• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

OFFICE OF EVALUATION Project evaluation series Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project Funded by the European Union ANNEX 1. Case studies from different agro-ecological regions July 2018 PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project funded by the European Union (GCP/ZAM/074/EC) ANNEX 1. Case studies from different agro-ecological regions FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF EVALUATION July 2018 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Office of Evaluation (OED) This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. © FAO 2018 FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way. All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected]. For further information on this report, please contact: Director, Office of Evaluation (OED) Food and Agriculture Organization Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome Italy Email: [email protected] Cover photo credits (top to bottom): @FAO/Pamela White (1st picture), @FAO/Eoghan Molloy (2nd to 5th pictures) Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1 Contents 1 Agro-Ecological Zone I (low rainfall) ................................................................................. 1 2 Agro-Ecological Zone IIA (medium rainfall) ................................................................... 14 3 Agro-Ecological Zone III (high rainfall) ........................................................................... 27 4 List of beneficiaries met .................................................................................................... 34 iii Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1 1 Agro-Ecological Zone I (low rainfall) 1.1 Who we met with or talked with? District Provincial District & Agro- LF – men FF- men LF & FF LF & Non- MoA staff field MoA dealers & & women FF CASU staff women women men farmers Sesheke 6 1 13 5 9 8 17 Kazungula 12 18 13 22 9 Sinazongwe 4 2 33 17 25 25 26 Mambwe 3 (in Chipata) 22 78 57 43 Total 19 3 86 113 113 86 43 The evaluation team met with 242 farmers in eight camps in all four districts covered by CASU in Agro- ecological Region (AER) I, which is characterised by low rainfall (i.e. less than 80 millimetres per year). The districts visited were Sesheke, Kazungula (in the Kalahari sandy region), Sinazongwe, and Mambwe (characterised by valleys and escarpments). Figure 1: Districts visited by evaluation team in AER I 1 Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1 1.2 Knowledge of conservation agriculture 1. All CASU farmers had a strong understanding of conservation agriculture. 1.3 General findings reported: ➢ For many lead farmers, transportation for reaching follower farmers was an issue and follower farmers were often several hours’ walking distance from their farms. ➢ In many cases, inputs under CASU were reported to have come late, sometimes when the rains had already started. There were also reports of there not being sufficient inputs available in the agrodealer shops. ➢ Follower farmers reportedly faced challenges as they did not receive inputs and had less incentive to adopt CA practices. There were some reports of follower farmers dropping out of the project as they felt it was unfair that lead farmers had received inputs while follower farmers received nothing. In most cases however, follower farmers saw the benefits of practicing CA, most notably the increased yields, and therefore valued the knowledge that they had received. ➢ In some cases, lead farmers were selected, as they had been previous beneficiaries under the FISRI project. ➢ Some camps reported wider uptake of CA by neighbouring (Non-CASU) farmers and CASU farmers claimed to have spread the knowledge to other non-CASU farmers, although visits to non-CASU camps showed low levels of adoption of CA by non-CASU farmers and limited knowledge of CA among non-CASU farmers. 1.4 Agricultural practices 2. Before using conservation agriculture, farmers in Sesheke used to clear bushes and open new land, cutting shrubs and trees and burning them. Not they no longer burn, and instead farm the same land each year as CA ensures the fertility of the soil is maintained year on year. Whereas previously they planted a large area of land each year, with relatively low yields, now with conservation agriculture they plant on a smaller area of land but with significantly higher yields. As they are working on smaller areas of land, there is a reduction in labour. 3. Ripping was by far the more popular choice (75%) among lead farmers interviewed in AER I. In contrast, basins were far more popular among follower farmers in AER I (72% using basins). Compared to the other AERs visited, the use of basins by follower farmers was most notable in AER I. 2 Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1 Figure 2: Ripping vs Basins, Lead farmers Figure 3: Ripping vs Basins, Follower AER I farmers AER I AER I - Lead Farmers AER I - Follower Farmers 1.49% 0.00% 4.49% 23.88% 3.37% 20.22% 71.91% 74.63% Basins Ripping Basins Ripping Basins + Ripping Neither Basins + Ripping Neither Source: Evaluation team Source: Evaluation team 4. In Sesheke, farmers did not find weeding to be a problem, mostly because many farmers interviewed were now continuing to buy herbicide with their own money. They also found that crop residues helped to suppress the weeds. In Kazungula however, farmers reported that CA plots have more weeds. Additionally, after the CASU inputs were no longer available, they had stopped using herbicide. For the few farmers who could afford herbicide, they did not see weeds as a barrier. In Sinazongwe, farmers also found that it was a challenge to control the weeds. They had all received training on the safe use of herbicides and they had worn protective clothing when spraying, however they now had no money to buy herbicides. Children tended to be used for manual weeding in the absence of herbicides. For many farmers, CA was equated with the use of herbicides – such that one woman stated that CA is less labour intensive because it involves the use of herbicides. 1.5 Mechanization 5. There were no reports of farmers using tractor-hire service for ripping in the camps visited in AER I. The groups that were visited predominantly used animal draft power for ripping, particularly the lead farmers. Quite a number of farmers in Sinazongwe had their own rippers, some of which were received from the FISRI project before CASU. There were also cases where farmers had purchased their own rippers. Some farmers paid their neighbours to do the ripping for them (using ADP) for about 100 kwacha per day. 6. While ripping was more popular overall, there were cases where basins was the preferred option: In Sinazeze camp in Sinazongwe, follower farmers reportedly were more reliant on basins as they tended not to have animals. In Kazungula, a recent disease outbreak had resulted in many farmers losing their livestock. Therefore, farmers had difficulty ripping and were forced to use basins instead. However, these farmers stressed that CA (particularly the use of basins) was even more relevant as a coping strategy in the absence of ADP, although the area that could be planted was limited when using basins instead of ADP. Similarly, in Mambwe, problems with tsetse fly meant that there was limited use of ADP, and as such there 3 Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1 was more use of basins – although, farmers reported that preparing basins was labour intensive and as such, they were less encouraged to expand the area under CA without mechanization nor ADP. 7. In Mambwe, most LFs’ fields were geo-referenced (and those of some FFs). The purpose was to double check data on fields of farmers (CA and otherwise) and to be able to identify the farmer via the GPS coordinates. The idea was to link to mechanisation and to be able to monitor the tractor services. Potential ADP service providers were identified but farmers commented that they were not actively operating – they lacked rippers so could not provide the service. There is a lack of tractor services at local level. CFU had offered to provide tractor services at the start of the last season, however they needed a minimum number of farmers and a minimum hectarage, and there were insufficient farmers in the camp willing to pay. 1.6 Change in crops? 8. While many farmers said that they had always grown legumes, even before CASU, nearly all appreciated the new varieties that CASU introduced, and many were now practicing intercropping with maize, which they had not previously done.

Load more

  54

Copy Link