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

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

Golden Valley agricultural research trust (Golden Valley agricultural research trust) - Zambia

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

Ministry of Agriculture of Zambia (MoA) - Zambia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

16/01/2013

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

Yes

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

This is a collaborative process between researchers and farmers for developing and adapting new technologies that focus on incorporating the perspectives and inputs from the farmers into the development process.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: (1)To stimulate active farmer participation in the technology development process so that local conditions and perspectives are integrated in the process. (2)Build the capacity of farmers to identify problems and contribute to selecting/improving technology options. (3) Raise farmers’ yields in a sustainable manner and ultimately contribute to increased net farm income.

Methods: A series of on-farm experiments are set up to test a range of technology options. These trials are implemented by the farmers so that vital feedback on which technology works and why it does so is collected. Suggestions for improvements are also collected, reviewed and incorporated into new designs or all together new technologies developed. The process is repeated until spontaneous adoption is evident before the technologies are promoted widely.

Stages of implementation: (1) Preparation of trial protocols for technologies to be tested (2) Identification of farmers and mobilization into farmer groups (3) Capacity building and increasing the knowledge base of farmers to effectively participate and contribute to development process. (4) Setting up of on-farm trials (5) Monitoring trials and collecting data/feedback from farmers (6) incorporation of feedback into technology development process and conducting on-station trials (7) technologies adapted or developed and introduced and the process is repeated.

Role of stakeholders: The approach was designed by national specialists where ‘best-bet’ technologies were pre-selected for testing. The role of GART was that of research and training of trainers. The supervision of the farmers was carried out by government extension workers who were supervised by the researchers and GART field technicians. The farmers implemented the approach and the decision on which technology to adopt was made by them. The land users also participated in evaluating the technologies and made suggestions on possible improvements. The decision on how best to consolidate these suggestions and incorporate them into the technologies was made by the specialists in consultation with the land users.

2.3 Photos 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

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Increasing agricultural productivity, improving livelihoods )

(1)To stimulate active farmer participation in the technology development process so that local conditions and perspectives are integrated in the process. (2)Build the capacity of farmers to identify problems and contribute to selecting/improving technology options. (3) Raise farmers’ yields in a sustainable manner through technology innovation and ultimately contribute to increased net farm income.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Unsustainable farming practices leading to environmental degradation and low agricultural productivity

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	interactive	Approach inititated by specialists based on interactions with land-users from previous programmes
planning	passive	Planning was done by specialists although farmers were informed and consulted at every stage
implementation	interactive	Land users implemented the approach with the help of specialists
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	Monitoring/evaluation was done by the specialists together with the land users as well as external evaluators
Research	interactive	Research was done by the specialists together with the land users

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:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

The choice of which technology to test was made by the specialist but the choice of which technology to implement was made by the land users

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

soil conservation and soil fertility improvement, how to use the conservation agricultural technologies, crop-livestock integration

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Training of Trainers; Key elements: trainig of goverment extension workers and NGOs promoting of conservation agriculture (CA), on-farm demonstrations, field days

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There are too few extension workers and there aren’t sufficient training manuals

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

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

Capacity building of local cooperatives and farmer associations, training of trainers and practical demonstrations

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Soil properties, moisture conservation

bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: soil miosture, soil fertility

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Yield, production area, labour, timeliness

technical aspects were None monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: equipment breakdowns

socio-cultural aspects were None monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Gender, mindset, status

economic / production aspects were None monitored through observations; indicators: Yields, labour inputs, costs, income, adoption

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored through observations

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There was more emphasis on on-farm trials as the project went on with more training on weeding techniques and crop-livestock integration

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The Magoye Ripper (T_ZAM003en) was modified to penetrate deeper and an altogether new technology called the Magoye Planter (Strip Tillage T_ZAM002en) was developed to overcome some of the constraints of the Magoye Ripper.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research by GART focused on equipment development and adaptation of soil improvement technologies to make Conservation Agriculture (CA) a viable option for animal draft farmers

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Land preparation by land user(s)): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

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

Mostly contributions from EU supplemented by finances from commercial activities i.e. commercial crop production and contract research

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

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

• voluntary

Comments:

GART only provided technical support while the farmer provided all the inputs, labour

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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:

Adoption rates for Conservation Agriculture are still fairly low indicating that the practice is still fairly new and the technologies still need to be adapted and refined to suit local conditions. The farmers still need technical support until the bottlenecks with the practices are addressed and there is evident spontaneous adoption. This all depends on how well research and planners respond to the current challenges.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Farmers well informed of current developments and technology advancements (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Training farmers on current developments and technology advancements)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Farmers organizations strengthened (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Capacity building)
There is strong farmer involvement in technology adaptation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increase the farmers knowledge base to ensure effective participation)

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Too little emphasis on knowledge transfer and too much on practical demonstrations and ‘how-to’ training.	Focus more on understanding principles and technology selection

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Impact study on the acceptance of the Magoye Ripper, Piet Stevens, David Samazaka, Ab Wanders, Douglas Moono, 2002 Conservation farming in Zambia, Steven Haggblade, Gelson Tembo, October 2003 Social-economic analysis of conservation agriculture in southern Africa, FAO, 2011Conservation farming in Zambia, Conservation farming unit (CFU), 2011

Available from where? Costs?

GART/free onlineINDABA Project, Michigan State University/free onlineFAO/free onlinecfu@zamnet.zm

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Conservation farming in Zambia, Steven Haggblade, Gelson Tembo, October 2003

Available from where? Costs?

INDABA Project, Michigan State University/free online

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Social-economic analysis of conservation agriculture in southern Africa, FAO, 2011

Available from where? Costs?

FAO/free online

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Conservation farming in Zambia, Conservation farming unit (CFU), 2011

Available from where? Costs?

cfu@zamnet.zm