discussions. Participants included farmers, NGO and government extension officers. We found that innovation was understood by the majority of respondents as having three main attributes, namely, “novelty”, “adaptability” and “utility”. Despite novelty being mentioned more often than other understandings of innovation, some felt that it existed in theory and not practically. For example, a farmer said interventions promoted in their communities were not new but rather repackaged existing technologies with different names. Some were not suitable for the area. Conservation agriculture was identified as the innovation most often promoted by non-governmental organisations and government extension officers in the area. Huge investments were committed to promoting it — the Department for International Development set aside about US$23 million to promote it in Zimbabwe. Yet after the project’s three-year lifespan, farmers mostly abandoned the practice. The locals gave it the name “dhiga ufe”, which means “dig and die”, bec