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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/03/2023

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

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Improving farmers' access to minimum tillage tools is an approach to increasing the adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) through linking them to institutions that fabricate the tools.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Using minimum tillage tools in land preparation, planting, and weed management helps to achieve the principle of minimal soil disturbance in conservation agriculture (CA). However, one of the main challenges facing the adoption of minimum tillage is the high cost of minimum tillage tools. In this approach, the ProSoil project sought to overcome the challenges of accessibility to and high cost of minimum tillage tools. GIZ through Gesellschaft für Agrarprojekte in Übersee (GFA) collaborated with the County Departments of Agriculture’s Agricultural Technology Development Centers (ATDCs) to train local artisans (welders) on how to fabricate minimum tillage tools at reduced cost and ensure easy access. Currently, the farmers can order hand-held minimum tillage tools such as jab planters, hand-held scrapers, shallow weeders, hand-held subsoilers, animal draft power (ADP) subsoilers, ADP rippers, and chaka hoes from ATDCs and local fabricators at reduced costs. In addition, farmers with large pieces of land can hire heavy minimum tillage implements from ATDCs at affordable rents. The project has also partnered with the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) to ensure continuous research on the minimum tillage tools and how to improve them based on the different farm settings.

To increase knowledge about minimum tillage, GFA facilitated local community-based organizations to train farmers on the importance of minimum tillage and how to use minimum tillage tools. In Gem Yala area of Siaya County, Kenya, GFA partnered with Rural Energy and Food Security Organization (REFSO) to offer these pieces of training to the farmers through their groups and link them to local manufacturers. Each group consisted of about 25 farmers of which at least 30% were women. The trainings take place at designated venues in localities that are easily accessible by farmers from different locations.

Farmers like this approach because they have been linked to the manufacturers of the tools and have had their capacity built on how to use the tools. They are therefore able to access the tools easily and at affordable prices. They are also motivated to adopt minimum tillage after having benchmarked in other farms are seen how minimum tillage has improved production.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Aim: To increase the adoption of conservation agriculture (CA).

Objective: To improve farmers' access to minimum tillage tools.

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

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	passive	Farmers in the community, targeted by the SLM technologies under the approach and awareness on access to the minimum tillage tools.
planning	interactive	Agricultural Technology Development Centre (ATDC) and Rural Energy and Food Security Organization (REFSO) jointly agree with farmers on when to engage each other, especially time and venue for training and awareness creation on access to tools.
implementation	self-mobilization	Once trained, farmers implement the SLM technologies on their own, but may seek further advice from the SLM specialists where necessary.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	The planning for and conduct of monitoring and/ or evaluation is a role of GIZ and WHH. Farmers are mainly interviewed based on pre-determined questions.
Research	interactive	Continued research by ATDC and KALRO in consultation with farmers to develop tools that are suitable for different settings/ farmlands.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

Decisions on what SLM technologies to implement were made mainly by most partners i.e., GIZ, GFA, KALRO, ATDC, REFSO, and the farmers.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• Local artisans

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Farmers in their groups (Umoya Farmers Self-Help Group), about 25 farmers in a group, and at least 30% of the number were women.

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

1. Benefits of conservation agriculture - minimum tillage
2. Different types of minimum tillage tools
3. How to use different minimum tillage tools
4. Linkage to minimum tillage tools fabricators

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

SLM specialists advise farmers at their farms whenever they visit them. Farmers can also visit ATDC, KALRO, and REFSO offices for advice. Farmers are also trained at designated venues in groups.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

About 10 REFSO SLM specialists have been capacity built/ trained.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Training on CA, its benefits, and how and where to access CA tools.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

GIZ and GFA regularly follows up with local artisans and the Agricultural Technology Development Centre (ATDC) to check on the number of farmers who have bought/ access minimum tillage tools.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Nee

Comments:

This documentation in intended for keeping a record of SLM technologies and approaches.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

• Tool suitability

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was done by the Agricultural Technology Development Centre (ATDC) and the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization (KALRO) to determine which minimum tillage tools are suitable for which farm settings.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Training costs met by GIZ ProSoil project. The cost covers training of a group of about 25 farmers and a group of about 20 local fabricators, and research in tool suitability.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

GIZ through GFA supported farmers in their groups with minimum tillage tools for demonstration purposes.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

Farmers provided labour at demonstration plots.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

The tools are fabricated and sold to farmers at lower prices than conventional prices i.e., prices in other shops.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increased access to minimum tillage tools.
The tools are fabricated and sold at lower prices than the prices in other shops.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The ProSoil has linked farmers to local fabricators to ensure ease of access to tools.

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?
Very few artisans fabricate minimum tillage tools.	Training of more local artisans on how to fabricate the tools and set up businesses.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Inaccessibility of the tools.	Increase awareness among the local artisans so that they can fabricate the tools and set up businesses and provide more affordable solution to farmers.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Conservation Agriculture Technical Manual by SUSTAINET E.A.

Available from where? Costs?

Free download at https://www.weadapt.org/sites/weadapt.org/files/legacy-new/knowledge-base/files/1051/507bcb0bb6e92technical-manual-on-conservation-agriculture-sustanet.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Conservation agriculture

URL:

https://infonet-biovision.org/EnvironmentalHealth/Conservation-agriculture