Sustainable food production in the face of climate change and variability is highly dependent on the ability of the soil to hold water, sustain nutrient retention and microbial life for improved crop growth and development. In Malawi, crop yields are low, mainly due to poor soil fertility caused by many factors, including soil erosion, and crop nutrient mining. In-situ rain water harvesting technologies (IRWHT) provide practical approaches that are within reach of the resource-constrained farmers, to notably reduce soil erosion, improve water and nutrient availability, and serve as a platform to improve soil microbial diversity. This chapter provides a review of the soil fertility status, the extent of climate variability, soil erosion and the impacts of IRWHTs in Malawi and southern Africa. The chapter finally presents results of farmer attitudes and perceptions to IRWHTs and yield results on maize (Zea mays {L.}) in a case study conducted in 2017/18 season in Balaka district, southern Malawi. The study evaluated simple IRWHT’s (mulching, box ridges, animal manure and manure and box ridges) in comparison to no intervention, all under a recommended fertilizer package and good agricultural practices (GAP). The review shows that a wide range of IRWHTs are available and suitable for smallholder farmers. The evidence in the literature shows that these are effective in improving water use efficiency, rainfall use efficiency and crop yields. For the best results, IRWHTs must be accompanied by GAP, including proper use of fertilizers and improved varieties. In the perceptions study, farmers were asked to rate the field performance of the IWRHTs (using a scale of 1 = most liked and 4 = least liked). The results showed that farmers had good comprehension of the IRWHTs, were aware of advantages and disadvantages, and were able to make informed choices based on their circumstances. The manure and box ridge treatment was very well rated for soil conservation (1.15) and drought resistance (1.30), while the mulching treatment was rated highly based on access (1.24) and labour requirement (2.0). The control plot was consistently rated the least. No significant differences in yield were observed amongst the treatments, but yield significantly varied between sites (range 3.9–3.8 t ha−1). It is concluded that stakeholders should aim at working with farmers to facilitate access and adoption of these technologies, in combination with good agricultural practices, to prevent further land degradation (through erosion) and increase crop productivity.