Approaches

Conservation Tillage for large scale wheat and barley production [Kenya]

approaches_2649 - Kenya

Completeness: 56%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Dyer Martin

info-kis@kisima

Kisima Farm

Kisima Farm

Kenya

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
SOWAP (SOWAP) - Hungary
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Kisima Farm Limited - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Yield and income improvements by better soil moisture conservation and reduced labour costs resulting from individual initiative

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Overall purpose: improved yield and income. Specific objectives: Soil misture conservation and reduced labour costs for farm operations.

Stages of implementation: A gradual development of expertise through trial and error. Discussion with other farmers trialing a similar technology.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Kenya

Region/ State/ Province:

Meru Central

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1970

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (crop yields, sheep farming)

To improve crop yields and income

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Soil moisture retention, reduced soil fertility, costs of farm operations, need to improve yields

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Limited capital to invest in the right machinery

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of technical information

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Potential to seek expert advice eg through the Cereal Growers Association

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Individual farmer

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:

This is a single farm

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were None monitored through measurements
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: other (farmer income/ savings): 100.0%

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Increased soil moisture and reduced soil erosion

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Other large-scale farmers are experimenting with the technology and small-scale farmers are also keen to follow

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

Individual initiative

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Sets own timelines and goals
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Individual self-drive (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: national appreciation and publicising of such successes)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Taking risks Seeking expert knowledge
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Spending own resources on uncertain risks Specialist advice to reduce risk

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules