OFFICE OF EVALUATION Project evaluation series

Mid-term evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-up (CASU) project

CASE REPORTS

June 2016

PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES

Mid-term evaluation of the Conservation Agriculture Scaling-up (CASU) project

CASE REPORTS

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS OFFICE OF EVALUATION

June 2016 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 2016

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]

GCP/ZAM/074/EC

Cover photo credits: FAO/Pamela White & Irene Kadzere Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Contents

Acknowledgements...... iv

Acronyms and abbreviations ...... v

1. AEZ I, Kazungula District, Southern Province...... 1

2. AEZ IIA: Kalomo, Petauke and Pemba Districts, Southern Province (Central Plateau Region)...... 9

3. AEZ III (Plateau region), Mpongwe District, Copperbelt Province...... 25

iii Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Acknowledgements

The Office of Evaluation (OED) would like to extend their thanks to the staff of FAO Office in Zambia for their support, in particular the leadership and staff of CASU and the staff of the National Project Coordinating Unit from the Ministry of Agriculture. We would also like to thank the participating Government staff at national, provincial, district, block and camp levels, who supported the evaluation team in building an understanding of the project, in informing their assessments and in developing recommendations for the future. Particular thanks to the busy men and women lead and follower farmers who took the time to talk with the evaluation team. OED also expresses its appreciation to the EU, NGOs and embassies, who gave their time to provide information to support the evaluation. A special thanks to the FAO Project Task Force for their advice and guidance.

Composition of the evaluation team Ms Pamela White, Team Leader Dr (Ms) Irene Kadzere Mr Jeston Lunda Dr (Ms) Yuen Ching Ho, FAO Office of Evaluation

iv Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Acronyms and abbreviations

BEO Block Extension Officer CA Conservation Agriculture CASU Conservation Agriculture Scaling Up Project CEO Camp Extension Officer CPF Country Programming Framework CFU Conservation Farming Unit DACO District Agricultural Coordination Officer EDF European Development Fund EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FFS Farmer Field Schools FFs Follower Farmers FGD Focus Group Discussion FISP Farmer Input Support Programme FISRI Farmer Input Support Response Initiative GIS Geographical information systems HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome IAPRI Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute KRA Key Result Area LFs Lead Farmers LoA Letter of Agreement M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MoA/MAL Ministry of Agriculture (previously the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock) MTE Mid-term Evaluation NAIS National Agricultural Information Service NAO National Authorising Office NAP National Agriculture Policy (2004-2015) NGO Non-governmental Organization NPCU National Project Coordination Unit OED FAO Office of Evaluation PROFIT Production, Finance and Improved Technologies (USAID) PSC Project Steering Committee P4P Purchase for Progress RAF Regional Office for Africa (FAO) ToC Theory of Change UN United Nations

v Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

vi Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

1. AEZ I, Kazungula District, Southern Province

Overall findings

1. District profile

Kazungula District has 440 leader farmers (175 women/40%, 265 men) and 5621 follower farmers (2592 women/46%, 3029 men).

2. Difference between FISRI and CASU

The district staff described the differences between FISRI and CASU. FISRI provided more funds for the districts to operate. CASU has more limited funds. It has a similar approach but has introduced more innovations, such as using the SMSs and a variety of training materials to improve the information flow to the farmers. The BEOs and CEOS who worked with FISRI said that the activities were more clearly defined and there was more funding. In CASU the funds are tied to activities, but then if they arrive late it is a problem. How can you use them for training in land preparation if that period has ended by the time the funds arrive? In FISRI the CEOs received inputs and ran their own demo plots and they would like to do so again.

The District officers also indicated that they consider that the finances of CASU are very tightly managed – perhaps too tightly, due to the lessons of FISRI. Funds are delivered late – and somewhat irregularly, despite them submitting reports on time, which delays their field work. This makes it difficult to plan their work. An indication of when funds were received in 2015/16:

• March 2015 – they received the funds for January-March • April 2015 – the funds for April-June came • August 2015 - they received the funds of July-September • September 2015 – the funds for October-December came • February 2016 – the funds for January-March came to the bank account.

3. Adoption

Those camps that previously worked with SCAFE and FISRI have higher adoption rates, while the new camps have lower adoption rates. SCAFE provided a lot of training in contours, vetivers, etc., but there hasn’t been much training on this in CASU.

Some FFs are very enthusiastic and can see the improvement in production with other farmers, but then they fall back into their old methods. The increase in yields is clear. But some farmers complain that CA needs too much labour, and that the herbicide is too expensive (in addition some are frightened of poisoning or using the wrong dilution or wrong application method). CA is associated with weeds in the minds of many. Many don’t have rippers – they only cost 600-1000 Kwa for the ripper and tynes, but that aren’t available in all agrodealers. Most farmers have oxen and ploughs, therefore they prefer ripping to basins (they feel that “digging basins is going backwards”. If there was an option to compromise on advice to farmers, it might be better to advise them to lightly cultivate the weeds. There are also some problems with calibration of sprayers.

Farmers all leave the crop residues on the field, but the oxen eat it away and only a low percentage is left by the next sowing. CEOs feel that it isn’t having much impact, as there isn’t enough permanent cover. There is some burning of vegetation carried out, though this has decreased.

In 2014/15 the average maize production was 1.5 tonne/ha with conventional methods and 3.2 tonnes/ha with CA in the district. With the drought they have seen a big difference in the CA fields, as moisture is retained. Farmers use demo plots as a method to convince FFs to change their practices, but they are also tending to move to larger areas, though slowly. Most LFs are practicing CA on 0.7-1 ha. 1 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Groundnuts are a traditional crop, and considered a women’s crop – but very small scale for local consumption. Cowpeas have also been grown earlier in small amounts, but there wasn’t a market – now that the market is increasing there is more interest. Pigeon pea was supported by CASU but the farmers weren’t very interested, as they doubted there was enough market.

4. Trainings

District and field staff have participated in training from CASU – “an endless list”, including land preparation, herbicides, farming as a business, mechanisation, and maintenance of equipment. In addition, the M&E Officer and the Lands Officer participated in the training given by CFU under CASU on herbicides and mechanisation (October 2015). They considered the training to be very hands-on and useful, and they then replicated the training to the CEOs, who passed it on to LFs, and then to FFs. When the district core team meet with the CEOs in quarterly meetings they look at the training plan and develop an action plan, and then train from their own knowledge and modify messages from whatever source they have. They produce some handouts themselves. Training materials (pamphlets and posts) from CASU have been distributed via BEOs and CEOs to the LFs. They have given some training to the agrodealers in herbicide use. Otherwise, the only training for agrodealers from CASU was on the point of sale machines. They consider it would be beneficial to train the agrodealers more generally in CA, in order to reach more farmers. The CEOs also discuss CA with non-CASU farmers, and they are invited to training days and field days.

The LF to FF knowledge transfer is an excellent concept of CASU. Medium sized farmers are probably the most successful. There is a demand from other outside farmers to join as FFs, and for FFs to progress to being LFs. CEOs chose the LFs with selection criteria of: living in the camp for at least the past 5 years, owning their own land, having an interest in CA and being keen to train, not being involved in other CA projects and at least 40% women.

Farmers also received training in gender and HIV&AIDS from the MoA and other projects over the last ten years. With CASU they have considered the impact of HIV on farming and how CA could help. They are targeting head men on gender (CASU staff proposed this) and they have found this to be very effective for improving gender equality. The district and field staff haven’t seen the CASU Gender Strategy but they are applying the quotas regarding LFs and FFs. They consider that the women are more enthusiastic to access benefits and information that men monopolised earlier. For instance, some women have rippers in their own right and they are very proud owners. One problem is that if they only hold training in one zone (due to the lack of funds for transport) some women won’t attend as it is too far to walk (up to 15 km). If they receive bicycles it will become easier.

5. Communications

The SMS messages have been popular as a means of spreading information. CASU hasn’t supported radio programs on community radio but some other projects have. Many farmers have solar panels (at least in central locations) and bringing DVDs or memory sticks of CASU TV programs would be a good teaching tool. CEOs could distribute. These are more modern than radio programs and it is easier to convince farmers with pictures. Exchange visits would be valuable – both for farmers, and district/extension staff – to learn from other districts’ experiences.

One Insaka was held by the district in March 2015, with various NGOs (some who have now ended), agrodealers, the radio station and government departments. They shared information about CA activities, and the approaches of each organisation.

6. GIS mapping

GIS mapping of the camp boundaries has been carried out in November-December 2015. The information will be used at national level only.

2 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

7. Access to markets and finance

Last season the project tried to link farmers to WFP for markets for legumes. Aggregators went out but didn‘t find many farmers – it appears that the message didn’t spread very effectively. There are also buyers from Zimbabwe and Botswana who come over the border looking to buy cowpeas. Last year they paid a better price than WFP! But still the limitation has been legume seeds and limited production. There is also limited transport to bulking points. WFP has held a meeting with the agrodealers to discuss them taking on the role as traders, though one constraint is the need for the dealers to get finance, in order to pay the farmers immediately.

Farmers have trouble getting access to finance. NWK provides inputs on credit to some farmers in the area. NatSave has loaned funds to two or three farmers in the district for equipment.

8. Limitations

The main limitations are the insufficient resources and transport. There are 11 camps working with CASU and there are, in theory, motorbikes in each camp but only 3 are running well. There are no spare parts available, and insufficient fuel. This means less presence in the field for training and monitoring, and more farmers dropping out, as they don’t get sufficient follow-up. The planning of CASU is a bit too top-down. If they had more opportunity to feed the planning upwards, the financing might match the monitoring and training needs in the field better.

BEOs and CEOs also commented on the delay of inputs arriving in the store – only arriving in January. Some of the farmers used their own saved seed or borrowed from others. The inputs are meant for demo plots yet if they are delayed the LFs can’t show good practices. How will the learners see the benefits and scale up CA?

There is also a problem with illiteracy among women farmers. A literate female LF is generally considered better than a male LF, but if they are illiterate it doesn’t work so well, as they find it harder to understand and train others.

In Southern Province farmers they have worked in agriculture for a long time and are slow to change despite training – unlike in some districts like Mpongwe where there is less history of farming and less cultural drag. CFU hasn’t operated in Kazungula.

Findings from the focus group discussions at Msotokwane Camp, Kazungula

Leader farmer meeting (10 women, 8 men)

The camp has had previous experience with Care International support. They started working with basins but many then moved to rippers. With CASU they have learned how to use intercropping and rotations, to use demo plots to train other farmers, and they have gained more expertise on basins and ripping. The challenge is that there is only one ripper available in the camp, which is kept very busy.

They started to use crop rotation in the 2014/5 season, growing cowpeas, groundnuts, pigeon peas (not much), velvet beans (very good results) and sun hemp. They have however, noticed some problems with termites. They noticed that using intercropping, rather than mono-cropping, seems to help though.

No-one has really used agroforestry as they couldn’t get any musangu seeds (and most weren’t very interested in pigeon peas). Everyone – FFs and LFs – say they maintain the crop residues on the fields, however the livestock tend to eat it.

More people would like to join as FFs – they tell them that everyone can participate in trainings and meetings, but there is a limitation in the number of FFs that a LF can visit.

3 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

The main impediments to expanding their land under CA are the access to the ripper, and also the late delivery of the seed. One LF said she had reserved basins for planting with the CASU seed, but it didn’t arrive and she ‘wasted’ 500 basins. Another LF said that he wasted 1800 basins. He kept hanging on waiting for the seed. By the time he realised it would be too late, he couldn’t afford to buy seed, and couldn’t find any recycled seed locally. All the LFs interviewed said that they plan to increase their land under CA gradually, and to hold back seed for recycling for next season.

The herbicide arrived too late to use, so they only used hoes. They would like to have more training in herbicide use. They think Stellar Star is a good chemical but it is new, and they would like to know more on when to apply and what the risks are for other plants. Not everyone have sprayers with nozzles that are calibrated correctly also. One farmer raised the idea of using a contact herbicide via Zamwipe – which wipes the herbicide onto plants – it is safer (no risk of it drifting onto other plants in the wind and killing them), and results in less waste.

The LFs say there is no problem at home from their spouses. They all feel more confident as a result of the experience of training others. The women admitted that it is extra work for them on top of their normal tasks, but that their husbands are gradually doing more of traditional women’s work – eg. weeding, and even preparing food. Things have changed over the last five years or so. Even the Police have intervened and given gender and HIV&AIDS promotions.

Most families are eating cowpeas twice a week at least (even every day just after the harvest). They get two crops of cowpeas per season and the children and adults are healthier and stronger as a result of the better diet. However, they need more market opportunities for the legumes. Those LFs with functioning phones said that they have received the SMS regarding WFP buying legumes (and with extension messages). Radio is very problematic here as the signal is poor. But they have DVD player and TV access, with solar panels, so using these for extension would be great.

Lead farmers M/F Conv. total ha CA total ha Maize yields under Maize yields under CA Ripping (R) conventional (bags/ha) (bags/ha) or Basins (B) M 2 1.5 30 (with fertilizer) 60 (with manure) B M 3 1.5 30 (manure & fertilizer) 53 (manure & fertilizer) R M 3 1 15 (fertilizer) 45 (manure) R M 2 0.25 23 (fertilizer) 80 (manure) R M 1.5 1.5 33 (fertilizer) 27* (manure) B M 3.5 1 8 30 (manure) R M 2.5 0.5 22 (fertilizer) 50 (manure) R & B M 5 0.25 16 (fertilizer) 120 (manure) R F 2 1 25 (fertilizer) 20** (manure) R & B F 2.5 1 12 (fertilizer) 20 (manure) B F 3 1 17 (manure) 40 (fertilizer) R F 2 0.25 15 (fertilizer) 40 (fertilizer in riplines, R & B manure in basins) F 3 1 15 (fertilizer) 50 (manure) R F 6 1.5 16 (fertilizer) 43 (manure and fertilizer) R F 3 1 17 (fertilizer) 20 (manure) R F 10 1 15 (fertilizer) 40 (manure) R & B F 2 1 15 (fertilizer) 25 (fertilizer) R F 2 0.25 30 (fertilizer) 60 (manure) B

* Waterlogged land – it performed better than the farmer thinks possible with conventional farming ** The farmer planted the CA crop during a dry spell, while the conventional crop was planted during rains

4 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Follower farmer meeting (3 women, 6 men)

Most of those present learned about basins and ripping from Care International and have continued using it, after the Care project ended in 2011. They think that CA brings better results than conventional farming, especially during drought. They said that there is still no market for legumes, though they appreciate eating them (eating cowpeas about twice a week and groundnuts daily). So far they haven’t seen much benefit in increased incomes, but the improvements to food security are good. They have eaten these as traditional crops for some time, but in much smaller quantities than since CASU. They are all now growing legumes and rotating, though they don’t have enough to rotate all land. It is also difficult to get the legume seed.

Getting access to rippers is difficult. There is only one locally. Some have their own oxen and others pay someone to do the ripping (around 50-200 Kwa/ha).

Only one person used herbicide this year as it is so expensive. They all concede that it saves a lot of time, but they don’t have the cash to pay for it (especially at that time of the year).

The LF visits their homes and talks to the whole family, and they visit his farm. The CEO gives some training but over the last few months he has had problems with his motorbike. There are 12 villages in the camp, about 7-8 km apart, so it is difficult to get around everywhere. The last training they received was on post-harvest handling, grading seed and produce for markets, checking for pests, and good storage.

They don’t think many farmers have dis-adopted, and there are many others who would like to join as FFs. Some of them would also like to become LFs. Then they could spread the knowledge to others nearby – and also get some inputs. The female LFs are as good as the men, and the male FFs said that they teach well.

Follower farmers M/F Conv. total ha CA total ha Maize yields under Maize yields under Ripping (R) conventional (bags/ha) & CA (bags/ha) & or Basins (B) fertilizer application fertilizer application

M 1 0.25 13 (none) 32 (manure) R

M 0.5 0.25 18 (none) 20 R

M 2 0.13 15 (fertilizer) 40 (manure) R

F 1 0.5 20 (manure) 10* (manure) R

F 0 1 8* (none) R

M 2 0.5 10 (none) 12 (fertilizer) R

M 2 0.25 15 (fertilizer) 28 (manure) R

M 1 0.5 20 (none) 30 (manure) R

F 0.5 0.25 30 (none) 20** (manure) R

*Planted the CA field during the drought, whereas conventional field planted later with rain

5 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Ms Bester Simezya – Msotokwane Camp, Kazungula

Ms Bester Simezya is a Lead Farmer in Msotokwane camp, Kazungula. She received some training in conservation agriculture from an earlier project supported by Care International, from 2006- 2011. When CASU came along she was selected as a Lead Farmer. Last season she was the best cow pea producer in the camp, and her fields look very promising this year also. She has 6ha under conventional and 1.5ha under CA (using ripping). She is intercropping cow peas with maize on part of her fields (see the photo to the right). She says that growing maize in this way decreases the production slightly because more space is taken by the cow peas, but they are enriching the soil. The first crop of cow peas for the season is being harvested now and she has planted the next (applying pre-emergent herbicide to clear weeds), and fertilizer.

Bester notes that growing maize with CA saves time, but intercropping in this way takes extra time for hand weeding, as she can’t use herbicide on top of the peas. But the results are worth it. Bester can get 16 bags of maize on her conventionally tilled fields, but around 43 bags for her ripped fields, which she rotates with legumes. The increased income earned by selling maize and cow peas are allowing Bester’s 9 children to attend school, even up to senior secondary level.

She is busy as a Lead Farmer advising her 15 Follower Farmers, which often entails walking long distances between FF farms. At home, Bester and her husband plan the farm work together.

Findings from the focus group discussions (Lead farmer and follower farmer meeting) at Manyemunyemu camp, Kazungula

All farmers said that they knew about CA from previous interventions (FISRI and Care International) and had been applying all three principles to some extent. The difference with CASU is that it is expanding the number of farmers involved – earlier it was a more focused group of farmers getting the knowledge. The training from CASU is reinforcing what they had learned earlier. And they have learned about crop rotations and even incorporating ant hills into the soil, which seems to have good results.

Some of the LFs say that other farmers have visited them and asked to join, but they have been told to only work with 15 each. Some farmers have reverted, as they find the weed control too difficult. Many FFs would like to be LFs – as they consider LFs get more training and information. They would be able to change people’s minds about farming methods. They would also like access to more equipment and inputs.

6 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Ripping is the most popular technique. One man in the meeting used basins last year but moved to ripping this year as he didn’t feel he had the strength to dig again. There are 15 rippers in the camp – 5 per zone – so there isn’t a problem of a lack of access to rippers. Everyone leaves down crop residues – there is around 30% left by the time of sowing.

The yields are a bit mixed though they all expect to do better this year, as the rotation is improving the soil without fertilizer. However, this year the lack of cowpea seed has caused problems and many resorted to saved seeds. There were no possibilities to buy cowpeas as they weren’t available. They were also concerned about the herbicide arriving late. And the herbicide is too expensive to buy for themselves. There is some limitation on the number of sprayers available – it would help if all the LFs had a sprayer that they could lend to others too.

All families are eating legumes now, including eating the cow pea leaves as well as the seed.

All the women said that they feel more confident, as they are training others and mixing with outside men, without discrimination. However, female LFs said that there were some problems to reach all the FFs’ farms without transport. They would be happy to get bicycles.

More training materials are needed, in order to give pamphlets to FFs as well. ZNBC radio signal doesn’t reach them but community radio sometimes does. Videos would be great too. An exposure visit would be a very good way to raise interest and learn.

Mr Ackson Musweu, Mr Wilson Taulu, Mr John Siacholi (by chance all men – these happened to be names from the list of monitored farmers who had attended the meeting with the MTE team) have been monitored by Mr Wilfred Simakoloyi (CEO) for production. Their last visit and interview was during February, when their land management practices were recorded for CASU’s monitoring system.

Mr John Sianyinyite, Manyemunyemu camp, Kazungula

John Sianyinyite is a lead farmer from Manyemunyemu camp in Kazangula, Southern Province. Altogether he farms around 5 ha, including grains, legumes, vegetables and tubers. Currently he has only 1 lima under conservation agriculture, split between maize, sunflowers and cowpeas. He got a yield of 4 x 50kg bags of maize from his 1/3 lima last year, the equivalent of 48 bags from a hectare, compared to about 20 bags/ha from his conventional maize field. He felt that his was lower than he will get this year, as he applied the fertilizer late last year and there were poor rains. Next year he plans to extend the land coverage cultivated under CA to the trees on the horizon in the photo below.

7 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

He has faced some difficulties. The herbicide from the inputs package arrived late this year (only in mid January). He still applied it but found that the weeds died, but stayed standing. So he cut them down by hand, and left them on the soil surface as mulch. In addition, there was no cowpea seed provided. He borrowed some cow peas from others, as he was convinced the previous year of the advantages of using cowpeas for crop rotation. Last year with the lack of rainfall he didn’t have sufficient cowpeas to sell. But he and other farmers still made the most of it, using the leaves and beans as supplements to their diets.

He showed the large heads that have developed on his CA sunflowers this season, noting that during dry periods they stand tall, due to the moisture retained in the soil, while the conventional sunflowers wilt.

John has 16 children and is planning to use his extra income generated by CA to send the children to school and also finish construction of a house on his land. He says that the extra cowpeas are helping to keep the children healthy.

8 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

2. AEZ IIA: Kalomo, Petauke and Pemba Districts, Southern Province (Central Plateau Region)

As most of the CASU districts fall under agro-ecological region IIA, the MTE visited 6 districts within the region. 3 of the cases are presented in this annex:

1 Kalomo and Zimba Districts 2 Petauke District 3 Pemba District

1. Kalomo and Zimba Districts

Kalomo District has 1039 Leader Farmers (354 women/34%, 685 men) and 11092 Follower Farmers (5154 women/47%, 5938 men). After the restructuring of districts, the district was split and now 4 CASU camps in 2 blocks (from the total of 24 camps and 6 blocks) have become part of Zimba District. However, the financial management and coordination still goes via Kalomo. They had more registered farmers earlier but there have been some drop outs.

Earlier the district worked with SCAFE, CASIP, FISRI and CFU; and there is also some involvement of Dunavant, Seed Co. and small NGOs like Harvest Plus, in CA. CFU has 210 LF equivalents locally.

Transport is a limitation, as in all districts. They received 5 motorbikes from CASU (4 for Kalomo and 1 for Zimba), and there were 28 bikes from FISRI, most of which are not running now. The MoA also recently provided them with 3 new bikes (2 went to CASU camps and 1 to a non- CASU camp). Even the new bikes need some repairs as they are in full work. This has limited the work of both the field staff and the opportunity for the district to monitor. They would also be keen to get more pamphlets and training materials, and to carry out training for agrodealers.

Computers are also a limitation in the district. They have an old desktop from FISRI but it can’t connect to the internet. The laptop used for reporting is borrowed from another project. Some laptops and tablets were given out to field staff at the start.

In Zimba the biggest challenges they face are accessing tools like rippers. However, they have had good success in changing farmers’ mindsets regarding diversification of crops. With the current drought many more farmers have become interested in CA, as they can see the benefits.

District staff participated in training by CFU as part of CASU, in mechanisation (eg. calibration of rippers and sprayers), land preparation and herbicide handling and use. They considered it to be very useful.

The district staff consider the e-voucher to be an excellent system – “efficient and foolproof, and easy for the agrodealers to use”, and it permits tracing of who has received the inputs. There were some teething problems – when farmer’s details didn’t match the card, or the pin number didn’t work. The SAO reported that the toll-free line in CASU to deal with problems was often busy or not answered, so he intervened and sent a list of farmers with difficulties to CASU who then sent the pin number in an SMS. This saved time and travel, and ensured the system could function. This season they don’t anticipate problems.

More problematic was that the inputs were delivered so late to the stores. Pigeon peas were promised but never arrived. Cow pea seed came late, as did the herbicide (by the time the herbicide arrived the weeds were too high). Only the masks and gloves were delivered on time.

9 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

The district staff reported that the average yields in the district are clearly better with CA:

Crop Conventional yields (last 3 years’ averages) CA yields in 2014/2015, monitored by sampling

Maize 1.8 mTon/ha 2.4 mTon/ha average (best fields 3-4 ton/ha)

Groundnut 1.2 1.5

Cowpea 0.8 1.1

Sunflower 0.5 0.8

They said that the average farm size is 6 ha. in the district. Most farmers started with 0.75 ha under CA, but on average they have approx. 1.5 ha under CA now.

They are more or less meeting the target of 40% women LFs and FFs. Polygamy is practiced in the district so women are often living alone. They insist on discussing gender and HIV&AIDS in every meeting with farmers. Earlier it was difficult to have open discussions with both men and women present, but that is changing now. The CEOs and BEOs report that the women follow the instructions on CA and work harder than the men. In the Tonga tradition, legume production was considered women’s business. But now that the men have seen that the women are getting better production and making good income from legumes, they have become interested too.

They held a District level Indaba (Insaka) meeting in late 2013, which gave different actors a chance to meet each other and discuss issues (MoA, ZNFU, CFU, Care Int., NWK, DAP, World Vision). However, they haven’t met since then.

In late November 2015 to January 2016 the district had no funds from the Government or from CASU, and this limited their possibilities to carry out monitoring.

Legumes arrived in the agrodealer stores too late for many farmers to use. But some still planted and others borrowed recycled seed from others. Legumes were not typically available earlier in large quantities as they are a new thing locally. Now, due to the work of CASU and WFP, the agrodealers have seen the business case and have begun to stock the legume seeds (especially cowpeas). Last season it was difficult to fill the WFP’s needs for cowpeas but this year it is easier. WFP buys groundnuts, pigeon peas, cow peas and local beans. Farmers are seeing that crop rotation is good for their soils and they have a guaranteed market, so it is a win-win situation.

When asked about the comparison between FISRI’s approach and CASU, they responded:

FISRI • FISRI wasn’t looking at expanding the land under legumes. The main focus was on the concepts of CA. • FISRI gave loans for tractors and ox-drawn implements – but FISRI handled it themselves – a project approach. • FISRI was not thinking much about sustainability as the focus was more on hand-outs, and less on knowledge – farmers tended to think of CA as being about inputs of maize seed and fertiliser. • FISRI’s M&E wasn’t strong.

CASU • CASU is moving away from the demo farm approach and aiming to get farmers to use CA on their whole farm. • CASU is linking the farmers to dealers or financiers, not doing it themselves – this is better for transparency and CASU isn’t operating like a bank. • CASU’s approach should be more sustainable – they link farmers to buyers, and ensure that the crop diversification is supported by markets (which will last after the project). • The CASU M&E system is good – it is looking at land cover and numbers of farmers. This year the district has carried out land management and sentinel monitoring, and they are about to start on the crop management monitoring. 10 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

• It also tracks the funds carefully – they are linked to activity implementation - and is very transparent. • CASU uses SMSs to share information directly to the farmers, not just to the MoA staff.

In the meeting with the CEOs and BEOs, more specific challenges arose:

• Some FFs dropped out after initial selection as they had thought they would receive inputs. But now the remaining FFAs are keen and committed. • The other problem leading farmers to revert to conventional farming is the problem of weed control. Those using herbicide (perhaps 10-15% of FFs) appreciate it. Most LFs are using it, but as it is an input given to them it isn’t a fair test. Most farmers are reluctant to buy herbicide as it is very expensive. Also there are some concerns about pumpkins that they grow in the crops, which would be killed by herbicide. Those farmers who own cultivators prefer to use those. Sometimes the farmers also lack information on how to use the herbicide properly – they apply it too late or in insufficient quantities. Also issue of choosing the right herbicide for maize versus legumes. • Livestock are very common – they can’t be kept off the fields in the dry season as they aren’t herded. They are eating the crop residues and damaging the rip lines. • Musangu seeds were distributed to LFs and raised in group or individual nurseries, then the seedlings were shared out. However, most farmers planted them far from the homestead – so it was difficult to water them and they suffered animal damage. • Mobility of the CEOs is the greatest problem. They would also appreciate getting more information on the budget – they tended to blame the district for not giving enough budget for the work in the field, as they haven’t seen the LoA.

Choonga Camp, Kalomo

A quick review of yields and techniques used last season in maize production by Lead Farmers – all used fertilizer and manure, and most had significantly greater yields from CA.

M/F Conv. total ha CA total ha Maize yields under Maize yields Ripping (R) or conventional under CA Basins (B)

M 0 7 70 bag @50 kg 120 R (earlier)

M 1 3 25 50 R & B

M 4 3 60 85 R (tractor)

M 2 3 30 75 R

M 1 2 20 70 R

M 1.5 3 35 50 R

M 2 3 30 60 R

M 5 2 30 50 R

F 2 0.5 20 30 R

M 2 1.5 20 35 R

M 1 0.5 7 30 R

F 2 0.5 8 24 R & B

F 1 0.5 18 32 B

F 1 0.5 8 40 R & B

F 1 1.5 32 43 R & B

M* 2 2 64 116 R & B

M* 1 0.5 20 60 R

*Converted to all CA this season 11 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Follower farmers

• Male farmer has 481 ha (with title), mostly under grazing. 2 ha under CA (ripping). He got 18 bags/ha from his conventionally farmed land last year and 35 bags/ha from the CA land. • Male farmer with 100 ha (with title), mostly under grazing. He has 1 ha under CA. He got 15 bags/ha under conventional farming and 25 bags/ha under CA. • Female farmer has 0.5 ha under conventional and 1 ha under CA. Last year she got 20 bags/ha from the conventional land, and 70 from the CA land. • Male farmer with 6 ha land – he has 1 ha under conventional farming and 1 ha under CA. He got 10 bags under conventional farming and 20 bags from CA • Female farmer has 2 ha. She has 1 ha under conventional farming with no fertilizer, and 1 lima (0.25 ha) under basins, with only manure application. She got 4 bags/ha from the conventional farming, and 3 bags from the lima (or 12/ha).

Mr Muponda Chwumputa (LF)

• Mr Chwumputa’s experience demonstrates the variation in land under CA that may take place from year to year, even with committed Lead Farmers. He first heard about CA in the 2010/11 season and put 4 ha under CA. • 2011/12 – he put 6 ha under CA. This was successful and encouraged him to increase his use of CA. • 2012/13 – he put 13 ha under CA –there were good rains and he made a good profit. He invested the income in buying a good second hand car, which he hires out for transport/ taxi services. • 2013/14 – he put 8 ha under CA (there were very limited rains, and he didn’t think it worthwhile planting a larger area) • 2014/15 – he put 7 ha under CA (very limited rains again so he planted even less area). • 2015/16 – 9 ha under CA (limited rains, so he has slightly increased his production). This is his entire production – he has no land under conventional agriculture as he is convinced of the benefits. • In 2013/14 there was a serious cattle disease (Corridor Disease - Theileriosis) and he lost 12 cattle, as did many in the community. He was left with 12 animals, but the herd is now increasing. Livestock raising is a key economic activity in the community. This has some impact on their ability to leave crop residues on the ground, as the animals (cattle, goats and sheep) tend to consume it during the dry season. The farmers estimated that approximately 25% is left by the time of the next planting. On the other hand, the livestock provide manure on the fields, and it is gathered to use as compost. Many households have oxen to provide draught power for ripping.

Muponda has grown seedlings of Musangu in a nursery at his home from the seed he was given, as part of the agroforestry activities of CASU. He planted out 100 in November 2013. However all but 11 wilted. He tried to water them at first, but it proved difficult. He also sprayed them with a spray made of natural herbs, which stopped the livestock from eating them. He plans to plant more seedlings in the future. His goal is to cover 1 hectare with musangu.

He is now saving the income from the CA in the hope of buying a borehole. At present the closest water pump is 7km away, and he uses oxen to collect water two times per week. He thinks he will have achieved this goal by 2017 with the help of CA.

CASU and CFU are using him to host a field day for farmers, to demonstrate his good techniques. He is clearly regarded highly by the FFs in his area.

12 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Nantale Camp, Kalomo District Ms Mudenda Grace is a follower farmer. She started with CA last season. She has ripped the field with oxen, but hasn’t used herbicide. She says she doesn’t have enough cash for herbicide, and is also concerned that it would kill the pumpkins she is growing on the edge of the field. She is happy with the ripping as there is more moisture maintained in the soil. She leaves the crop residues on the land after harvest, though she loses at least half to livestock eating by the next planting time. She didn’t have enough cash to buy legumes. She hasn’t planted any nitrogen fixing trees as she didn’t have any seed – she is watching to see the progress of the trees that her LF planted.

Last year she used hand weeding. This year she thought she would ask a neighbour to lightly cultivate with oxen between the plants, staying very shallow to maintain the soil relatively undisturbed. But she was away on the day he did it and he cultivated deeper and made ridges. However, despite this accident, it seems that the soil around the CA plants is holding more moisture than the conventional soil, so she still thinks the yield will be good:

• Her maize under conventional cultivation last year produced 40 bags (50 kg) per hectare • Her maize under ripping last year (with poor rainfall) produced 50 bags/ ha • From her maize under ripping this year, she estimates she will get 80-85 bags

13 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Lead farmers meeting 20 participants (7 women, 13 men)

• They have heard of CA from CASIP, FISRI, CASU and CFU – earliest was in 2007. The first person to start using CA (ripping) was a woman in 2009. They began diversifying between 2007-2010 with handout seeds. Some have also bought legume seed. • LFs chosen by community meeting with criteria set by CEO

What is their incentive to work as LFs?

• The training they have received from CEO and chance to train others • Increased yields on their fields • The inputs are encouraging but there have been many delays so they weren’t in time for planting. Most planted with either bought seed, or borrowed seed from others stocks

Herbicide use

• 2014-15 – all LFs used herbicide • 2015-16 – herbicide from CASU arrived in agrodealer too late to use – they have kept in their houses for next year (1 used anyway, as he was aware that the expiry date is August), and used hand weeding instead • they couldn’t afford to buy it themselves this year as the price rose so high due to currency exchange rate problems. • it costs 700 KWA/litre now and 2 litres are needed for 1 ha – so 1400 KWA/ha, while hiring labour would cost about 300/ha • some of them got herbicide earlier from FISRI • others bought it themselves when it cost 250 Kwa/litre

Regression

• none of their FFs have stopped using CA totally – all maintain a mixture of CA and conventional • From this group of LFs, 3 have moved all their fields to CA this year, as they are satisfied that it gets the best results

Training

• LF calls the FFs and demonstrates the relevant topics on their own field – they often call the husbands and wives of the FFs too. Then follow up how the FFs are implementing in their own fields – but it is hard to reach some of the furthest FFs’ fields. • One LF said he invokes a climate change mindset, talking to FFs about the importance of CA to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change.

Maize production of lead farmers All were using a mixture of composted manure, and some topdressing with artificial fertilizer (though all had decreased topdressing considerably). They stated their coverage and yields of maize from the season 2014/15.

14 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

M/F Conv. ha maize CA ha maize other ha Maize Maize yields (usually with legumes - yields under under CA less reliable figure) conventional F 3 2 N/A 13 40 M 5 1 N/A 50 70 F 3 1 lima N/A 15 40 (0,25ha) F 2 1 0,5 33 45 F 2,5 0,5 0,5 26 48 M 2 1 N/A 45 84 M 1 3,5 N/A 45 30 (using no fertilizer at all) F 2 1,5 1 lima 20 32 F 0 1 2 lima 0 72 M 1 1 1 30 65 M 3 1 1 lima 45 65 M 1 1 1 40 60 M 1,5 1 1 lima 40 48 M 2 1,5 2 35 70 M* 1 1 1 lima 10 75 M* 1 1 lima 1 lima 20 100 M* 1,5 1 lima N/A 13 112 M 2 1 small piece 25 40 M 2 1 0,5 25 45 F 1 1 0,5 40 70

*This season moved to all CA

Follower farmers meeting

25 participants (15 women and 10 men)

• Some have heard earlier about CA from FISRI or from CFU. • Most of the farmers in the area don’t have oxen so they use basins. • Now they have enough land under basins to get a sufficient food all year (whereas 5 years ago that wasn’t the case) • Most are cultivating legumes (5 men said they aren’t as they couldn’t get recycled seed and didn’t have cash to buy it). However, the market for maize is better. For legumes, they are so far only able to sell locally in small quantities but they know that CASU may be able to link them to markets (they heard from an SMS). They can see the improvement in fertility and production be rotating with legumes. • The leave crop residues on the field, although the livestock eat it – but there is always something still left to provide ground cover. • One woman had tried to grow musangu – she received 21 seedlings from her LF – 7 are growing ok, but 14 were destroyed by cattle. He LF advised her to spray the rest with liquid manure and that has been successful in keeping the animals away. • All but one of the group didn’t use herbicide on their land due to the high price – they do hand hoeing of weeds instead (mainly by women farmers) • When the LF visits their household he talks with the whole family, including the children • ZNBC radio signal can be heard in some areas but mainly the signal is weak. They have heard some CA information on the community radio.

15 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Short interviews with several FFs revealed yields of the last season (2013/2014) were very positive with CA:

1 male FF with more land than rest (12.5 ha)

• Maize under conventional – 40 bags/ha (50 kg bags) • Maize in ripped land – 80 bags/ha • Maize in basins (where he can plant more closely) – 100 bags/ha • Cowpeas with conventional – 6 bags/ha • Cowpeas in ripped land – 15 bags • He bought herbicide this year for his maize. He didn’t have much labour available and it was more economical to spray. It would have cost 600 Kwa/ha to pay labourers to week, and it is needed twice in the season. The herbicide cost 480 Kwa/litre and he used about 2 bottles altogether.

1 female FF – 20 bags/ha with conventional, 64 bags/ha with CA

1 male FF on the smallest plot in the group of 1 ha total

• earlier he got virtually no maize crop at all (‘nothing’ in his words) – he didn’t use fertilizer (only manure) • with 2000 CA basins on 50x20 metres, using only manure as fertilizer, he has got 2 bags of maize

Ms Mutinta Hanongo is a follower farmer in Nantale camp. She and her husband first heard about CA in 2010 from the LF, and began trying it in 2011. They dug basins on about 1 hectare of land. From the proceeds of the 2011/12, harvest they bought one cow, from 2013/14 they bought another, and from the 2014/15 harvest they bought a third. They then sold 2 cows in 2015, and with the profits, she and her husband earned enough to buy a motorbike.

Mutinta said that they normally start work on the basins immediately after the harvest, and they are starting to rip some land as well. When they first started digging the basins, her teenage son was not at all happy about the hard work. But now he can see the benefits very clearly and is happy to help. They leave crop residues on the fields and grow legumes. They have cowpeas in their diet now and eat them regularly - after the harvest they eat them daily but then down to once a week when the stocks are lower. Also groundnuts are pounded and included with porridge and relish twice a week at least. The children are healthier and chubbier now. 16 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Mutinta would be keen to become a Lead Farmer, as she feels she has learned a lot and could now teach others. Some of her farmers already ask for help and advice, and she feels quite confident. Her husband, Vernon Bubala, is also keen to be a LF, as he has learned so much. He understands now that farmers are wasting money on purchasing commercial fertilizer, when they can make it themselves. He uses half the quantity of commercial fertilizer now that he uses manure and crop rotation to ensure soil fertility.

2. Petauke District

Petauke is one of the seven districts under CASU in Eastern province. Others are Nyimba, Katete, Chadiza, Chipata, Sinda and Lundazi. Sinda being a new district is still considered under Petauke for administrative arrangements under CASU such the LoA, reporting etc.

Petauke district has seen a good number of interventions aimed at supporting Conservation agriculture both in the past and currently. These interventions date as far back as the year 2000 with the Land Management & Conservation Farming (LM & CF) also referred to as SCAFE being the first to promote CA in the district. LM & CF was implemented through Ministry of Agriculture under the TSB branch. Other projects which followed thereafter include: Agriculture Support Program (ASP), CASIP, FISRI. Currently, the following are some of the organisations promoting CA in the district:

i CASU ii CFU iii Profit Plus iv Zambia National Farmers Union under the LIMA programme v Cotton Association of Zambia vi Reformed Church of Zambia (RCZ) Diakonia

This variety of CA actors offers both strengths (knowledge sharing, efficient use of resources,) and weaknesses (duplication, conflicting approaches and messages). To address this, CFU and ZNFU have been trying to coordinate meetings (not regular); bringing together CA actors to the round table on CA issues and general agricultural issues in the district. These efforts set a tone for CASU to further strengthen this platform which has potential to evolve into a more productive INSAKA with clearly spelt out vision and objectives.

In Petauke district, according to the MoA staff under CASU, adoption of CA has been enhanced by the increased focus on mechanization and having more farmers accessing trainings on CA. The yields have also proved a motivation to those previously in doubt. Of the 3 main principles of CA, crop residue management is the most difficult due to the uncontrolled grazing. Bush fires are also still rampant partly caused by hunters of mice.

Under CASU, the extension approach has worked so well so far. There are about 1080 LFs and 16,200 FFs and all the LFs have adopted CA beyond the demo size; an indication that the area under CA is expanding. Some of the FFs have only managed to adopt some and not the whole package; an area which confirms the need to categorise the farmers into levels of adoption.

The main crops grown include Cotton, Maize, Sunflower, groundnuts and beans. Growing of legumes has always been done at low level just for consumption; but with increased knowledge, legume growing has now become an integral part of CA through crop rotation. Lack of market and lack of certified seed have been some of the factors attributed to low legume production. Now that there is more emphasis on legume marketing, farmers have been encouraged to grow legumes.

There are three agro dealers participating under CASU and all of them have appreciated the benefits of this partnership through CASU.

Marketing in Petauke was described as fairly good with crops such as maize, groundnuts, sunflower and cotton all having readily available market. WFP also provides markets for cowpeas and soyabeans and this has motivated farmers more on legumes. 17 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

There are about 2 local radio stations in Petauke with additional signals from Chipata local radio stations. This provides great potential for CA information dissemination though the district office of NAIS cited challenges of inadequate funds as a hindrance.

3. Pemba District

3.1 Introduction and general set up

Pemba District is one of the new districts arising from the revised demarcation of administrative areas in Zambia in 2013. Operations at the district level started in 2014. The District has a total of 20 Camps (7 CASU and 13 non-CASU). The district was initially part of Choma. According to the SAO (acting), Choma District had 27 CASU Camps to start with. After the administrative boundary changes, Choma remained with 20 CASU Camps and the other 7 now fall under Pemba. Pemba District does not have a separate CASU Bank Account, their funds are still disbursed through Choma from where they are re-distributed.

There are some spontaneous adopters of CA in the district, after having observed that farmers practicing CA through CASU and CFU had better yields. MAL has been proactive to support these adopters of CA with training. The SAO (acting), with whom the MTE team met, worked in Choma initially and has continued to have meetings on CASU in Choma. Pemba district office comprises the SAO, DACO, Cooperatives Officer, Assistant Technical officer, Crops Officer, and a NAIS Officer. They still share the services of an M&E officer with Choma.

The CEO for Canchomba Camp where the MTE Team visited indicated that 8 of the CASU FFs in the camp were also part of the CFU programme while 4 FFs were ZNFU members. Of the total 1’200 farmers in the camp, 500 belonged to CASU. CASU started with 28 LFs and 365 farmers in total. The number of CASU LFs has since increased to 33 with the integration of the 1 R4 programme. The CEO has a motorbike for which WFP approached and requested the Ministry of Agriculture to release for use by the CEO. The transport problems which the CEO used to have were therefore resolved after she received the motorbike. In the camp, there are farmers’ clubs introduced by DAAP, and there are also prgrammes on farming as business (FAB) also introduced by DAAP. Other NGO programmes include Vision Funds (VF).

Linkage with CFU programme – reports from the SAO

The SAO indicated that both CASU and CFU are active in Pemba. The MAL district office in Pemba is not directly involved with the CFU programme unlike CASU, although the two programmes often have joint activities, e.g. they reciprocate invitations to field days. CASU and CFU hold separate farmer trainings, but sometimes CFU invites the MAL field officers to take part in the trainings, while CASU also invites CFU to support training in some occasions.

Training received by the Core Team, and monitoring activities

The core team in Pemba has already been trained by CASU on land preparation and crop management in 2015. The next training, on postharvest management and marketing was scheduled for the week after the MTE team visited. Two (Kasiya and Muzoka) of the seven CASU camps in Pemba are part of those where routine monitoring is undertaken. Not much data is collected from the other five 5 camps in the district, except for the data on F. albida activities and survival. The collected data is entered onto the CASU system using computers at Choma.

Insaka

The SAO reported that Pemba had no Insaka, and that it could be there possibly in Choma.

1 R4 Programme – WFP’s and Oxfam America’s R4 Initiative is a comprehensive risk management approach that helps vulnerable rural households increase their food and income security in the face of increasing climate risks. Source: https://www.wfp.org/content/r4-rural-resilience-initiative 18 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

3.2 Levels of CA practice in Pemba

According to the SAO, the CA farmers in Pemba are practicing ripping, planting basins, crop rotations, residue retention, and some use herbicide for weed control. The SAO estimated that 60 % of the CA farmers are practicing ripping while 50% are using basins. The proportion of ripping would have been higher if many farmers owned rippers. No agro-dealers in the district were said to be selling rippers, but there are some entrepreneurs on land preparation in the district who offer ripping services to fellow farmers at a rate of 200 – 250 Kwacha per ha. The Pemba CASU core team estimated that only 15 to 20 % of the CA farmers in the district were using herbicides mainly due to affordability bottlenecks. They highlighted that one of the main reasons why CA often fails in the district is the limited use of herbicides, or sometimes their incorrect use by the farmers (timing, mixtures, calibration, etc.), which results in high weed pressures. Under such circumstances, CA farmers revert to using a cultivator to control the weeds as a pragmatic measure to circumvent yield loss.

3.3 LF and FF selection, training, communication, and their knowledge on and challenges with CA

Selection process

During the FGDs with a mixed group of LFs in Canchomba Camp, the LFs described how they were selected. The LFs reported that village headmen called for meetings at which they explained about the need for selecting LF using the criteria which had been prepared by CASU. The people who attended the meetings were then asked to choose whom they wanted to lead them. Subsequently, the LFs called for meetings at which interested farmers volunteered to become FFs. Even though there were in some cases more than 15 FFs interested, the LFs only accepted a maximum of 15 FFs to start with. Of the 8 LFs who were present at the time when the numbers of FFs were being discussed (some arrived later for the FGDs), only 2 started with 14 FFs while 6 started with 15. At the time of the FGDs, there was 100% FF retention among all the 8 LFs. The proportions of female FFs among individual LFs ranged from 36% to 80% and only one LF had below the 40% minimum requirement.

Knowledge on CA and training

Lead farmer The LFs said that they had first heard of and started practicing CA as early as 2006 (only 1 of the 8 LFs) through CFU, or 2009 (7 of the 8 LFs) through their CEO when the CASIP project started. The LFs understood CA as a farming approach where no ploughs are used, but rather rippers and hoes (for preparing planting basins); residues are retained in the field and not burnt; rotations are practiced (e.g. maize rotated with cowpeas, beans, groundnuts); and agroforestry is also practiced. The LFs reported to have received training on i) Land Preparation, ii) Crop Management, iii) Herbicide use, and iv) Harvesting and Postharvest Management. They relied on the notes which they took during the trainings and augmented this with pamphlets from e.g. CFU (see Figure 1), but they have none to give nor share with their FFs. The LFs felt that the training materials which they had were not adequate. They requested to receive more materials which cover all main topics in detail to enable them make reference for their own field activities, but also when training FFs and responding to FF questions or queries. The LFs understood their roles as those of teaching FFs to practice CA in the correct way, and monitoring the FFs through visits to their fields. The numbers of visits to FFs varied among some of the LFs – being once per week (combined with other weekly meetings), twice per month, or once per month. They made less frequent visits during peak periods when both the LFs and FFs are very busy. The LFs reported that they received adequate information, training and backstopping from the CEO.

FFs The meeting had been called for only the LFs, but nevertheless, 3 FFs also turned up. The 3 FFs who participated reported that they first heard about CA in 2005 from their CEO. They started practicing in 2008. They reported to have received training from the LFs on land preparation, crop management and also some postharvest aspects. Their LFs visited them or meet with them at least once per week (every Wednesday when they meet for other activities). During the weekly meetings, they also receive(d) updates which come through the SMS platform. 19 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Front page of the training leaflet from the CFU project

Gender issues among LFs

When asked about gender related challenges, the women LFs said that they faced no major challenges and that the men FFs in their groups listened to and respected them and also attended the FF meetings. Two of the female LFs who were among the FGDs reported that their husbands also volunteered to become FFs, and this made it easier for the female LFs to execute their roles since their husbands knew exactly what was going on and there were no elements of mistrust. In general, the female LFs pointed out that their families knew and appreciated that they (the female LFs) were a part of development agents in their camp aimed at contributing directly to the welfare of their and other households in the community.

Area under CA among eight LFs who participated in the FGDs

Most of the LFs preferred ripping to planting basins due to the higher efficiency in times of time and labour demands. However, those LFs without animal draft power used the planting basin method rather than waiting to borrow from their neighbours. Table 1 below shows the area distributions among various CA activities and conventional farming reported by eight LFs who participated in the FGDs in Pemba.

CA and conventional farming area reported by eight LFs during FGDs in Pemba Total Area Area Area under Reasons for practicing Area under legumes (ha) area under under conventional conventional farming owned basins ripping farming (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) Beans Cowpeas Groundnuts Total 4 0 1 1.5 No herbicides = high 0.25 0.5 0.37 1.12 weed pressure under CA 4 0 1 0.25 No ripper 0.37 0 0 0.37 5 0 1 2 No ripper 0.25 0.25 0.5 1 3 0 1 1 No ripper 0.5 0.25 0.25 1 2 0 1 1 No ripper 1 0.5 0 1.5 4 0 1 0 - 1 1 0.5 2.5 3 0.12 1 2 No ripper 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 5 0.12 1.5 1 No herbicides = high 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 weed pressure under CA Total 0.24 8.5 8.75 4.37 3.5 2.62 10.49 Mean 0.03 1.0625 1.09375 0.54625 0.4375 0.3275 1.31125

20 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

No specific yield information was asked during the FGDs, but the LFs highlighted that their yields were generally better than those of their neighbours and that yields from CA were much higher than from conventional production. The CEO estimated the maize yield averages for the camp as follows: conventional = 1.5t/ha with fertilizer; CA = 4 to 5 t/ha with fertilizer, but with only nearly half the application rates as conventional.

CA Area – FFs

For the three FFs who came to the meeting (no FFs had been invited since the main objective for the MTE team to visit Pemba had been to learn more about the linkage with the R4 programme), they each reported to have 2 ha under ripping, but were not using any herbicides for weed control due to high costs. All three had started practicing CA during the CASIP project. The yields which they jointly reported during the FGDs were as follows:

• Before CA, they used to harvest little, as little as a few bags or a few 20 litre buckets per Lima (equivalent of a few bags or a few 20 litre buckets per 0.25ha). • Currently they harvested between 1.5 to 2 scotch carts (about 8 x 50Kg bags) per Lima under CA, and only about 1 scotch cart per Lima under conventional.

All three FFs said that they planted agroforestry trees in 2005 through a GTZ programme, but had not received any Msangu planting materials through CASU.

SMS platform

The LFs reported that they received SMS messages from CASU. The last message had been received on 14th March (2 days before the MTE FGDs was held) and contained information about WFP’s plans for purchasing legumes during the 2015/2016 harvest season. The LFs reported no challenges with telephone network connectivity.

3.4 Input sources and e-vouchers

Unlike pigeon peas, seed of common/field beans was said to be easy to find in local shops outside the CASU programme. Through the input vouchers, CASU supplied legumes (pigeon peas, cowpeas, beans), herbicides (pre-emergence and post-emergence), protective clothing (gloves and masks). Pigeon peas was however not available as the suppliers did not have the seed in stock. The SAO was involved in the process of voucher distribution, but not the redeeming process by farmers except for cases where the farmers faced challenges (e.g. with PIN numbers, lack of inputs in the shops) and required assistance. The CASU inputs were delivered late to the agro-dealer shops – the voucher cards came in late Nov-Dec 2015, but redeeming started only in January 2016. Ideally, the legumes should have been delivered, latest, by early December. The SAO’s impression of the e-vouchers was that they were more convenient as the farmer only needed one card for the whole period, involved less paperwork, but limited the farmers’ choices on inputs although they acknowledged the need to promote legumes.

The SAO also highlighted that during the current season, WFP in conjunction with the Vision Fund Loan Scheme distributed some legume seed (cowpeas and beans) in the same Camps as CASU. These were distributed directly to the CASU FFs and also some LFs. The LFs who participated in the MTE FGDs mentioned the following sources of legume seed as i) CASU, ii) Vision Fund, iii) recycled, and iv) own purchases from fellow farmers or agro-dealer shops. The distribution of the legume seed through non-CASU channels has good complementarity for the CASU project, particularly for the FFs and the replacement LFs who are not receiving any inputs from CASU. For the LFs who also receive inputs from CASU, however, it is necessary for CASU to distinguish these sources of inputs and attribute the benefits accordingly.

During the current season (2015/2016), LFs said that they received different quantities of inputs, according to their categories within the CASU project, as follows:

21 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Category 1: New LFs Category 2: LFs with less that I ha CA Category 3: LFs with 1 ha or more CA

5 Kg cowpeas 5 Kg cowpeas 20 Kg field beans

5 Kg field beans 5 Kg field beans 1000 ml herbicide(s)

250 ml weed killer 250 ml weed killer Gloves and mask

5 Kg maize Gloves and mask 50 Kg Compound D fertilizer 50 Kg Top dressing fertilizer Gloves and mask

Perception and challenges with the e-vouchers

The LFs who participated in the MTE FGDs reported that they did not face any challenges in redeeming the vouchers. The LF who had replaced another one, had however not received any voucher/inputs and hoped that by next season the issues should have been resolved by CASU. The LF perception on the E- vouchers: Unlike the past paper vouchers, the fact that only the agro-dealer ‘can see the amount or value of the voucher’ was reported as an aspect with potential mistrust and required more transparency. The LFs also pointed out that they did not know yet what package CASU would bring them during the coming agricultural season, it would be important for their forward planning to receive this information in time. Even though the LF would have preferred open vouchers to allow them make choices, they also acknowledged that the prescribed package was important in ensuring that CA was expanded among the LFs beyond the demo plots from past projects.

3.5 The Vision Fund loans

The LFs reported during the FGDs that they received loans in different categories. The interest charged also differed for each loan category and was 400 ZMKwacha, 600 ZMKwacha and 700 ZMKwacha for the three categories. In addition, VF is now also introducing a 470 Kwacha for insurance. The LFs indicated that the availability of loans was welcome, however the additional introduced charges which were reportedly not discussed at the time of borrowing, were a discouragement to the LFs. The LFs also pointed out that the interest rates were ‘too high’ for them.

3.6 The Weather Index Insurance programme by WFP

The weather index insurance programme (WIIP) is being piloted as part of the R4 program by WFP in collaboration with Mayfair Insurance. The WIIP targets CASU camps, structures and farmers, taking advantage of the good organization of the farmers through CASU. It is currently only implemented in Canchomba, but could be expanded to the other camps. The DACO in Pemba was involved in setting up the WIIP structures e.g. the 4 manual rain gauges which were set up close to households so that farmers can easily record the daily rainfall amounts. The 4 manual rain gauges augment data collected through the automated weather station in the area. Farmers collecting rainfall data from the manual rain-gauges were trained by the meteorological team. The triggers for prompting compensation to the farmers were said to be available in the policy document, however the MTE member who visited the camp did not manage to see a copy of the insurance policy.

How can the LFs in Canchomba Camp afford premiums for the insurance?

The CASU farmers work for insurance premiums in the same concept as the ‘Food for Work’ or ‘Cash for Work’ which is part of the R4 programme. The participating farmers are engaged by DAPP and work for 14 days on their own fields to prepare land using CA practices. For basins, 14 working days are equivalent to 1 ha. DAPP uses a daily wage rate of 30 ZMKwacha instead of the normal of 15 ZMKwacha per day. The funds are retained as premiums and used for payments to the farmers in the event of crop loss due to weather elements as reportedly stipulated in the contract. The approach allows farmers access to insurance to manage weather risks, while at the same time expanding their farmland under CA to a minimum of 1 ha. A total of 33 LFs are participating in the R4 WFP Resilience Programme. The triggers for compensation are reportedly 22 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report explained in the policy document. At the time the MTE team visited Canchomba camp, there were ‘rumours’ among the farmers that they could receive some compensation this season from the insurance since the rains had started very late and the CA plots suffered from poor germination or crop death. This innovative approach to smallholder farm insurance could be scaled up among CASU farmers in other camps or districts through other initiatives who are willing to use similar approaches to the WFP-DAAP approach.

3.7 Overview of CFU in Pemba district and collaboration with CASU

A brief meeting with Mr. Njobvu Osia, a CFU field officer for Pemba District reflected some complementary collaboration between the CASU project and CFU in the district. The officer had participated in one CASU training event held in Canchomba Camp of the district. This training was for a duration of four days and had focused on CA principles, nutrient application, Msangu planting, and herbicide use. The equivalent of CASU LFs are called Farmer Coordinators in CFU. In Canchomba, CFU has 30 Farmer Coordinators who train the CA farmers. Two of the 30 Farmer Coordinators were females. In the district, female Farmer Coordinators tended to have female CA farmers. Each Farmer Coordinator receives a paper voucher worth 1,600 ZMKwacha and can redeem it for a ripper, herbicides and legumes, but not fertilizers. In their normal trainings, CFU provides farmers with booklets and other resource materials for reference. CFU invites the Ministry staff to participate in their CA training workshops and field days.

The CFU farmers accessed inputs from sources such as FISP, own-saved seed, ZNFU loans, and purchase from local agro-dealers or fellow farmers. Legume seed, like beans was said to be available in local agro-dealer shops, but generally in short supply since most farmers either practiced cereal monocrops or grew legumes on small pieces of land. There were reported local sources of rippers within the districts, such as NWK Stores, Farmserve, Agri CM, and Mamira. One ripper attachment was reported approximately 160 ZMKwacha while the full implement was approximately 600 to 700 ZMKwacha. One farmer in the district obtained a tractor through a CFU facilitated loan (CFU links progressive farmers to credit sources e.g. AFGRI) and provided ripping services to interested farmers for a fee. CFU provides their farmers with information on possible buyers for the produce.

3.8 Positive highlights on CA

The following are issues mentioned by the LFs when asked about why they were keen on practicing CA (without repeating what others had already mentioned):

• I use my inputs precisely, hence use less quantities and more efficiently. • I have more food for my family, and plenty of legumes. • When there are some dry spells, my crops tolerated better the harsh climatic conditions. • I have multiple harvests – I can harvest cowpeas early and obtain food to feed my family. • I can sell surplus and generate some money to meet the needs of my family. • I am not afraid of anything now – even without cattle, I can grow crops successfully to feed my family and sell surplus. • My soil is much better than it was before. • I use part of the time that I save through ripping and herbicide use in CA to train and visit my FFs.

The 3 FFs pointed out the following (without repeating what others had already mentioned):

• I now use less time to prepare land trough ripping, and less time for weeding when I use herbicides. I use the saved time to do gardening and other activities which helps me to generate income. • I am now more food secure – before I used to run out of food by Oct/Nov of the same year after harvests, but now I have enough food for my family to last the full consumption year. I also can send my children to school. • There are less weeds under CA (the MTE notes that this could be a plausible observation since the FFs started practicing CA in 2008, but could be verified through some adaptive research). 23 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

3.9 Key challenges

CA and other challenges faced by LFs

The LFs pointed out the following main challenges:

• Lack of rippers – what they currently had were those from CASIP (in 2009) and also one LF who won a ripper through a CFU competition that was held some time back. • Lack of suitable facilitator materials for the LFs -- Transport -- Protective clothing (e.g. rain coats and boots) from the elements when they visit FFs or go for trainings -- Lack or terrain ropes for marking planting holes in the basin method -- The prices in CASU shops are higher than non-CASU shops -- More training materials • Poor seed germination for beans – they were planted when it was dry?

CA and other challenges faced by FFs

• Lack of rippers – some of the LFs who own rippers shared with them but they were not adequate, and the long wait also meant that timing of planting would be compromised. • Lack of adequate legume seed – what we recycle is not enough. • Unaffordable prices for herbicides and rippers. • We need a neutral field for trainings and demos rather than at the LFs field. • We still need more training on CA to enhance our knowledge, e.g. on the use of herbicides.

At Mr Mweemba’s bean field, Canchomba Camp (16 March 2016 – 8 LFs, 1 CEO, and MTE Team Member) 24 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

3. AEZ III (Plateau region), Mpongwe District, Copperbelt Province

Overall findings

1 District profile

The district has 726 Leader Farmers (384 women/53%, 342 men) and 6711 Follower Farmers (3397 women/51%, 3314 men). There are other farmers who would like to join the project as they can see that FFs are getting better yields.

There are 26camps altogether (with approximately 200 CFU farmers in one camp), and there are 12 CASU camps.

2. Monitoring and yield data

The district carries out land management, crop management, post-harvest and sentinel monitoring. They use the data at district level to discuss progress among CEOs, and have identified model camps, middle-range and struggling camps. Provincial staff have also visited for monitoring and trainings.

According to the DACO’s office the district averages are significantly better for CA than for conventional farming: the average production in the district.

Crop Conventional production CA production

Maize 30-40 x 50 kg bags/ha 100-130 x 50 kg bags/ha

Soya 1.5 ton/ha 3 ton/ha

Groundnuts 10 x 50 kg unshelled bags/lima 40 x 50 kg unshelled bags/lima

They use these figures to demonstrate the benefits of CA to other farmers and camps, and the CEOs give training to all – to the extent that now almost 25000 farmers in the district are using ripping. They consider that the increased yields come from a combination of ripping and using better seeds (purchasing seed rather than just recycling). They consider that CA is always better, even in heavy rain. All soils seem to do better under CA – clay loam shows the greatest improvement.

3. Adoption

Around 70% of farmers this season are using ripping – many consider that it is preferable due to the lower labour contribution. Land sizes of the CA farmers vary between 1.5 ha up to 15-18 ha. A few farmers have tractors and rent them out. They consider that it takes at least two seasons of CA to get results, from both improved skills and better soil. Some farmers give up as they find digging basins to be too hard work.

Farmers are leaving the crop residues on the ground more now. It has been challenging to stop outsiders from burning off, hunting mice, etc. but it is gradually changing.

Crop rotation has definitely taken off – it started to change already during FISRI and is continuing now. Farmers are recycling legume seeds (groundnuts and beans). Many farmers sell to the Congo border. Cowpeas are a new crop – there is difficulty getting seed, and not so many people eat it. Soya is increasing as there is a good market for it. The district has distribution agroforestry seed to LFs, who are told to raise at least 15 plants each, and are encouraged to also raise plants for their FFs. The Department of Forestry is an Insaka member and provided training on nurseries. 25 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Herbicide use is very widespread in the district – virtually 100% of farmers are using it on both conventional and CA farms, and have been using it for a long time (due to the influence of commercial farmers). The district has given training on safe use of herbicides, and farmers use it well (but there has been an increase in poisonings).

4. Communications

The district gets pamphlets from CASU to distribute to farmers, and they also produce some themselves. They have hosted NAIS to visit farmers and interview farmers. There is a radio reception problem in many areas, and not all have radios. The district is considering using government funds to buy radios for LFs as an incentive and a tool to receive training.

5. Limitations

The biggest challenges are transport (insufficient motorbikes and fuel), delays in delivery of the inputs to the agrodealers, and the tight linkage between funds and activities. Late delivery of seed contradicted the messages that the District was giving about planting early.

Farmers also complain about the implements available – they would like to have mechanisation, as without it, increasing the land cover under CA is difficult. However, there is insufficient finance available to farmers. NatSave offers loans to ZNFU members but they must have 30% cash as a deposit and most farmers don’t have title deeds as collateral, and this cuts out most farmers. NWK also offers inputs on credit to some ZNFU members.

Joel Bwalya (LF) and Mercy Masamba (FF) in Minsongwe Camp, Mpongwe District

Joel has 50ha of land altogether, all farmed under CA, and he has given his wife Mercy land to practice CA. She is growing beans and maize on that land, and makes decisions herself as to what she will do. They work together, doing joint planning and budgeting, and Mercy keeps the funds.

Joel learned about CA through the extension officer in 2006. He began practicing it in 2009, with basins on 50 X 50 metres land. His land is tilted, so water ran across and buried the basins. He then tried vetiver grasses but after 2 years of basins, he ended up ripping with contours in 2011. He began planting musangu in 2015, grown from seed on his own nursery. He grew 25 seedlings for himself and then gave a further 25 trees for 7 of his FFs. He plans to continue to grow seedlings for his farm and others.

The yields on their farm have been significant. On 50 x 50 metres, they have got 10-15 bags of maize with conventional farming and 40 bags with CA. In the 2014/5 drought they got worse yields, but still approximately 30 bags, while their neighbours had losses.

26 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

On Joel’s land this year, he has around 30 ha of maize, 1 ha of sunflowers, 1 ha of beans, and 50 x 50 metres of groundnuts. He would like to increase the land under legumes but he has insufficient seed (the inputs from CASU came too late). Legumes get a good price – last year he sold 2 bags for 1200 kwacha. Mercy has 1 acre of maize, 50 x 50 metres of groundnuts and 50 x 50 metres of beans.

Joel meets with his FFs weekly. They try to listen to the CA activities on the radio also. From the legume seed that he received from CASU, he gave 1 kg each to his FFs and kept 15 kg for himself.

It is difficult to get ripping services - there is only one tractor locally. During the peak period it is difficult to get the services. 1 ha costs 400 kwa.

Joel thinks that the best thing about CA is the increased yields and increased income. Mercy is very happy with the improved livelihoods and the time saving (she uses the extra time in her own garden).

Findings from the Focus Group Discussions (55 LFs and FFs – men and women) from various camps in Mpongwe

• All had at least doubled their yields of maize. • 25 people in the meeting had tripled their yields. • All said that they had increased income. • None in the meeting are using basin – all are ripping. • There are 3 tractors in the area that can be used for ripping and some hire the services if they have cash – the cost is around 350 kwa/ha with the tractor, and approx. 150 Kwa/ ha for oxen drawn ripping. • All are keeping crop residues on the fields and are rotating crops. • They keep some legumes for home consumption. • 9 farmers got credit for cotton and soya seed from NWK this season. • All use fertilizer, but they have found that they need much less – perhaps a quarter of the quantity of artificial fertilizer as they used earlier. • 14 farmers grow musangu on their farms – several others planted but had trouble watering them.

The LFs were selected from people who were interested and they received training – they didn’t need to have prior experience. They then selected the FFs who were interested. The smallest number of FFs is 8, the largest group is 21 FFs. Some of the FFs left because they were disappointed not to get inputs. In another small group, some FFs left the district. Meetings are usually held weekly, or once every two weeks.

The LFs said that while they like getting inputs, the most important benefit is the knowledge they have received, and if the inputs stopped today they would still continue with CA. The late arrival of the inputs this year was frustrating but many bought legume seeds themselves or recycled it.

The female LFs said that there is no problem at home when they go to meetings with other men, or train male FFs. Their families are proud of them.

All the LFs received training pamphlets from CASU, but they need more to share with the FFs. They also listen to the radio programs on CA – they feel it reinforces the messages they are hearing from the CEOs.

Findings from the focus group discussions at St Anthony’s Camp, Mpongwe (mixed meeting of LFs and FFs, men and women)

• All farmers claimed that they are using the same combination of fertilizer (or aren’t using) before and after, but less is needed with CA. 27 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

M/F Crop Conventional yield CA yield Fertilizer?

M maize 50 bags/ha (50 kg/bag) 80 bags/ha no

M maize 30-40 75 top dressing only

M maize 40 60 no

M maize 30 70-100 (depending on rain) top dressing only

F maize 100 (? seems doubtful) 112-125 (? seems doubtful) ?

F maize 40-45 100 basal & top dressing

F maize 30 100 top dressing only

F maize 45 75-80 top dressing only

F maize 30 100 no

F maize 30 72 basal & top dressing

F maize 40 60 no

F maize 20-25 60-65 no

F maize 20 60-70 no

F maize 25 103 basal & top dressing

F maize 26 60-65 top dressing only

F maize very low (was her parents’ land) 75 (expects) top dressing only

F maize 19 90 top dressing only

M maize 25-30 65-70 (expects) basal & top dressing, but less

Taking the lower figures that each farmer quoted (and remembering that this is an informal survey rather than actually measuring the yields), it can be seen that the women farmers are achieving greater increases of yields of maize than the men. The average production under conventional farming for the men was 35 bags/ha and under CA this increased to 70 bags/ha. For the women, the average production under conventional was 28 bags/ha and under CA this improved to 80 bags/ha.

All are growing at least 1 ha of legumes. All the farmers buy and use as much herbicide as possible.

A female lead farmer (Elizabeth Luwanika) has 5ha - 1 ha of maize and 4 ha of legumes, which she farms herself (her family has more land). Legumes are more profitable to grow and she has good markets. There is an organic market for groundnuts in Mpongwe. She is growing some soya to NWK this year for the first time. And there is a local boarding school that buys her beans. She is expecting to get > 3 tonne/ha of soya (estimated 67 bags for this year) – the national average is 1 tonne/ha. She has musangu in the field with the soya and also keeps crop residue there. The ground nut doesn’t get any herbicide or fertilizer, as it is sold as organic, which gets a price premium.

In this photo on the left she shows a field that she treated with herbicide and left the residues on the field as mulch.

28 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

The FFs said that they were using CA because:

• they noticed the soils were becoming depleted (male farmer) • earlier, with conventional farming, they were spending a long time in the field, but they could see that CA saved time (female) • they saw the increased yields with CA (female) • they learned to do permanent riplines and now farming is easier and there is more food available, due to crop rotation (female) • earlier he ploughed with oxen and planted immediately behind the plough but he got poor germination, whereas the CA farming was more successful (male) • nitrogen fixing of legumes is very good – she plants groundnuts first and then maize, without needing fertilizer (female).

29 Mid-term evaluation of CASU project – Case Report

Jessy Sitolo (right) is a follower farmer. She is working on the land of her parents. Earlier her parents got very low yields with conventional agriculture. Now that she has learned to use CA, her parents are letting her take over the farming on part of their land. She expects to get 75 bags of maize under CA this year with only top dressing of fertilizer. Jessy is saving her profits to pay for her education.

Many external farmers in the area would like to join in as FFs. And many of the FFs in the meeting would like to graduate to LF status so that they can support new FFs. Some of the current FFs travel long distances to the group meetings. If they became LFs they could run their own groups at home.

The women in the meeting were very confident and even dominating the discussions. In one group, there are only 5 men and 10 women. They have learned about gender mainly in women’s clubs but they have also gained confidence through having the role as a LF. Even those women who are illiterate say they would like to have printed training materials as others could translate for them.

30

OFFICE OF EVALUATION www.fao.org/evaluation