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,