ANNEX 1. Case Studies from Different Agro-Ecological Regions

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 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

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.

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

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. They reported that they are growing a much greater variety now and over a larger area. Farmers understood that legumes can improve soil fertility.

Table 1: Land allocation to CA and conventional farming for different crops grown in AER I

AER I - Land allocation CA and Conventional Farming (Average Hectares per farmer) Conservation Agriculture Conventional Farming Crop Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Cowpeas 0.29 0.53 0.55 0.35 0.62 0.83 Groundnuts 0.34 0.59 0.73 0.39 0.57 0.71 Maize 0.50 0.73 0.81 1.35 1.47 2.30 Mixed Beans 0.25 1.00 0.63 0.95 0.50 Soybeans 0.25 0.82 Source: CASU M&E data

9. The CASU M&E data shows that in AER I, on average, there has been an increase in the area of land allocated to CA cultivation for the main crops promoted by the project. The total area of land under CA cultivation has increased by 65% during the project’s lifetime (from 1.64 ha average per farmer in 2014-15, to 2.71 ha in 2016-17). However, it should be noted that the same farmers reported a greater increase in the area of land under conventional farming for the same period.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Figure 4: Area of land allocated to CA and conventional farming, by farmer type, AER I

AER I - Area of land allocated to CA and Conventional Farming 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Average of Conventional Average of ConventionalAverage of CA ha (2016 -Average of CA ha (2017 - ha (2016-17) ha (2017-18) 17) 18)

LF FF

Source ET field visits

10. This trend of increasing area under CA was also observed by the evaluation team during focus group discussions, although the farmers visited team reported significantly higher areas of land under CA compared to conventional farming. The change in area of land under CA (as reported by farmers) was particularly evident for follower farmers.

1.7 Yields

Figure 5: Average yield per hectare, AER I

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 All FF LF

Kg/ha conventional Kg/ha CA

Source: Evaluation team

11. Nearly all farmers reported increased yields on CA plots (on average, farmers reported nearly double the yield per hectare on CA plots as compared to conventional plots). This was true for lead farmers and for follower farmers. It was not possible, however, to ascertain if this was possibly due to the use of improved seed or fertilizer, or if it was more related to improved soil quality as a result of CA techniques. The fact that follower farmers also reported increased yields,

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

having not received inputs directly from the CASU project, suggests that the CA practices had in fact led to increases in yield.

1.8 Agroforestry?

12. Nearly all farmers visited in AER1 showed a strong Figure 6: Musangu seedling understanding of the theory behind planting Musangu trees, growing under protection in although there were few farmers who reported any surviving Lusu West, Sesheke seedlings. In Sinazongwe, Musangu trees tended to grow naturally in the camps visited. Farmers had a renewed appreciation for the Musangu trees following the CASU project and no longer removed them from their land. In Sesheke, there was apparently a shortage of Musangu seedlings and some camps did not receive any seedlings, despite having keen interest and having seen the benefits on a demonstration plot. In camps where farmers had received seedlings, only limited numbers had survived, with termites destroying nearly all seedlings. In Mambwe, farmers had received both Musangu and Glyricidia, but lost many to flooding. One farmer described the benefits of using the Glyricidia leaves for mulching.

1.9 Have there been any changes in nutrition and food security?

13. Changes in diet were particularly evident in Sesheke District where farmers reported that they had previously only eaten one meal per day, and now they were eating three meals per day with different foods in their diet – particularly legumes. These same farmers also reported to no longer experiencing severe hungry periods, with some saying that they no longer experienced and ‘hungry months’ and that their stored legumes tended to last all the way through to March of the following year when they would commence eating the new harvest.

14. Farmers in Maondo camp in Sesheke said that several years ago, their area was synonymous with hunger. However, now they still have food left over from the previous harvest all the way through to the next season. In Kazungula district, farmers said that they had previously grown legumes prior to the CASU project, but now they are producing more, and now they practice crop rotation (whereas previously they had not). They also reported consuming more legumes now, and as a result, they had greater dietary diversity.

15. In Mambwe, LFs reported having received training from the district MoA staff on how to process soya to make soya sausages, soya milk, porridge and relish for home use. They then trained FFs. This was very popular and farmers wanted more trainings of this type. Mambwe has traditionally been known as an area with food shortages, but from the time that CA started there have been increases in maize production and more crop diversification.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

1.10 What are the most successful aspects of CA / lessons learned?

16. Farmers reported that crops planted under conservation agriculture tend to fare better during periods of drought, and that they stay green for longer compared to those planted under conventional techniques. Similarly, when there are heavy rains, there is less soil erosion in conservation agriculture fields, and seeds are not washed away. There were also reports of faster germination of seeds in the conservation agriculture plots. Those farmers with basins considered that the CA was particularly beneficial after several seasons working on the same area.

17. The late delivery of inputs and seeds to lead farmers in some districts meant that follower farmers were planting ahead of the lead farmers using their own saved seeds – which somewhat defeated the purpose of the demonstration plots.

1.11 Results from CA during bad weather

18. Mostly, farmers in AER I reported that crops planted in CA plots fared better during dry periods. They claimed that soils in the CA plots held moisture much better than the conventional fields, and that there was less evaporation due to the sol cover and crop residues. Generally, crops in the conventional fields had been scorched during the dry period of December 2017 – 2018. Similarly, in times of excess rain, farmers noticed that in conventional fields, the water washed away the seeds and formed gullies in the field as it washed away. However, this did not happen in the conservation agriculture plots and there limited or no erosion observed.

19. In the 2017-18 season there was a huge difference noted in Mambwe. All farmers (LF and FF) said that the CA fields were doing notably better, because the CA fields retained the moisture. One male FF said that even though all his crops this year will be worse than normal, he will harvest more from the CA field. In Sesheke district, Lusu West camp experienced particularly harsh drought in December 2017/January 2018. Some farmers here reported that the erratic rains led to a complete failure of their crops, both on conventional and on CA-planted fields. As a result, they were forced to abandon meticulously applying CA and replanted as soon as possible using conventional techniques. CA was seen as too risky in such harsh conditions, so they returned to what they know best. Despite this disadoption, farmers said that they would return to CA next year. This same group of farmers in Lusu West Camp, Sesheke, also reported that the additional manure used in CA had the effect of scorching young plants in the dry sandy soil. Contrary to nearly all other camps visited, this group reported CA crops as faring worse in times of drought. This was very much an isolated case, however, and overall, farmers tended to report CA crops as doing better.

1.12 Marketing – have they been able to find good markets?

20. Markets were generally considered a challenge for farmers in the camps visited in AER I, particularly for selling legumes. For example, in Manyemunyemu camp in Kazungula, farmers said there was no market for legumes. Instead, they mostly keep them for consumption or sell small quantities to their neighbours. Maize, on the other hand, did have a market, but the price was very low. Many farmers sold maize to the Zambia Food Reserve Agency (FRA), but prices

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

were low, especially in the previous year. As a result, some farmers had difficulty making enough money to in buying tools or in sending their children to school.

21. In Sinazongwe, farmers said that there were instances of ‘briefcase buyers’ coming to their village to buy cowpeas, but the prices offered were very low (1 kwacha per kg). For most groups, they only sold legumes locally, amongst themselves or to neighbours.

22. In Mambwe, farmers reported that they consume the cowpeas, as there is no market for them. The same problem exists for green gram, though they can sell in Chipata. Farmers reported that ADRA buys cowpea, soya and groundnuts and offers fair prices, but it is difficult to plan ahead – their buyers advise the district MoA staff, turn up on a set date and buy a set amount. Soya and groundnuts are sold to COMACO, though the price is lower than farmers’ want. There is little market locally for beans, but they do not grow so well in the area. Last season was particularly difficult, as there was such good production that the prices dropped. Otherwise, they sell to briefcase buyers (especially groundnuts) but the price is poor. They consider that there is not much variation in price over the year due to the problem of distance from market and bad roads.

1.13 Improved income?

23. In Sesheke, in addition to increased food availability, farmers reported increased income. They say that there are visible improvements in the locality such as houses now being roofed with iron sheeting instead of grass.

Ignatious Njamba, a lead farmer in Sesheke district, reported very significant increases in maize yields since adopting conservation agriculture under CASU. Whereas previously, he had sold on average five 50kg bags of maize, he was now selling over 100 bags. He used the extra cash to pay for his son’s attendance in college (costing 4000 kwacha per term). His son is now studying to be a teacher.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

24. In Mambwe, CA led to increased production but not much increase in income – however, they did get some improvements and made some purchases. Many LFs said they had built houses (even 3 bedrooms). One woman bought a ridger and oxen. Others bought transport – motorbike or second hand car.

1.14 Specific issues for women in using CA?

25. Some women, particularly in Kazungula reported difficulty in being a female lead farmer with male follower farmers, where some of the men were stubborn and would not follow the direction of female lead farmers. However, in other districts, women reported having no problem in being a female lead farmer with male follower farmers. Overall, women reported that they like being in the position of lead farmer as it was empowering and they felt they now had greater confidence as a result.

26. For nearly all women, transportation was one of the biggest challenges, with some lead farmers having to walk several hours to visit follower farmers. This meant they had less time for household duties, although many women had either re-organized their daily work plan accordingly, or had assistance from family members, including husbands, to conduct household tasks. Women LFs said that their husbands are not jealous as they see the benefits, and they reported getting respect from the male FFs (which then built their own confidence).

27. Most women did not have their own mobile phones or radios, which meant that fewer women were aware of the CA radio messages and CASU SMS.

28. There were no reports of female farmers having used the smaller size sprayer that was made available on the CASU e-voucher. The agrodealer in Sesheke reported that female farmers tended to prefer the larger size (20 litres) and nobody had bought/redeemed the smaller 8-litre size sprayer.

Figure 7: Agrodealer Bwalinde Agness, Farmvet And Autospares, Sesheke, displaying an un- redeemed 8-litre sprayer

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

1.15 Other farmers

29. The evaluation team visited two non-CASU camps in Agro-ecological Region I: Munyati Camp in Sinazongwe and Kalombe camp in Sesheke.

30. In Munyati, Sinazongwe, although they had not heard of the CASU project, farmers were aware of conservation agriculture principles, and understood CA to be more about “planting holes” as a means to conserve the soil. There had previously been a CA project in the area in the early 2000s, and they had received training from the Ministry of Agriculture on leaving crop residues in the field. They all practiced crop rotation (with maize, cotton beans and cowpeas).

31. Despite having learned about CA for many years, however, these farmers were no longer practicing ripping or using basins. They found that basins were too labour intensive, and for those who had tried ripping, they had all reverted to ploughing, as weed control had become an issue. The group was unanimous in stating that without herbicide, CA can only be practiced on a small area of land. One woman also found that animals tended to destroy the riplines that had been prepared early in the season, meaning they had to rip a second or third time. Ultimately, she had reverted to ploughing as she could not prevent animals from trampling on the riplines, even though she understood that early planting with CA means that yields tended to be better.

32. These non-CASU farmers had heard CA messages on the radio, although they had not attended any field days. Government extension staff also had difficulty in visiting this camp frequently, which may also have led to farmers losing interest in applying techniques. In general, farmers cited labour and the lack of herbicides as the main barriers to adopting CA – ploughing was seen as less labour intensive.

33. In CASU camps, on the other hand, farmers tended to agree that CA required less labour, as ripping was quicker and less costly – provided they had access to herbicides. CASU farmers in Sesheke reported that neighbouring non-CASU farmers often attended their meetings and that some of these people have now started using CA techniques. They also reported that they are actively sharing information with other farmers, for example with relatives in other villages. However, when the evaluation team visited one of these neighbouring non-CASU villages, there was no evidence of spillover of knowledge from the CASU areas, even though they were directly bordering a strong-performing CASU camp. Only very few of these farmers had heard about CA practices, most from a small NGO project several years ago that had promoted the use of basins and they had not attended any CASU field days. None of these farmers were still using basins as they found them too labour intensive and they fields were too far from their village, meaning they could not transport manure to prepare the basins. These farmers were not practicing crop rotation, but instead inter-cropping legumes into their maize fields. They grew small quantities of cowpeas for home consumption, although these tended to last only several weeks or months.

34. In Mambwe, CASU farmers reported that there were non-CASU farmers who had seen the success they were having and had adopted. One of the focus group meeting participants was a woman who had returned to live in the camp only a year earlier and having heard about CA from the neighbours, decided to put all of her land under CA.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

1.16 Expansion of land area under CA/Sustainability

35. In Mambwe, lack of labour is the biggest impediment to expanding the fields, especially for basin digging. Some farmers have observed the benefits but do not think they can do it. If they have access to ripping, it is much more enticing as it is so much quicker and easier. In Sesheke, harsh droughts led to farmers temporarily dis-adopting CA as they thought it was too risky or experimental for them in times of stress. However, they stated that they would return to using CA next season as they appreciated the increase in yields. Overall, farmers said that they would continue using CA, even if they are not receiving inputs as they have seen that it can increase yields. In Sinazongwe, lead farmers stated that they will keep meeting with their follower farmers and they will keep practicing CA. However, they will no longer travel to the follower farmers’ fields.

36. In Mambwe, there are plans to train all camp officers. Sometimes they are restricted by lack of funds to only train CASU camp staff, but they consider they should train all so that the message can be shared with all camps.

1.17 What are most difficult things re CA?

37. The control of weeds was reported to be one of the most difficult aspects of using conservation agriculture. In Mambwe, farmers felt that as the soil was more fertile and retained more moisture than CF fields it was necessary to weed three times, or apply herbicide twice. In other locations, farmers reported observing more weeds on the conservation agriculture plots, although some said this this may have been due to late planting owing to the late delivery of inputs under CASU. Nearly all groups visited reported using herbicide on the CA plots during the project lifetime, although they are now using fewer quantities as it is prohibitively expensive.

38. The lack of viable markets for produce was also seen as a barrier – for example, in Manyemynyemu camp in Kazungulu, farmers said that even if they do produce a lot, they get no additional money from it as they can’t’ sell it.

39. Similarly, in the Kalahari sandy regions (Sesheke and Kazungulu), early land preparation under CA was found to be less appropriate as the riplines tend to disappear in the sandy soil. In some cases, this was also due to animals freely roaming the fields and destroying the riplines. However, the result was that farmers had to repeat the ripping towards the start of the planting season – which amounted to an additional work burden as well as an additional expense.

40. Not having access to a ripper or animal draft power was seen as a barrier, as ripping was deemed to be too labour intensive by many farmers, especially for larger fields. This was particularly acute in Kazungulu where many animals had died from disease in recent years, which meant that many farmers could not do the ripping as they had intended.

41. Most farmers reported leaving crop residues on the fields, and some groups said that this had the added benefit of suppressing weeds. However, in nearly all cases, animals were left to roam the fields and feed on the residues. In Maondo camp, Sesheke, farmers said that it was mostly neighbours’ animals who were let roam freely, and that they would like to fence their fields but could not afford to. In other districts however, this was reportedly less of a problem, and while

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

animals did eat a lot of the crop residues from the fields, there was always a significant amount left over as soil cover.

1.18 CA information services?

42. In Kazungula district, the CASU SMS service was particularly useful, with farmers receiving timely information on important issues. Farmers reported that the SMS messages were shared with follower farmers when they met as a group. In general, mobile phones tended to be owned more by men than women – with women relying on their husband’s mobile phone.

43. There were less positive reports of CA messages being heard on the radio – for example, in Nkandabwe Camp in Sinazongwe, only five farmers out of thirty-five reported owning a radio, and only one of these had heard CA messages on the radio. Meanwhile, in Maondo, Sesheke District, none of the women farmers interviewed owned a radio and therefore they had not heard the CA messages. In Kazungula, there were problems with radio reception and nobody had heard CA messages on the radio - although this was mostly due to the close proximity to the border with Namibia and Zimbabwe and interference from foreign radio stations as a result.

44. Very few farmers had used the toll-free CASU number. Many farmers were not aware of the number. For those who had tried to call, many could not get through.

1.19 District-level coordination on CA

45. The Insaka meetings had mixed success across the districts. In Kazungula, the Insaka did not work so well, and there were difficulties to keep different partners engaged – for example, NGOs reportedly would drop out once their projects ended. In Mambwe, while meetings were held less frequently than originally planned, there was stronger participation in the Insaka meetings by government and NGOs, but also by Chiefs. In Mambwe, the Insaka was utilized as a forum for dialogue with the Chiefs to promote CA as a means prevent encroachment on protected areas. Meanwhile, in Sesheke, the Insaka is still maintained and is kept going by NGOs who are running their own CA programmes in the district.

1.20 CASU M&E

46. The District MoA staff reported some disappointment in not having received analysis of the M&E data to better inform their activities, or to have an understanding of how they were performing relative to other districts. For some districts, internet connectivity was an issue for uploading the data.

1.21 Agrodealers

47. Agrodealers were generally satisfied with the functioning of the CASU e-voucher system, although network connection (internet) was reportedly a problem, which meant sometimes farmers were unable to redeem until a connection was available. However, some agrodealers reported that transport was a barrier for some farmers and some items were not redeemed as a result. One agrodealer in Sesheke had offered a free delivery service to compensate for this. CASU farmers were reportedly still returning to buy from the same agrodealers, even after the

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

project had ended. However, they were apparently buying fewer quantities of legume seeds than they had been redeeming with the CASU vouchers.

48. In Mambwe there was no agrodealer working originally, so farmers had to hire a truck to go to Chipata to pick up inputs. A positive outcome was that now some agrodealers have opened outlets in the 2017-18 season in Mambwe, as they have seen a market. Most farmers received fertilizer only via CASU in 2014/15. In 2015/16, some got herbicide but no sprayer or no gloves/mask. Pigeon pea seed was promised but never came.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

2 Agro-Ecological Zone IIA (medium rainfall)

2.1 Districts visited or called

District Provincial District & Agro- LF&FF LF – men FF- men LF & FF LF & FF Non- MoA staff field MoA dealers men & & women & women women men CASU staff women farmers

Petauke 4 3 46 37 10 19 28 1

Sinda 2 17 9 8 9 8 5

Katete 8 2 28 9 19 11 17

Chipata 7 3 102 39 69 42 60

Pemba 1 5 5 5

Mazabuka 3 2 24 16 8 7 17

Choma 6 3 14 6 8 8 6

Kapiri 3 9 2 69 23 46 41 28 Mposhi

Figure 8: Districts visited by evaluation team in AER IIa

49. The evaluation team visited thirteen camps in eight districts in AER IIa: Petauke, Sinda, Katete, Chipata, Pemba, Mazabuka, Choma, Kapiri Mposhi. AER IIa is characterized by average

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

annual rainfall of 800 - 1000 mm and covers 42% of Zambia’s land area across Central, Lusaka and parts of Southern and Eastern provinces.

2.2 General findings reported

➢ In many camps that were visited by the ET, there were complaints that follower farmers were demotivated due to having not received inputs as the lead farmers had. This often led to a debate about the role of the inputs of the lead farmer, and it was evident that more could have been done to explain the purpose of the inputs as a demonstration tool and not as an incentive for the lead farmer. ➢ While transportation was cited as a critical barrier for lead farmers, the provision of free bicycles by the project was not as positive as expected. Conceptually, the bicycles were of a good design and responded to the limitations of transport, but there was a lack of clarity as to why recipients were chosen and this led to strong feelings of resentment among farmers. District staff explained that the criteria for selection of the bicycles was based on baseline data, and did not reflect actual progress made by farmers, and as a result, many farmers felt annoyed and disappointed (especially LFs who had performed well but missed out). Some camps did not receive any bicycles at all (for instance, two camps in Katate). ➢ Lead farmers were selected by the camp officers and community, and in general they were selected due their being motivated and hard workers, who could benefit from training and who could better transfer that training to others. ➢ Being lead farmer is not easy – it involves travelling to other people’s land and then having visitors coming to your land, looking at your work. ➢ Some of the planned project activities did not eventuate – such as links to finance providers or insurance companies. For instance, Mambwe MoA reported (in their final district report to March 2017) that the financial institutions and the insurance company never provided information to the farmers on how they could borrow money or insure their crops. Katete MoA reported (in their final district report) that the farmers chosen to be seed growers faced difficulties as the terms and conditions of the loan were not stipulated and most of the farmers couldn’t redeem fertilizer on loan as the price in the catalogue was lower than the price offered by the agrodealer. In addition, the seeds were provided too late.

2.3 Change in methods used?

50. In Kapiri Mposhi, none of the farmers met by the evaluation team reported having received training on the safe use of herbicides from the CASU project. Despite this, some farmers had researched the safe handling of pesticides themselves and had acquired protective clothing. This was similar in other districts, such as in Pemba, only a small number of farmers had received actual training on the safe use of pesticides, but in general, farmers were aware that protective clothing should be worn. There was limited continuation of the use of herbicides in Choma and Pemba, mostly due to financial constraints. These farmers reported that there is more weeding

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

required with conservation agriculture, and this is generally done by hand, and performed by the whole family including children. Farmers in Choma and Mazabuka districts explicitly pointed to the proliferation of weeds as a barrier and a risk to further expansion of CA on their plots, especially in the absence of herbicides. Interestingly however, some farmers noted that with constant weeding, the weeds get less year after year. Some of the farmers in Mazabuka had more financial resources to buy herbicides, and in Kalama camp in particular, all 16 farmers interviewed reported using herbicides that they had bought with their own money (having bought glyphosate, paraquat and kolopa). For them, CA meant more weeds and they stated that they would not use CA without herbicide. Following the CASU project, they have now started using herbicide also on their conventional plots. For farmers in Kapiri Mposhi, the challenge was knowing which herbicide to use and when to use it and they would have appreciated more guidance on this.

51. In general, Lead farmers reported that they are still practicing CA during the current season, despite the lack of free inputs. They bought their own legume seeds. For them, the knowledge and the increase in yields are the main motivators/incentives to keep practicing CA.

2.4 Land preparation techniques

Figure 9: Ripping vs basins for lead farmers in Figure 10: Ripping vs basins for follower farmers AER IIa in AER IIa

AER IIa - Lead Farmers AER IIa - Follower Farmers 1.09% 2.47% 8.70% 3.70%

26.09% 43.21% 64.13% 50.62%

Basins Ripping Basins + Ripping Neither Basins Ripping Basins + Ripping Neither

Source: Evaluation team Source: Evaluation team

52. Overall, ripping was the preferred method of land cultivation for both follower and lead farmers. However, 43% of follower farmers met by the evaluation team in AER IIa still reported using basins as opposed to ripping.

53. In most camps visited in AER IIa, most farmers relied upon ADP for ripping, due to there being no tractor service available nearby. However where there were tractor services available, nearly all farmers preferred to use this hire-service. In Likumbu camp in Kapiri Mpohsi, for example, all farmers reported having used the hire tractor service of a nearby farmer who had a tractor. They paid 350 kwacha per hectare for the service. In Naluama camp in Mazabuka, a similar service was available at the same price. However, some farmers found it to be too expensive, so they used ADP, even though they found that the tractor was better as the riplines could go deeper with

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

the tractor. In Choma, there was a very limited supply of tractors for ripping, and some farmers resorted to ploughing instead of waiting for the tractor ripping service – “the rains won’t wait”.

54. In Chipata, one focus group discussed the benefits or otherwise of preparing the soil early. One LF said that if you start early you have time to dig the basins gradually, but others disagreed. They contended that they are busy harvesting in Aril-May and then by June the fields are usually dry and hard to dig. In addition, with few rippers available, there is a queue of farmers wanting to use them.

55. Most farmers understand CA as being a method to discourage degradation of the soil. To them, it is a good system and they can see the difference between conservation agriculture and conventional techniques – there is no soil degradation evident in CA plots. They still practice ploughing on their conventional plots. One man stated that he ploughs the land whenever he is cultivating new land, but from that point on, he only uses rip lines. Most have a mix of CA and conventional plots so they can compare and see the difference.

2.5 Change in crops?

56. In the data in the Table 2 below, it can be seen that maize production under CA increased while that under CF decreased over the project period. It does appear that farmers are seeing advantages in using CA for maize.

57. All farmers reported growing legumes, although markets were reportedly a problem. Farmers reported growing sugar beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, Bambara nuts (and a small amount of soya). In general, farmers had previously grown small amounts of legumes, but were now growing more, and a greater variety, after the CASU project. Farmers also preferred to use the improved cowpeas seed varieties that had been introduced by CASU, even though the seeds were more important – germination was better and yield was higher.

Table 2: Land allocation to CA and conventional farming for different crops grown in AER IIa

AER IIa - Land allocation CA and Conventional Farming (Average Hectares per farmer) Conservation Agriculture Conventional Farming Crop Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Cowpeas 0.49 0.44 0.40 0.51 0.58 0.49 Groundnuts 0.40 0.37 0.40 0.38 0.51 0.53 Maize 0.73 0.79 0.92 1.37 1.26 1.10 Mixed Beans 0.43 0.45 0.43 0.58 0.49 0.84 Soybeans 0.61 0.62 0.73 0.46 0.71 0.90 Source: CASU M&E data

58. Despite the positive comments regarding legume production from the focus group discussions with farmers, the CASU M&E data for AER IIa shows that on average, the area of land allocated by farmers to legume production using CA did not change significantly over the course of the CASU project. One explanation for the discrepancy could be that the improved varieties and/or

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

agricultural techniques introduced by CASU may have resulted in higher yields on the same area of land. Indeed, all farmers met by the evaluation team reported higher yields on conservation agriculture plots compared with conventional plots. Farmers had not received training on cooking or preparing legumes in some of the camps visited in AER IIa. It is interesting to note, however, that the production of mixed beans and soya increased considerably under CF during the project period. Hence, the production of legumes is increasing, but just not significantly under CA.

59. There is also a question of external influences. For instance, some MoA staff and farmers told that the price of cotton had risen and hence, in the 2016-17 season, and particularly in 2017-18, some farmers were putting more land under cotton (which is normally grown with conventional methods).

Figure 11: Average yield per hectare, AER IIa

AER IIa 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 All FF LF

Kg/ha conventional Kg/ha CA

Source: Evaluation team

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

2.6 Agroforestry

60. In general, farmers understood the theory underpinning the benefits of planting nitrogen-fixing trees such as Musangu. For those farmers who received Musangu seeds, germination was reportedly poor. In Muzoka camp, in Choma for example, lead farmers took on the role of preparing seedlings for distribution to the follower farmers. Some farmers reported, however, that they would have benefited from more training on proper management of the seedlings, as survival rates were poor. This was also reported by lead farmers in Pemba, where on average only about one or two seedlings out of the original fifteen that had been planted by each farmer had survived. Likewise, in Kapiri farmers reported that they had planted but only some seedlings had survived. One issue they reported was that the seedlings were planted late in the season, making their survival more difficult (once the rains stop they need to be watered). While understanding of the theory behind agroforestry was strong, farmers lacked knowledge on proper management of the seedlings to ensure greater survival rates.

61. In Katete, there were many farmers successfully growing a variety of agroforestry species, including Glyricidia, Musangu and Diphrosia, This farmer from Petauke has been a LF with with some farmers maintaining up to 1800 CASU, but earlier also with COMACO. He uses seedlings! In Eastern Province, many farmers no fertilizer at all, but only relies on knew of the work of COMACO in agroforestry intercropping with agroforestry species, and and some had received seedlings from them. using Glyricidia leaves as mulch.

2.7 Have there been any changes in nutrition and food security?

62. Farmers were generally very positive in terms of the nutritional and food security outcomes of the project. Nearly all farmers reported having more food availability now, compared with several years ago before the CASU project. Farmers reported harvesting earlier (in February) as well as having more food in storage for longer, thereby eliminating ‘hungry months’ in several camps. Dietary diversity had also improved, according to the farmers, with the variety and quantity of legumes being consumed having increased. This was the same for lead farmers and follower farmers. Farmers in the Eastern Province said that their diets have completely changed since they joined the CASU project. Previously, they relied only on maize, but now they are eating legumes throughout the year – including soya, cowpeas and groundnuts – and as a result they have no food shortages and have a constant source of protein in their diets. Farmers in Kapiri Mposhi reported that on average they sell about 60 percent of legumes that they grow; 30 percent are kept for household consumption; and 10 percent are saved as seed for the next season. They eat groundnuts – for example in relish, mixed with cabbage, as a snack. In Mazabuka, CASU farmers reported that while they no longer experience hungry months, they noticed that their neighbours who were not CASU beneficiaries still experience hunger during certain months of the year before the harvest season. Farmers from Chipata also noted that while five years ago many

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

households experienced hunger, now the hungry months have disappeared. They have increased the quantities of legumes under production, and their household stores now last all year.

2.8 What are the most successful aspects of CA / lessons learned?

63. In nearly all camps visited, farmers could clearly describe the techniques and benefits of CA. Farmers reported that if using basins, less fertilizer is required and moisture is retained in the soil. Furthermore, land prepra5tion and planting can be conducted earlier in the season when using CA. The incentive for adopting CA is in planting early, using less fertiliser, and less labour in ploughing. They also reported having LFs act out the story of the lessons of CASU more time due to early land preparation. for a large group of farmers in Chipata.

2.9 Results from CA during bad weather, drought, excess rain

64. In several districts, such as Mazabuka, Kapiri, Petauke, Chipata and Sinda, farmers noted that crops on CA land do better in dry spells, citing January 2018 as an example. They noted that crops in the CA plots did not wilt in the dry spell this year, whereas plots in the conventional areas almost died. However, in Choma and Pemba, farmers did not notice a difference between conventionally grown crops and crops grown under CA – for them, severe drought had equally devastating effects on all crops, whether grown under CA or conventional. Meanwhile, heavy rainfall in 2017 resulted in more weeds on CA fields in Kapiri Mposhi, compared to conventional fields. However, while the heavy rains resulted in fertilizer being washed away on conventional fields, fertilizer was retained on CA plots and not washed away.

2.10 Marketing – have they been able to find good markets?

65. Marketing was generally a challenge for all farmers, especially so for those selling groundnuts. Some farmers in Kapiri Mposhi were travelling to DRC to sell legumes there, as local markets were not so good. Others, such as those in Naluama camp in Mazabuka had to travel long distances to Monze town to sell to a private company, although prices were low. Similarly, farmers in Kapiri Mposhi said they were forced to keep their produce as the prices offered by local companies are too low and they do not feel they have power to negotiate on the price. Farmers were not aggregating their produce, but instead preferred to sell as individuals, even when selling to private companies. Otherwise, most farmers were growing legumes either for home consumption, or for sale locally amongst themselves.

66. Agrodealers and ministry staff all felt that value addition had been overlooked by the CASU project. In Choma District, one of the buyers for WFP complained that he had encouraged CASU farmers to grow legumes in the expectation that WFP would then buy the produce. However,

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

WFP decided not to buy from him in 2017, and as a result, he could not buy the legumes produced by the farmers. This resulted in farmers being discouraged to grow cowpeas in the subsequent year, and he was also discouraged from participating further with the project. This story was heard also from farmers in other districts, and does reflect the problems that WFP had with their PPP contract buying in 2016-17.

67. Some districts gave their option that there is a market for all products, but perhaps not sufficient price. Usually everything gets sold and farmers are still getting higher than break-even point (when the MoA staff have done an analysis) but there are big fluctuations in price, which makes the farmers unhappy.

2.11 Income

68. Maize prices were very low in 2017, and as a result, it was not so clear if farmers’ incomes had improved. Despite this, farmers in Mazabuka reported still having profit even after having bought inputs, and they also said that when using CA, they have more time for other income-generating activities as the land preparation is done in advance. Farmers in Kapiri said that they now have more money to buy animals (one man had bought goats and cattle), household items, furniture, pay for school fees, bicycles, etc. In Chipata, some farmers commented that “earlier they were begging for food” but now they have been able to invest in items such as houses, cars, a minibus, motorbikes, a hammer-mill, livestock and sending children to school. In Katete, many farmers described purchases of cattle, iron sheets for roofing and paying school fees.

2.12 Gender

69. Female lead farmers reported feeling more confident now and that they felt like teachers in their communities. There were some isolated reports of male follower farmers not taking the female lead farmers seriously, or disrespecting them, but overall women found being a lead farmer was a positive experience for them. There did seem to be an added work burden on female lead farmers, however, as they also had household tasks to perform during the day, in addition to meeting with follower farmers. In many cases, family members – children and husbands – had supported female lead farmers by taking over some of the household tasks. Husbands were generally supportive of their wives in their roles as lead farmers. The main barrier apart from the time taken by their childcare and domestic tasks was the lack of transportation and long distances involved in reaching follower farmers. If women had to walk home late in the evening from a follower farmer meeting, it could cause tension at home. Women and children were observed to have most of the burden when it came to weeding.

70. In general, married women did not own land, and therefore had to consult with their husbands for In Sinda, a successful woman lead any decision-making. There was a variation seen farmer is supported by her husband.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

between camps and districts. In some, the men considered that their wives should decide themselves what to grow or to share the decisions with them. In other camps, the men said that the women could decide about household purchases but they must decide on agricultural issues.

71. One group of men were particularly negative about sharing decision-making and power with women. For instance, one man said that if he gives money to his wife as capital for a business, she might leave him. Another said women do not understand prices versus production, and that it is the role of men to go to the boma to trade. Many said that they do not discuss the prices at home. However, one of the women in the group reported that some women go to the boma, including herself, a female head of household. She said that of course it was easier for her as she did not need to consult with a husband. Another man in that group reported that if his wife had her own land to farm, she might do better than he does and decide to kick him out! In another camp, men stated that if a woman gets her own field she becomes argumentative and difficult.

72. Agrodealers reported that women farmers did not buy the smaller size sprayer, and they did not see a need for it (“why should we do something different for women? We just treat everyone as farmers”).

73. Ministry of Agriculture staff at the District level had not seen the CASU gender strategy. They instead referred to the Ministry’s own gender strategy. Some ministry staff felt that there should have been a stronger emphasis on gender mainstreaming in the CASU training of trainers, rather than purely focusing on the technical aspects of CA. The CASU gender training was referred to as being ‘ad hoc’ and ‘freestyle’ and as a result, it was not clear if it had been uniformly applied. In many focus groups, both men and women reported participating in discussions on gender roles.

74. Young farmers were equally positive about CA. Some young people reported paying for their own school fees with the profits of CA, as well as contributing to feeding their families. There did not appear to be any specific age related differences.

2.13 CASU voucher

75. Overall, agrodealers found the CASU e-Voucher system to be very effective and recommended that the Ministry of Agriculture use a similar system for the FISP programme. The CASU system allowed the agrodealers to know the exact quantity of inputs that each farmer should receive and the fact that there was no cash involved meant that it was ensured that farmers received the inputs – i.e. it was not possible to trade in the voucher for cash. Several agrodealers described the CASU e-voucher system as “perfect”. However, there were delays in payments reported by several agrodealers. They also noted that farmers were returning to buy other inputs with their own money.

76. In general, farmers were satisfied with the e-voucher system, although there were some reports of farmers not being able to get the seed on time, or in some cases legume seeds were not in stock, for example in Muzoka camp in Choma. After the project phased out inputs (in 2016/17, it was a challenge for the lead farmers to keep going. They used the vouchers to buy soya seed in 2015 – but for many, the seed was did not germinate. In 2016, without the CASU input voucher, they just planted their own saved seeds for most crops.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Figure 12: Lead Farmers in Choma District display their CASU e-Voucher cards

2.14 Other farmers

77. CASU farmers interviewed reported that some non-CASU farmers are adopting and some neighbouring camp farmers adopting. Female farmers in Mazabuka said that they discuss with other women at the village watering hole and encourage them to practice CA. Some have talked with their neighbours and they have taken it up, and lead farmers say they will continue to spread the word about CA techniques. Other farmers in Choma reported that neighbouring farmers have come to them asking for advice on farming practices. Nonetheless, some farmers found it difficult to motivate neighbours, as the neighbours wanted the same benefits as the lead farmers.

2.15 Sustainability

78. For follower farmers in Mazabuka, the major barrier to expanding the area of land under CA was the lack of a means to acquire the necessary inputs. Labour constraints were also cited as a barrier to the expansion of CA (although some farmers mentioned that ripping requires less time and labour than ploughing). Most farmers stated that they want to increase the area of land under CA as they are encouraged by better yields. However, weeds were commonly cited as a barrier, especially when herbicides are not available or are too expensive.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Figure 13: Area of land allocated to CA and conventional farming, by farmer type, AER IIa

AER IIa - Area of land allocated to CA and Conventional Farming 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Average of Average of Average of CA ha Average of CA ha Conventional ha Conventional ha (2016 -17) (2017 -18) (2016-17) (2017-18)

LF FF

Source ET field visits

79. However, overall the findings from AER IIa are positive in terms of the expansion of CA. Data collected by the evaluation team shows that there has been an increase in the area of land allocated to CA amongst both lead farmers and follower farmers. This has coincided with a reduction in the area of land under conventional farming among farmers visited in AER IIa.

80. Ministry of Agriculture staff stated that CA is one of the main messages being promoted to farmers – irrespective of the CASU project – as it falls under the 7th National Development Plan and is now a policy of the Zambian government. In Kapiri, strong collaboration between the government and other partners such as CFU and ZNFU will also help to ensure the messages are still promoted, and the ET were assured that the district will continue to host field days for farmers. However, one of the main challenges for government extension staff is a lack of financial resources to visit farmers and provide the necessary trainings. While CA does have a budget line for GRZ resources, funding has thus far been inconsistent. Lack of transport (e.g. motorbikes) was also cited as a critical constraint for government extension staff.

2.16 CA information services?

81. Many farmers had heard about CA earlier, and some had participated in other projects such as SCAFE, FISRI, CFU, Profit Plus, COMACO or ADRA. In general, there was not seen to be any overlap of the same project in the one camp during CASU. During the 2017-18 season, CFU had moved into many former CASU camps. Consequently, some had heard information on CA from a variety of sources, but there appeared to be fairly similar messages. The only clear difference was on the use of herbicide or not (COMACO was encouraging farmers to decrease herbicide use). In one camp, the farmers explained some small differences in basins between CFU and CASU. CASU had trained them to stagger the placement of the basins while CFU said the basins should be aligned. They considered the staggered basin was better for root development.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

82. Radio was considered a good source of information on CA – especially community radio (programs provided to the stations by the district, depending on resources available). Some were regularly following specific programmes. District MoA staff reported that NAIS staff have some leaflets and give radio programs to community radio – but lack of funds to pay the community radio to play them. Some listened to ZNBC, but others could not get reception. In some places, even community radio reception was poor. Almost all had heard the CA messages on radio, but it was very unusual that farmers owned a television.

83. Most groups recalled SMS messages from CASU. They considered the content was useful (for instance, giving information about time to plant, when to do weeding, when rains are expected in different areas and whether it is still possible to plant, market info, inputs ready to be picked up).

84. Farmers reported that other sources of information on CA were field days, district agricultural shows and the agricultural camp officer. Farmers in one camp mentioned that they liked to triangulate their sources of information to confirm what the camp officer was telling them!

85. Most farmers either did not know about the toll free number, or had tried it but not been able to get an answer (always ringing or always busy) – only two respondents had got through to CASU. One got through and asked about herbicides – it helped him to buy the right one - but others had tried to call many times and not got through.

2.17 Agro-dealers

86. Generally, the agrodealers were positive about CASU. Most were satisfied with the CASU e- voucher system. There was some complaints of delays in payments.

87. CASU led to a boost in other sales - when the farmers come into the shop they also accessed other products, and some still visit and purchase – they have become established customers. Sometimes farmers also bought equipment for CA (e.g. rippers or chaka hoes), but not many. Others said that the voucher system was positive for their business, as farmers either buy additional inputs then when redeeming voucher, or maybe come back later when they have cash. That is the advantage of bringing the farmers into the shop – they can see different items and get interested.

88. One agro-dealer commented that CA “has been a flop – the concept is very good, but the rollout is a problem and hasn’t changed people’s minds. If farmers don’t get hand-outs they don’t do it themselves.” He argued that no one buys a chaka hoe themselves or a ripper with their own money – only with project inputs. The chaka hoes and rippers are not selling to individual farmers. He argued that CA is incredibly important now because of climate change, but there is a problem with the messaging and more extension staff are needed to get the message out to everyone. Farmers should understand CA and plan that they will do farming on all their land.

89. Most agrodealers think farmers will continue with CA, especially in dry seasons – especially as the weather was extreme this year it has been a good chance to show the benefits. They think it has taken off, but a lot more awareness raising is needed to convince them. It will be very important in the future given changing weather.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

2.18 Relationship with District offices

90. District Ministry of Agriculture staff spoke favourably of the technical support received from the CASU project team, particularly with regard to the introduction of innovations such as the use of herbicides, basins, tractors, data collection and entry. They also appreciated the ‘refresher’ training offered by CFU as part of the CASU project. District staff saw FISP as being a potential vehicle for carrying forward the lessons from CA, especially if the mooted criterion of CA adoption is enforced. District staff recommended that the FISP should force farmers to redeem legume seeds, similar to the CASU voucher system, as a means to ensure sustainability given that farmers tend not to redeem legumes through FISP.

91. Katete District reported that they attached some LFs to the ProfitPlus project with an option to become commercial agrodealers. They said that some have converted to this role and are very successful still. Some districts mentioned that they had pulled together success stories from groups or farmers that have been very successful.

92. In the Southern Province, there were complaints from government staff that money for trainings was received late from CASU – for example, money for a training on land preparation was supposed to come during the lad preparation season (i.e. May, June, July), but it was not received by the district office until October. This caused embarrassment when the district staff were forced to go ahead with the training anyway, despite the timing not being relevant to what farmers were actually doing in October. However, they appreciated the lead farmer system, as this was a means to inform the farmers directly, without the risk of delays in financial disbursements to government staff. Similarly, the CASU SMS service was highly appreciated as a direct means of communicating extension advice to farmers.

93. In general, district Ministry of Agriculture staff had not received in-depth analysis of the CASU M&E data, although in some districts such as Katete and Chipata, they had prepared statistics allowing them to keep track of their performance to some extent in terms of level of adoption of CA, yields, etc. The M&E data was rarely analysed at the district level, although staff expressed interest in learning how to do this. Normally camp level data is not collected on hectarage and yields under different crops. Many MoA district staff noted that it would have been valuable to see changes and comparison to other districts. They said that the there were several meetings per year with CASU, but these were mainly targeting something new technically, or with regard to training. Questions on reports and problems were also addressed. They also consistently reported that there were delays in payments from CASU, due to late reporting by some districts (which held u the payments to everyone).

94. Some districts reports that the seed multiplication activity was a good idea. Cooperatives and member farmers received training on production of legume seeds and were linked to Stewart Globe. However, the contract was not provided in many cases and although Vision Fund was supposed to be involved, this did not happen.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

3 Agro-Ecological Zone III (high rainfall)

3.1 Districts visited

District Provincial District & Agro- LF – men FF- men LF & FF LF & FF Non- MoA staff field MoA dealers & women & women women men CASU staff farmers

Mpongwe 3 5 1 55 55 56 54

Chienge 1

Figure 14: Districts visited by evaluation team in AER III

95. The evaluation team met with 110 farmers in two camps in Mpongwe District in AER III, which receives, on average, more than 1000 mm of rainfall a year, and covers 46% of the country’s land area (mostly in the Copperbelt, Luapula, Northern and Northwestern Provinces). Due to the distances involved, it was not feasible for the evaluation team to visit the Northern, North Western and Luapula provinces, although a telephone interview was conducted with Ministry of Agriculture staff in Chienge district.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

3.2 Change in agricultural techniques?

Table 3: Land allocation to CA and conventional farming for different crops grown in AER III

AER III - Land allocation CA and Conventional Farming (Average Hectares per farmer) Conservation Agriculture Conventional Farming Crop Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Cowpeas 0.30 0.38 0.61 0.31 0.31 0.25 Groundnuts 0.40 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.42 Maize 0.56 0.66 0.91 1.16 0.98 0.76 Mixed Beans 0.42 0.50 0.67 0.41 0.42 0.69 Soybeans 0.86 1.31 0.92 0.44 0.37 Source: CASU M&E data

96. The CASU M&E data indicates an increase in the area of land under CA in AER III and a simultaneous decrease in the area of land under conventional farming. Meanwhile, the area of land allocated to legume production has also increased, particularly for cowpeas and mixed beans. However, this was contradicted by the data collected by the evaluation team, which indicates an increase in land under conventional farming and a decrease in the average area of land under CA for lead farmers and for follower farmers in Mpongwe District.

Figure 15: Area of land allocated to CA and conventional farming, by farmer type, AER III

AER III - Area of land allocated to CA and Conventional Farming 2.5

1.5

0.5

0 Average of Average of Average of CA ha Average of CA ha Conventional ha Conventional ha (2016 -17) (2017 -18) (2016-17) (2017-18)

LF FF

Source: ET field visits

97. The effects of CA techniques on average yield per hectare were less clear from the site visits in AER III. Follower farmers reported higher yields on CA fields as compared to conventional farming. Surprisingly, however, lead farmers on average reported slightly higher yields on

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

conventionally farmed fields as compared to CA fields. Given that this data was based on a sample of two camps from only one district in AER III, the findings may not be representative. During focus group discussions, farmers reported higher yields on CA plots, but noted that CA means more work, and also that higher yields do not necessarily equate to increased income, given that prices were very low in 2017 and accessing markets can be challenge.

98. Mpongwe MoA were positive about the uptake of CA, noting that they have many farmers who have not participated in CASU who are asking for information on CA. However, their final district report also noted that as there were no inputs provided during the 2016/17 season, some farmers had stopped meeting and decreased land under CA.

Figure 16: Average yield per hectare, for lead farmers (LF) and follower farmers (FF), AER III

AER III 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 All farmers FF LF

Kg/ha conventional Kg/ha CA

Source: Evaluation team

99. Ripping was by far the more popular method of land preparation used by farmers in Mpongwe District with over 86% of Lead farmers and 87% of follower farmers using ripping.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Figure 17: Ripping vs basins for lead farmers in Figure 18: Ripping vs basins for follower farmers AER III in AER III

1.92% AER III - Lead Farmers AER III - Follower Farmers 0.00% 11.54% 4.08% 12.24% 8.16%

86.54% 75.51%

Basins Ripping Basins + Ripping Neither Basins Ripping Basins + Ripping Neither

Source: Evaluation team Source: Evaluation team

100. It was difficult for farmers in Mpongwe to maintain soil cover, as bush fires were a problem, and animals tended to eat the residues. While some farmers in Mikata camp reported having used a tractor service for ripping (300 Kwacha per hectare), all other farmers interviewed in Mpongwe District reported using ADP for ripping, because either the tractor service was too expensive, or there was no such service nearby. Farmers did not see this as a barrier, however, as they had easy access to animal draft power. In Chienge, there was a very limited supply of tractors in the District and so there was limited use of the tractor ripping service. Farmers were also unwilling to spend more than 200 – 300 kwacha per hectare for the service.

3.3 Nutrition

101. In Mikata camp, farmers reported that they had only started to grow legumes properly in 2015 and that now legumes are a considerable portion of their diet, particularly amongst children. They reported a considerable change in nutrition status since the star of the project, stating, “there is no malnutrition any more”. Nearly all camps visited had experienced difficulty in early 2018 when the rains had failed, and as such, they predicted food security challenges later in the year as a result.

3.4 Income

102. While yields had increased for nearly all farmers, income had not necessarily increased due to fluctuations in prices and a lack of access to viable markets. Farmers closer to the border with DRC were forced to sell their groundnuts across the border where prices were better – these farmers reported an increase in income as a result.

103. Markets were generally cited as a problem by farmers in Mpongwe. Similarly, in Chienge, there was some cross-border selling, and cases where buyers had come from DRC, but the prices offered were low. Farmers in Chienge were informed that there would be contracts with WFP. As

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

a result, they were supported to organise as cooperatives to aggregate beans in order to sell to WFP. However, the contract never came through and farmers were left disappointed.

3.5 Agroforestry

104. As in other AERs, farmers in AER II showed a strong understanding of the theory underpinning agroforestry and the planting of nitrogen-fixing trees, but they had experienced limited success in actually applying the theory in practice. For those who were supported with setting up a tree nursery, germination of the seeds was reportedly poor, and as the nursery was established as a group endeavour, nobody had taken full ownership and farmers reported there was a lack of management and responsibility amongst the farmers as a result. The lesson here might be to centralize seedling production with individual champion farmers.

Figure 19: Musangu trees growing amongst beans in a CA field in Mpongwe

105. In Chienge, Ministry staff reported difficulties in acquiring Musangu seedlings. The seedlings that had been received did not survive. Ultimately, the Senior Agricultural Officer set up a tree nursery at the Department of agriculture office in order to supply the increasing demand for seedlings from farmers.

3.6 Weeds

106. Weeding was reported as particularly burdensome on CA fields. Many farmers had used herbicides to control the weeds, but many reported being unable to afford herbicides. In Munkumpu camp, for example, follower farmers in particular tended not to be using herbicide. These farmers stated that the expense of buying herbicide is the biggest barrier to adopting CA for them. Without herbicide, these farmers stated that they could not practice CA at a larger scale. It should be noted that these farmers understood the use of herbicides as being a CA practice, to the extent that CA for them meant the use of herbicides. “CA leads to a weed problem so you need the herbicide to take care of it”. LFs in the same camp noted that the delays in delivering expected seeds were problematic. CASU promoted early planting but the inputs only arrived in January, so if they prepared the demonstration plot early, by the time the seeds came

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

it was covered in weeds again. Farmers reported that generally the whole family is involved in weeding, although women tend to do more.

3.7 Gender

107. Women lead farmers in Mpongwe reported being respected more by their families and by follower farmers, both male and female, as they were seen as teachers. They admitted that being a lead farmer meant they had a lot of extra work, but they were still happy to do it, and their husbands understood the importance of their role and were also happy for them to devote more time to being a lead farmer.

3.8 E-Vouchers

108. Farmers in Mpongwe complained of delays in receiving inputs from CASU. In some cases, inputs were received as late as January or even February. Having prepared their plots early in the land preparation season, as per the teachings of CA, the farmers were forced to plant late, by which time the plots were covered in weeds. Some farmers also reported problems with the CASU bean seeds not germinating. Apparently, there were also issues for some lead farmers where the card would not work, or there was no credit on the card, meaning they had to buy their own inputs in the end. Agrodealers in Mpongwe reported that overall the experience with CASU had been positive. There were some delays with national suppliers coming late, and also a lack of availability of soya seeds, but overall there had been no problems with receiving payments and CASU farmers had become returning customers.

Figure 20: Fertilizer bags stored in Luansha Agrodealers, Mpongwe

3.9 CASU M&E data

109. There was limited feedback to the district ministry of Agriculture staff on the analysis of the CASU M& data. Chienge district reported receiving feedback, however, and the Senior Agricultural officer found it to be very useful information, as it showed that Chiegne district was lagging

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

behind other districts on certain aspects. They were also given some advice from the CAU project based on the M&E data. This helped the Ministry staff to focus and concentrate on areas that needed more attention, and also informed which crops they should grow, (e.g. if they were see to be too reliant on maize production). Provincial staff in Copperbelt province found the M&E data to be useful for reporting purposes (e.g. how many farmers growing different crops), however they had to explicitly ask for the data from the CASU project. Provincial-level staff felt that they were overlooked in the reporting lines as District staff sent the M& data directly to the CASU team, bypassing the provincial staff.

3.10 Sustainability

110. In general, all camp officers from CASU districts were included in CA trainings, regardless if they were working in a CASU camp or not. This allows for the possibility that CA messages to be shared to non-CASU camps, but also was seen as efficient in case staff are rotated between camps. In the Copperbelt Province, the Ministry of Agriculture is trying to replicate the CASU experience from Mpongwe in the other 9 districts. The provincial office has organised field exchange visits, where district officers from non-CASU districts came to Mpongwe to see the lead farmer model in action.

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

4 List of beneficiaries met

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 1 I Sesheke Kalombe Namakando Mubita Non M 2 I Sesheke Kalombe Boyd Kabutu Non M 3 I Sesheke Kalombe Ndumbu Mwangala Non M 4 I Sesheke Kalombe Richard Kwabela Non M 5 I Sesheke Kalombe Davie Sikobiso Non M 6 I Sesheke Kalombe Lubasi Lubasi Non M 7 I Sesheke Kalombe Rifumbow Kufungula Non M 8 I Sesheke Kalombe Sitali Mulelekkwa Non F 9 I Sesheke Kalombe Nampailando Makandauro Non F 10 I Sesheke Kalombe Liskianiso Simatele Non F 11 I Sesheke Kalombe Mukwamasimu Nyambe Non F 12 I Sesheke Kalombe Kamwi Nyambe Non F 13 I Sesheke Kalombe Kubilikia Zambwe Non F 14 I Sesheke Kalombe Chuma Musalo Non F 15 I Sesheke Kalombe Pumulo Mwangala Non F 16 I Sesheke Kalombe Neta Ndumbu Non F 17 I Sesheke Kalombe Isaac Nyambe Non M 18 I Sesheke Lusu West Namasiku Kasibi LF F 19 I Sesheke Lusu West Claudia Kashandula FF F 20 I Sesheke Lusu West Mutuwalikize Maema LF F 21 I Sesheke Lusu West Namusiku Simuchinga FF F 22 I Sesheke Lusu West Kusiku Muzibe LF M 23 I Sesheke Lusu West Matenga Matengu LF M 24 I Sesheke Lusu West Muyengkwa Jimlura FF M 25 I Sesheke Lusu West Simuchinga Sinyemba FF M 26 I Sesheke Lusu West Patson Matenga Imuye LF M 27 I Sesheke Lusu West Lunangu Lunangu LF M 28 I Sesheke Maondo Konga Kaunda LF M 29 I Sesheke Maondo Inambao Kwiibisa LF M 30 I Sesheke Maondo Sayowa M. Lubinda LF M 31 I Sesheke Maondo Mustanekwa Mushabati LF F 32 I Sesheke Maondo Kawengo Ignacius Nyamba LF M 33 I Sesheke Maondo Simasilus Nawa LF M 34 I Sesheke Maondo Namakau Gertrude LF F 35 I Sesheke Maondo Mubutu Kuswabana FF F 36 I Mambwe Msoro Judith Tembo LF F 37 I Mambwe Msoro Agness Msoro LF F 38 I Mambwe Msoro Patricia Daka LF F 39 I Mambwe Msoro Florence Tabakamulam LF F 40 I Mambwe Msoro Joyce Mwanza LF F 41 I Mambwe Msoro Mabvuto Phiri LF M 42 I Mambwe Msoro Brian Sakala LF M 43 I Mambwe Msoro John Banda LF M 44 I Mambwe Msoro Ernest Mudenda LF M 45 I Mambwe Msoro Lazarous C. Sakala LF M 46 I Mambwe Msoro Malizani Tembo LF M 47 I Mambwe Msoro Edwin Zulu LF M 48 I Mambwe Msoro Joseph Daka LF M

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 49 I Mambwe Msoro Moses Sakala LF M 50 I Mambwe Msoro Shadreck Sakala LF M 51 I Mambwe Msoro Edward C. Mwale LF M 52 I Mambwe Msoro John B. Sakala LF M 53 I Mambwe Msoro Kenneth Sakala LF M 54 I Mambwe Msoro Isaac Sakala LF M 55 I Mambwe Msoro Paul Banda Nowa LF M 56 I Mambwe Msoro Abel Chizalila LF M 57 I Mambwe Msoro Lingililiani Mbewe LF M 58 I Mambwe Msoro Florence Tembo FF F 59 I Mambwe Msoro Joyce Tembo FF F 60 I Mambwe Msoro Betrice Banda FF F 61 I Mambwe Msoro Jenifa Phiri FF F 62 I Mambwe Msoro Gift Sakala FF F 63 I Mambwe Msoro Rosemary Sakala FF F 64 I Mambwe Msoro Brenda Sakala FF F 65 I Mambwe Msoro Skola Banda FF F 66 I Mambwe Msoro Maines Mwanza FF F 67 I Mambwe Msoro Agness Mwanza FF F 68 I Mambwe Msoro Betina Sakala FF F 69 I Mambwe Msoro Efrida Banala FF F 70 I Mambwe Msoro Violet Banda FF F 71 I Mambwe Msoro Patricia Phiri FF F 72 I Mambwe Msoro Vebi Mwale FF F 73 I Mambwe Msoro Joyce Zulu FF F 74 I Mambwe Msoro Eliza Mwale FF F 75 I Mambwe Msoro Ireen Mwale FF F 76 I Mambwe Msoro Pricia Mwale FF F 77 I Mambwe Msoro Easter Chizalila FF F 78 I Mambwe Msoro Misori Sakala FF F 79 I Mambwe Msoro Angela Kapanga FF F 80 I Mambwe Msoro Bibian Zulu FF F 81 I Mambwe Msoro Catherin Kawengele FF F 82 I Mambwe Msoro Peggy Msono FF F 83 I Mambwe Msoro Dorothy Phiri FF F 84 I Mambwe Msoro Mervece Sakala FF F 85 I Mambwe Msoro Belita Soko FF F 86 I Mambwe Msoro Acesi Sakala FF F 87 I Mambwe Msoro Brenda Banda FF F 88 I Mambwe Msoro Mervece Sakala FF F 89 I Mambwe Msoro Josiphina Phiri FF F 90 I Mambwe Msoro Esnart Banda FF F 91 I Mambwe Msoro Agness Mwanza FF F 92 I Mambwe Msoro Bridget Daka FF F 93 I Mambwe Msoro Milliam Banda FF F 94 I Mambwe Msoro Betty Mbewe FF F 95 I Mambwe Msoro Fanili Banda FF F 96 I Mambwe Msoro Mary Sakala Banda FF F 97 I Mambwe Msoro Annah Soko FF F 98 I Mambwe Msoro Beatrice Mudenda FF F

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 99 I Mambwe Msoro Victoria Katonda FF F 100 I Mambwe Msoro Lelesia Phiri FF F 101 I Mambwe Msoro Tiyende Sakala FF F 102 I Mambwe Msoro Ailesi Mwanza FF F 103 I Mambwe Msoro Faidesi Mjobvu FF F 104 I Mambwe Msoro Hellen Mbewe FF F 105 I Mambwe Msoro Mirriam Sakala FF F 106 I Mambwe Msoro Agness Kombe FF F 107 I Mambwe Msoro Cathrine Banda FF F 108 I Mambwe Msoro Gertrude Zulu FF F 109 I Mambwe Msoro Rosemary Sakala FF F 110 I Mambwe Msoro Jofrey Sakala FF M 111 I Mambwe Msoro Whitson Mbewe FF M 112 I Mambwe Msoro Solomon Zulu FF M 113 I Mambwe Msoro Patson Sakala FF M 114 I Mambwe Msoro Guest Mwanza FF M 115 I Mambwe Msoro Zakeyo Sakala FF M 116 I Mambwe Msoro Kelvin Sakala FF M 117 I Mambwe Msoro Lingilian Mbewe FF M 118 I Mambwe Msoro Peter Ndolovu FF M 119 I Mambwe Msoro Josias Phiri FF M 120 I Mambwe Msoro Nashon Mwanza FF M 121 I Mambwe Msoro Kefasi Phiri FF M 122 I Mambwe Msoro Steven Sakala FF M 123 I Mambwe Msoro Boston Mwanza FF M 124 I Mambwe Msoro Loyd Kolembe Daka FF M 125 I Mambwe Msoro Felix Mwamba FF M 126 I Mambwe Msoro George Ludiya FF M 127 I Mambwe Msoro Charles Banda FF M 128 I Mambwe Msoro Christopher Sakala FF M 129 I Mambwe Msoro Esau Banda FF M 130 I Mambwe Msoro Bernard Phiri FF M 131 I Mambwe Msoro Steven Banda FF M 132 I Mambwe Msoro Admuson Tembo FF M 133 I Mambwe Msoro Steven Mkusika FF M 134 I Mambwe Msoro Chrispin Chilalila FF M 135 I Mambwe Msoro Joseph Phiri FF M 136 I Kazungula Malimba Stella Simweemba LF F 137 I Kazungula Malimba Charity Kalouna LF F 138 I Kazungula Malimba Christine Kasimbo LF F 139 I Kazungula Malimba Emily Muleya LF F 140 I Kazungula Malimba Margie Malombe LF F 141 I Kazungula Malimba Clarinah Kasimbo LF F 142 I Kazungula Malimba Wiver Simwiita FF F 143 I Kazungula Malimba Fines M'tonga LF F 144 I Kazungula Malimba Malia Vwinge FF F 145 I Kazungula Malimba Enitah Sifanu FF F 146 I Kazungula Malimba Marjory Himwiita FF F 147 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Ackson Musweu LF M 148 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Aurgent Sihanda FF M

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 149 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Bodwin Mushabato FF M 150 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Kennedy Semani FF M 151 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Jethro Sianyinyite LF M 152 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Mupotola Elizabeth LF F 153 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Uegenea Sionga LF F 154 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Malia Mupotola LF F 155 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Winfridah Lwiinga LF F 156 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Oliver Sola LF M 157 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Olipa Lamusi LF F 158 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Betty Moonga FF F 159 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Mihika Musweu FF F 160 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Mihika Siamate FF F 161 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Elina Sizyombe FF F 162 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Choolwe Sizyomba FF F 163 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Choolwe Dombosha FF F 164 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Visha Sianyinyite LF M 165 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Fredrick Milambo LF M 166 I Kazungula Manyemunyemu Friday Sizyombe LF M 167 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Falita Kadiba FF F 168 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Mangalita Simkelele FF F 169 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Eva Mudenda FF F 170 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Linah Siasana LF F 171 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Jenipha Siankunku LF F 172 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Patricia Siabusu FF F 173 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Lenty Siamboko FF F 174 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Nancy Siakabanze FF F 175 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Francis Siamwalu FF M 176 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Juliet Simangavu FF F 177 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Monica Siamunchucki FF F 178 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Georgina Magaya LF F 179 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Smart Siamosambo LF M 180 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Edwina Phiri FF F 181 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Elmiah Siabbuwa FF F 182 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Charity Chumbutu LF F 183 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Alice Ntobele LF F 184 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Sevehia Siamtamquya LF F 185 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Emah Nsenete FF F 186 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Nelly Mwiinde FF F 187 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Clement Nywawana LF M 188 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Evalina Mwiinde LF F 189 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Leaonard Munyati LF M 190 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe George Simakanka LF M 191 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Steward Maono LF M 192 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Bruno Munkombwe LF M 193 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Deliah Majaju LF F 194 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Wisdom Chimwaye LF M 195 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Anderson Mwiinde FF M 196 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Fanny Melo FF M 197 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Chris Siafenqwe LF M 198 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Alex Chifweli LF M

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 199 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Maxon Mwiinde LF M 200 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Loyd Mwiinde FF M 201 I Sinazongwe Nkandabwe Efau Mazyamuna FF F 202 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Andreas Chikopa LF M 203 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze John Siagolezya LF M 204 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Timothy Sialusunga LF M 205 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Plair Syanyangalala LF M 206 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Charles Sinakadomwe LF M 207 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Patson Munyuni LF M 208 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Loydy Siachingu LF M 209 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Reuben Munsaka LF M 210 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Patrick Syakalumbwe LF M 211 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Hilldah Siaminwe LF M 212 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Lina Nikoma LF F 213 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Esnari Sianchowalya LF F 214 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Mary Mwiinga LF F 215 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Jeminah Kabbila LF F 216 I Sinazongwe Sinazeze Ringoson Lunga LF M 217 I Sinazongwe Munyati Sikalola Shephard Non M 218 I Sinazongwe Munyati Siamatondo Enock Non M 219 I Sinazongwe Munyati Timmy Bobola Non M 220 I Sinazongwe Munyati Betty Chiyabika Non F 221 I Sinazongwe Munyati Mabbie Siakoonde Non F 222 I Sinazongwe Munyati Ireen Mulenga Non F 223 I Sinazongwe Munyati Gracy Mwiinde Non F 224 I Sinazongwe Munyati Dorica Siamunyeu Non F 225 I Sinazongwe Munyati Serinah Muleya Non F 226 I Sinazongwe Munyati Beauty Siajanika Non F 227 I Sinazongwe Munyati Greable Magwili Non F 228 I Sinazongwe Munyati Saulu Nsaaka Non M 229 I Sinazongwe Munyati Win Sialubalo Non F 230 I Sinazongwe Munyati Serita Sianoti Non F 231 I Sinazongwe Munyati Everinar Nyangu Non F 232 I Sinazongwe Munyati Reginah Siazyana Non F 233 I Sinazongwe Munyati Ireen Kumalo Non M 234 I Sinazongwe Munyati Mailos Sialuse Non F 235 I Sinazongwe Munyati Dickson Siamilandu Non M 236 I Sinazongwe Munyati Sensamu Dobola Non M 237 I Sinazongwe Munyati Brighton Simunyira Non M 238 I Sinazongwe Munyati Mickie Siamaila Non M 239 I Sinazongwe Munyati Kevin Siamatondo Non M 240 I Sinazongwe Munyati Munyati Edward Winter Non M 241 I Sinazongwe Munyati Cristopher Mulenga Non M 242 I Sinazongwe Munyati Kennedy Sianteba Non M 243 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Donald Moonga LF M 244 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Reginald P. Mutanuka FF M 245 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Converse Muntaniga FF M 246 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Dickson Kapaipi FF M 247 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Samson Fubwe LF M 248 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Wallace Hamoonwa LF M

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 249 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Chrispin Chola FF M 250 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Greenwell Malakasa LF M 251 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Muntainga Morrison LF M 252 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Howard Chipekwe LF M 253 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Maston Chilenga FF M 254 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Minwe Allison FF M 255 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Patricia Michelo LF F 256 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Rosemery Kapalamoio FF F 257 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Edith Chilua LF F 258 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Patricia Ngona LF F 259 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Judith Deke FF F 260 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Gogina Kalonga FF F 261 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Hildah Machiko FF F 262 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Mirriam Mulenga FF F 263 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Joyce Chifwefwe FF F 264 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Beauty Chola FF F 265 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Mesia Mbole FF F 266 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Clera Mwinga FF F 267 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Grace Sipainda FF F 268 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Christina Mutoka FF F 269 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Charity Nafukwe LF F 270 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Regina Fubwe FF F 271 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Christina Motoka LF F 272 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Trizer Mutonyo LF F 273 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Diness Mulenga FF F 274 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Precious Mushima FF F 275 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Jennifer Nachamba LF F 276 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Majory Chola FF F 277 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Pegie Ngdna FF F 278 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Imansa Patricia Daka FF F 279 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Oswell Muzyamba FF M 280 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi James Banda FF M 281 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Annie Mwape FF F 282 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Falls Syabasimbi FF M 283 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Christine Kango LF F 284 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Lonica Chambaila FF F 285 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Leonard Phiri FF M 286 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Sipandiwa Siamweemba LF M 287 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Dephister Chambaila FF F 288 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Maggie Choola FF F 289 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Christine Muchenga LF F 290 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Dorothy Nyendwa LF F 291 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Reagan Siame FF M 292 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Joshua Ndwa FF M 293 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Joyce Mambo FF F 294 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Gloria Kapaso FF F 295 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Ireen Ngoma LF F 296 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Tindiza Fackson FF M 297 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Japhete Chintu FF M 298 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Trywell Moonga FF M

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 299 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Jailous Ndhlovu LF M 300 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Gertrude Sibanda FF F 301 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Loveness Libusha LF F 302 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Michael Mainza FF M 303 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Sylvester Machishi LF M 304 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Choobe Stancey FF M 305 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Vice Simaundu FF M 306 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Judith Ndhov FF F 307 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Caroeen Sakala FF F 308 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Pamela Shamamba FF F 309 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Lenes Hakoma LF F 310 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Paul Ntendwa LF M 311 IIA Kapiri Mposhi Likumbi Malambo Odiya FF F 312 IIA Chipata Mzoole Wiseman Zulu LF M 313 IIA Chipata Mzoole Lizzy Phiri LF F 314 IIA Chipata Mzoole Emelia Banda LF F 315 IIA Chipata Mzoole Tizifa Nkhoma LF M 316 IIA Chipata Mzoole Mathews Banda LF M 317 IIA Chipata Mzoole Alefa Mbewe LF M 318 IIA Chipata Mzoole Kapena Tonga LF M 319 IIA Chipata Mzoole Potfa Phiri LF M 320 IIA Chipata Mzoole Potfer Kamanga LF M 321 IIA Chipata Mzoole Ackim Sakala LF M 322 IIA Chipata Mzoole Masarso Phiri LF M 323 IIA Chipata Mzoole Lainer Nywenda LF F 324 IIA Chipata Mzoole Alefa Phiri FF M 325 IIA Chipata Mzoole Misheck Zulu FF M 326 IIA Chipata Mzoole Moffat Sakala FF M 327 IIA Chipata Mzoole Frank Banda FF M 328 IIA Chipata Mzoole James Mbewe FF M 329 IIA Chipata Mzoole Moses Phiri FF M 330 IIA Chipata Mzoole Feni Sakala FF M 331 IIA Chipata Mzoole Liya Banda FF F 332 IIA Chipata Mzoole Ekeliya Sakala FF F 333 IIA Chipata Mzoole Chilembwe Tonga FF M 334 IIA Chipata Mzoole Wina Kandongwe FF M 335 IIA Chipata Mzoole Blackson Banda FF M 336 IIA Chipata Mzoole Mabruto Mbewe FF M 337 IIA Chipata Mzoole Jonas Mbewe FF M 338 IIA Chipata Mzoole Yesaya Phiri FF M 339 IIA Chipata Mzoole Agness Sakala FF F 340 IIA Chipata Mzoole Patrick Harry Phiri LF M 341 IIA Chipata Mzoole Masanso Nyriendra LF M 342 IIA Chipata Mzoole Phariso Banda FF M 343 IIA Chipata Mapala Standwell Banda LF M 344 IIA Chipata Mapala Edwin Banda FF M 345 IIA Chipata Mapala Hardson Nyrienda FF M 346 IIA Chipata Mapala Keyala Kamanga FF M 347 IIA Chipata Mapala Msaope Banda FF M 348 IIA Chipata Mapala orbet Nkhoma LF M

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 349 IIA Chipata Mapala Kaso Mwale LF M 350 IIA Chipata Mapala Lyson Kaculu LF M 351 IIA Chipata Mapala Thapson Dombola LF M 352 IIA Chipata Mapala Matala Mbewe LF M 353 IIA Chipata Mapala Evason Tembo FF M 354 IIA Chipata Mapala Christopher Zulu LF M 355 IIA Chipata Mapala Ephraim Phiri FF M 356 IIA Chipata Mapala Sollomon Banda LF M 357 IIA Chipata Mapala Lameck Mbewe FF M 358 IIA Chipata Mapala Abram Phiri FF M 359 IIA Chipata Mapala Sida Tembo FF M 360 IIA Chipata Mapala Alinnon Soko FF M 361 IIA Chipata Mapala Andrew Lungu FF M 362 IIA Chipata Mapala Ackim Chulu FF M 363 IIA Chipata Mapala Chimuka Mkandawile FF M 364 IIA Chipata Mapala Thomas Kamanga FF M 365 IIA Chipata Mapala Rodgers Mbewe LF M 366 IIA Chipata Mapala Ishumael Phiri FF M 367 IIA Chipata Mapala Manuel Kamanga FF M 368 IIA Chipata Mapala Lazarous Zulu FF M 369 IIA Chipata Mapala Chenjeran Chirwa FF M 370 IIA Chipata Mapala Evalisto Kamanga FF M 371 IIA Chipata Mapala Benson Mwanza LF M 372 IIA Chipata Mapala Patrick Banda FF M 373 IIA Chipata Mapala Gabriel Mwale FF M 374 IIA Chipata Mapala Maganizo Kamanga FF M 375 IIA Chipata Mapala Mabvuto Nkhoma LF M 376 IIA Chipata Mapala Martin Tembo FF M 377 IIA Chipata Mapala Zione Phiri FF F 378 IIA Chipata Mapala Mary Sakala FF F 379 IIA Chipata Mapala Miriam Phiri LF F 380 IIA Chipata Mapala Catherine Banda FF F 381 IIA Chipata Mapala Josephine Tembo LF F 382 IIA Chipata Mapala Verry Banda LF F 383 IIA Chipata Mapala Christine Shawa FF F 384 IIA Chipata Mapala Jane Tembo FF F 385 IIA Chipata Mapala Malita Nkhoswe FF F 386 IIA Chipata Mapala Loveness Phiri FF F 387 IIA Chipata Mapala Iress Thole FF F 388 IIA Chipata Mapala Grace Banda FF F 389 IIA Chipata Mapala Jessy Mbewe FF F 390 IIA Chipata Mapala Mary Phiri FF F 391 IIA Chipata Mapala Maxtina Phiri LF F 392 IIA Chipata Mapala Tekila Zimba LF F 393 IIA Chipata Mapala Mailess Kamanga FF F 394 IIA Chipata Mapala Sara Phiri LF F 395 IIA Chipata Mapala Letisha Tembo LF F 396 IIA Chipata Mapala Margret Phiri LF F 397 IIA Chipata Mapala Malita Phiri LF F 398 IIA Chipata Mapala Kennethy Nkoma LF M

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 399 IIA Chipata Mapala Sellina Banda LF F 400 IIA Chipata Mapala Sonile Kamanga LF F 401 IIA Chipata Mapala Ruthy Mtonga LF F 402 IIA Chipata Mapala Sonia Tonga FF F 403 IIA Chipata Mapala Chawe Phiri FF F 404 IIA Chipata Mapala Mary Banda FF F 405 IIA Chipata Mapala Lyness Mkandawile FF F 406 IIA Chipata Mapala Juliet Phiri FF F 407 IIA Chipata Mapala Cathrin Phiri LF F 408 IIA Chipata Mapala Asneli Banda FF F 409 IIA Chipata Mapala Tabita Nkoma FF F 410 IIA Chipata Mapala Emeli Mwanza FF F 411 IIA Chipata Mapala Jenala Nkhoswe FF F 412 IIA Chipata Mapala Enita Tonga FF F 413 IIA Chipata Mapala Denia Banda FF F 414 IIA Katete Matunga Mijece Sakala LF M 415 IIA Katete Matunga Nason Phiri FF M 416 IIA Katete Matunga Kenani Banda LF M 417 IIA Katete Matunga Lameck Ngoma FF M 418 IIA Katete Matunga Matthias Sakala FF M 419 IIA Katete Matunga Mekelani Banda FF M 420 IIA Katete Matunga Lyford Mbewe FF M 421 IIA Katete Matunga Lawrence Lungu LF M 422 IIA Katete Matunga Ferndinando Phiri LF M 423 IIA Katete Matunga Elias Ngoma LF M 424 IIA Katete Matunga Rhoda Mwanza LF F 425 IIA Katete Matunga Ivoy Zulu FF F 426 IIA Katete Matunga Fostian Phiri LF F 427 IIA Katete Matunga Charity Daka FF F 428 IIA Katete Matunga Zilose Banda FF F 429 IIA Katete Matunga Mwaziona Salau LF F 430 IIA Katete Matunga Elizabeth Banda LF F 431 IIA Katete Matunga Eveness Phiri FF F 432 IIA Katete Chimutende Reuben Mwale FF M 433 IIA Katete Chimutende Alice Phiri FF F 434 IIA Katete Chimutende Chadana Daka FF M 435 IIA Katete Chimutende Moses Miti FF M 436 IIA Katete Chimutende Meriside Phiri FF M 437 IIA Katete Chimutende Sipiliano Nkhoma FF M 438 IIA Katete Chimutende Black Phiri FF M 439 IIA Katete Chimutende Muyeko Sakala FF F 440 IIA Katete Chimutende Davis Mwale FF M Ivuta Phiri - representing his wife Bridget FF F 441 IIA Katete Chimutende Banda 442 IIA Choma Muzoka Bornface Hawfza LF M 443 IIA Choma Muzoka Rona Chiniyama LF F 444 IIA Choma Muzoka Precious Muloongo LF F 445 IIA Choma Muzoka Rona Mooya LF F 446 IIA Choma Muzoka Ireen Munsaka LF F 447 IIA Choma Muzoka Olivia Mweetwa FF F

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 448 IIA Choma Muzoka Annah Hadonwila FF F 449 IIA Choma Muzoka Phales Halikzoazi FF F 450 IIA Choma Muzoka Chimunya Hanibulo FF M 451 IIA Choma Muzoka Robson Muleya FF M 452 IIA Choma Muzoka Morri Munsaka LF M 453 IIA Choma Muzoka Enos Chiinga FF M 454 IIA Choma Muzoka Helleni Muntanga FF F 455 IIA Choma Muzoka Hatembo Erica FF M 456 IIA Pemba Kasiya Michael Himaambo LF M 457 IIA Pemba Kasiya Christopher Sichimbwe LF M 458 IIA Pemba Kasiya Desire Hatontola LF M 459 IIA Pemba Kasiya Alpha Mweetwa LF M 460 IIA Pemba Kasiya Obrain Ndere LF M 461 IIA Petauke Manjazi Ivess Tembo FF M 462 IIA Petauke Manjazi Abisai Banda LF M 463 IIA Petauke Manjazi Daniel Phiri LF M 464 IIA Petauke Manjazi Stasio Tembo FF M 465 IIA Petauke Manjazi Alick Mwanza FF M 466 IIA Petauke Manjazi Zephenia Ngoma FF M 467 IIA Petauke Manjazi Abson Zulu FF M 468 IIA Petauke Manjazi Bernard Banda LF M 469 IIA Petauke Manjazi Tiku Daka LF F 470 IIA Petauke Manjazi Levy Mumba FF M 471 IIA Petauke Manjazi Samson Mwanza FF M 472 IIA Petauke Manjazi Mali Banda FF M 473 IIA Petauke Manjazi Aaron Zulu FF M 474 IIA Petauke Manjazi Serita Lungu LF F 475 IIA Petauke Manjazi Liimepo Lungu FF F 476 IIA Petauke Manjazi Agness Phiri LF F 477 IIA Petauke Manjazi Suzan Phiri LF F 478 IIA Petauke Manjazi Elizabeth Phiri LF F 479 IIA Petauke Manjazi Doreen Phiri LF F 480 IIA Petauke Manjazi Besinat Zulu LF F 481 IIA Petauke Manjazi Cathrine Tembo LF F 482 IIA Petauke Manjazi Joyce Tembo LF F 483 IIA Petauke Manjazi Simon Tembo LF M 484 IIA Petauke Manjazi Mary Mwale LF F 485 IIA Petauke Manjazi Dolice Mumba LF F 486 IIA Petauke Lusowe Zulu Jairus LF M 487 IIA Petauke Lusowe Blackson Lungu LF M 488 IIA Petauke Lusowe Phinias Mwanza LF M 489 IIA Petauke Lusowe Daniel Phiri LF M 490 IIA Petauke Lusowe Paul Sakala LF M 491 IIA Petauke Lusowe Samuel Banda LF M 492 IIA Petauke Lusowe Bernard Lungu LF M 493 IIA Petauke Lusowe Skeva Mwanza LF M 494 IIA Petauke Lusowe Johnson Tembo LF M 495 IIA Petauke Lusowe Masauso Tembo LF M 496 IIA Petauke Lusowe Joseph Daka LF M 497 IIA Petauke Lusowe Gertrude Zulu LF F

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 498 IIA Petauke Lusowe Patricia Mwanza LF F 499 IIA Petauke Lusowe Mery Kazembe LF F 500 IIA Petauke Lusowe Ngawa Tembo LF F 501 IIA Petauke Lusowe Margret Zulu LF F 502 IIA Petauke Lusowe Christin Phiri LF F 503 IIA Petauke Lusowe Lucas Mwanza LF M 504 IIA Petauke Lusowe Dorothy Tembo LF F 505 IIA Petauke Lusowe Lackson Mumba LF M 506 IIA Petauke Lusowe Day M. Kazembe LF M 507 IIA Petauke Lusowe Richard Mbewe LF M 508 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Abraham Phiri LF M 509 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Samson Phiri LF M 510 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Timeke Mwale LF F 511 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Olipa Tembo LF F 512 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Naomi Zulu LF F 513 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Iless Mwale Ff F 514 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Maureen Phiri FF F 515 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Aliness Njobru Miti FF F 516 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Isaac Miti FF M 517 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Zacheaus Mulongoti FF M 518 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Peter Miti LF M 519 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Jessati Mwale FF M 520 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Moffat Banda LF M 521 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Betty Njobvu FF F 522 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Margaret Phiri LF F 523 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Adroof Njobvu LF M 524 IIA Sinda Nyantuma Dona Phiri FF F 525 IIA Mazabuka Kalama State Myanda LF M 526 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Collington Juma LF M 527 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Redfine Mwiinga LF M 528 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Wonford Chilala FF M 529 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Mugabe Ngoma LF M 530 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Redyness Michelo FF F 531 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Hardson Lwiindi LF M 532 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Vivian Muunga LF F 533 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Rejoice Mwanza LF F 534 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Fair Neembo FF M 535 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Precious Michelo LF F 536 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Machimba Neembo LF M 537 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Kenneth Mupundu FF M 538 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Given Mainza LF M 539 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Maingaila Mwanza FF F 540 IIA Mazabuka Kalama Trevor Mupundu LF M 541 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Kezia Ng'andu LF F 542 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Vistor Buumba FF M 543 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Fred Kabombya LF M 544 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Robert Buumba FF M 545 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Noah Moonga FF M 546 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Gilbert C. M. Musowe LF M 547 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Gertrude Njomona LF F

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 548 IIA Mazabuka Naluama Hobson Mweembwa. K LF M 549 III Mpongwe Mikata Nobless Samfuti FF M 550 III Mpongwe Mikata Japhet Maikumu FF M 551 III Mpongwe Mikata Coffice Mooncta FF M 552 III Mpongwe Mikata Dumas Chisura FF M 553 III Mpongwe Mikata Kenned Chiung FF M 554 III Mpongwe Mikata Glorify Kaputula FF M 555 III Mpongwe Mikata Lukas Chinkunta FF M 556 III Mpongwe Mikata Michaelis Kaputula FF M 557 III Mpongwe Mikata Lukas Chinkunta FF M 558 III Mpongwe Mikata Charles Mwanza FF M 559 III Mpongwe Mikata Chrispin Chiseliga Lukunka FF M 560 III Mpongwe Mikata Nelson Mutankula FF M 561 III Mpongwe Mikata Mulwanda Isaac FF M 562 III Mpongwe Mikata Brontoni Kaputula FF M 563 III Mpongwe Mikata Mary kolala FF F 564 III Mpongwe Mikata MeMori Chilele FF F 565 III Mpongwe Mikata Gift Kashimu FF F 566 III Mpongwe Mikata Oaulina Lyombe FF F 567 III Mpongwe Mikata Stevaniai Fina FF F 568 III Mpongwe Mikata Henry Chipimpi FF M 569 III Mpongwe Mikata Petson Mwenachabe FF M 570 III Mpongwe Mikata Dorcus Chiwila FF F 571 III Mpongwe Mikata Agness Chekeni FF F 572 III Mpongwe Mikata Lilian Mutakula FF F 573 III Mpongwe Mikata Edith Kaimbi FF F 574 III Mpongwe Mikata Lilian Lapinga FF F 575 III Mpongwe Mikata Theresa Mujomoka FF F 576 III Mpongwe Mikata Crela Chileken FF F 577 III Mpongwe Mikata Neliya Napseifiyi FF F 578 III Mpongwe Mikata Rhoster Matatiyo FF F 579 III Mpongwe Mikata Tandi Patrisha FF F 580 III Mpongwe Mikata Groria Chisuwa FF F 581 III Mpongwe Mikata Norah C. Mitenda FF F 582 III Mpongwe Mikata Mewewa Masahi FF F 583 III Mpongwe Mikata Evaristo Chitaila FF F 584 III Mpongwe Mikata Sondashi Mutwale LF M 585 III Mpongwe Mikata Bright Matidisha LF M 586 III Mpongwe Mikata Winford Tembo LF M 587 III Mpongwe Mikata Maggie Mwewa LF F 588 III Mpongwe Mikata Hotton Malikumu LF M 589 III Mpongwe Mikata Evaristo Lubungo LF M 590 III Mpongwe Mikata Wisper Moonga LF M 591 III Mpongwe Mikata Peter Chisuwa LF M 592 III Mpongwe Mikata Palegy Kaputula LF M 593 III Mpongwe Mikata Daglous Munshya LF M 594 III Mpongwe Mikata Franklyn Kampakamwa LF M 595 III Mpongwe Mikata Victor Kaimbi LF M 596 III Mpongwe Mikata Sabina Kaimbi LF M 597 III Mpongwe Mikata Georgina Buyoka LF F

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 598 III Mpongwe Mikata Afineli Munshya LF F 599 III Mpongwe Mikata Betrinah Mulongoti LF F 600 III Mpongwe Mikata Agness Chilekeni LF F 601 III Mpongwe Mikata Udiness Zimba LF F 602 III Mpongwe Mikata Karren Mulongoti LF F 603 III Mpongwe Mikata Lebina Zimba LF F 604 III Mpongwe Mikata Gladys Mambalakata LF F 605 III Mpongwe Mikata Emeli Chifita LF F 606 III Mpongwe Mikata Mary Phiri LF F 607 III Mpongwe Mikata Racheal Mukupuka LF F 608 III Mpongwe Mikata Liness Mulanshi LF F 609 III Mpongwe Mikata Paulina Kaputula LF F 610 III Mpongwe Mikata Lucy Masaiti LF F 611 III Mpongwe Mikata Pheby Zimba LF F 612 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Gladwell Mansnansa LF M 613 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Fredrick Mabo LF M 614 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Cosmass Milense FF M 615 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Isaac Ignibo LF M 616 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Morris Zulu FF M 617 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Patson Motoka LF M 618 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Passwell Mwanampao LF M 619 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Benjamen Katontoka LF M 620 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Stephen Chalemba LF M 621 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Benson Mumba LF M 622 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Victor Hambeza LF M 623 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Moses Litao LF M 624 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Leonard Mwanampao FF M 625 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Mwema Mwansa FF M 626 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Reuben Mafumo FF M 627 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Edward Alandi FF M 628 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Lawson Mulaisho FF M 629 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Smarton Mukabila LF M 630 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Maoma Kapanga FF M 631 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Jimmy Mulaisho FF M 632 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Friday Chimbtne FF M 633 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Damiano Kalulu FF M 634 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Syben Kapanbula LF M 635 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Dickson Musonda LF M 636 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Ng'andne Chulu LF M 637 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Bainess Zulu LF M 638 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Molia Kulya LF F 639 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Mabby Teta LF F 640 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Christina Mazambale FF F 641 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Jennifer Mukapu FF F 642 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Julian Mushima FF F 643 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Neddy Nyau LF F 644 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Sestina Kayombo LF F 645 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Sabinet Mubika LF F 646 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Doris Ndulika LF F 647 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Silvia Foloko LF F

Final Evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-Up (CASU) Project – Annex 1

Count AER District Camp Name FF/LF Gender 648 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Ireen Kasabakamo LF F 649 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Matildah Moto LF F 650 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Dontina Phiri LF F 651 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Mirica Chikomo FF F 652 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Filicy Kandolo LF F 653 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Idah Chisenga FF F 654 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Eliza Kasubakama LF F 655 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Perency Kamwendo FF F 656 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Nita Kambilo FF F 657 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Judith Chinsandu FF F 658 III Mpongwe Munukumpu Bety Makumba FF F

OFFICE OF EVALUATION www.fao.org/evaluation