Enfoques

Lessons learned from the "Mind the Gap" project: Improving Dissemination Strategies [Tunisia]

approaches_7123 - Tunisia

Visualizar secciones

Expandir todo
Completado: 92%

1. Información general

1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Persona(s) de referencia clave/s

Innovation specialist:

Rudiger Udo

International Center of Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA)

Tunisia

Gender specialist:

Najjar Dina

International Center of Agriculture Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA)

Marruecos

Natural Resource Economist:

Dhehibi Boubaker

International Center of Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA)

Tunisia

Werner Jutta

German Ministry of Agriculture

Derbel Sondos

AVFA (National Agricultural Training and Extension Service)

Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)
ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative
Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Líbano

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

2019

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

1.4 Referencia/s al/los Cuestionario(s) de Tecnologías MST

Small-Scale Nutrient-Dense Pellet Production
technologies

Small-Scale Nutrient-Dense Pellet Production [Tunisia]

Compressing agro-industrial by-products produces nutrient-dense livestock feed pellets that can compete with expensive and imported alternatives. This innovation consists of a small-scale compressor or "pelletizer" and formulae to create feed pellets of sufficient quality with locally available inputs.

  • Compilador: Joren Verbist

2. Descripción del Enfoque MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

The “Mind the Gap” project researched the adoption gap between agricultural research and women and men farmers. Its objective was to determine most effective and cost-efficient technology transfer strategies and give recommendations to national extension institutes and development partners to adapt their scaling strategy

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

Research into innovative agricultural technologies for the livestock-barley system in semi-arid Tunisia has yielded success. However, adoption of these has remained low for decades, not only in Tunisia but across developing countries (Noltze et al. 2012; DFID 2014; Syngenta Foundation 2015). Bridging this 'adoption gap' has proved to be a challenge, and there has been limited emphasis on improving agricultural extension methods. In this context, the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) together with partners set up the "Mind the Gap" project, funded by the BMZ and GIZ.
This project aimed to fill this gap by developing and testing new models for transferring sustainable technology packages to smallholder farmers. Four transfer models were implemented across four test groups:
T1: Technical training and SMS.
T2: Technical training, SMS, economic, and organizational training.
T3: Technical training, SMS, economic and organizational training, with a focus on female empowerment.
T4: Technical training, SMS, and female empowerment.

The transferring models are thus (a) Technical training and SMS; (b) Economic training; (c) Organization training; (d) Female empowerment.
Technical training and SMS involved sending weekly text messages containing technical and organizational information to 560 farmer households from August 2017. Workshops were conducted in 2017 and 2018 to develop these messages in collaboration with regional extension services and other stakeholders.
Economic training included one-day sessions in 2017 to demonstrate the economic benefits of innovations. In 2018, a Farmer Business School (FBS) approach was adopted to enhance farmers' entrepreneurial skills, with a tailored curriculum and seven five-day courses delivered to 280 farmer households.
The organizational training aimed to enhance farmers' understanding cooperative management. Through classroom sessions and visits to existing cooperatives, farmers received insights into cooperative creation, management challenges, and the benefits of collective action.
Female empowerment activities engaged women from 280 farmer households, focusing on visits to female cooperatives and sensitization events to encourage their participation in agricultural activities and access to credit.

The adoption of two innovations was evaluated through this methodology. The first innovation, "Kounouz," is an improved barley variety designed to better withstand drought conditions. The second innovation involves feedblocks, also known as nutrient-dense pellets, which serve as an alternative livestock feed made from by-products.

The project rigorously evaluated these transfer models through randomized controlled trials, focusing on their impact on innovation adoption rates and cost-efficiency. The combined approach, carried out under T3, showed the highest adoption rates, particularly among female-headed households. Field visits were identified as a significant contributor to technology adoption, while SMS proved most cost-effective.
Most importantly, it showed that the four transferring models should be used in combination for the highest adoption.
In conclusion, the research underscores that addressing the 'adoption gap' in agricultural innovation requires comprehensive approaches encompassing technical, economic, organizational, and gender empowerment training. By combining these elements significant strides can be made in cost-efficiently enhancing technology adoption rates among smallholder farmers, offering valuable insights for agricultural extension efforts not only in Tunisia but also across the MENA region and potentially beyond.

Acknowledgement:
We would like to thank BMZ/ GIZ who supported this innovative research through their contributions to the “Mind the Gap” project as well as Tunisian NARES (INRAT, AVFA, OEP, CRDA) for co-implementing project activities.

2.3 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

País:

Tunisia

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

Indique año del inicio:

2016

Año de conclusión (si el Enfoque ya no se aplica):

2019

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

  • proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

To better understand the adoption gap of new sustainable farming technologies, and discover cost-efficient and effective approaches to improve adoption of these technologies.

2.9 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

normas y valores sociales/ culturales/ religiosos
  • impiden

Participation of women at trainings was sometimes low (no availability to due household tasks)

disponibilidad/ acceso a recursos y servicios financieros
  • facilitan

Access to financial resources allowed purchase of technologies (Kounouz seeds or feed blocks)

entorno institucional
  • facilitan

The right institutions were selected (OEP, INRAT, AVFA) to implement MtG project activities

colaboración/ coordinación de actores
  • facilitan

Collaboration between the partners (NARES) was good and important; eg INRAT multiplied Kounouz seeds ; OEP and CRDA distributed Kounouz seeds and AVFA trained farmers on Kounouz production

políticas
  • impiden

Feed block production has strict regulations

conocimiento de MST, acceso a apoyo técnico
  • facilitan

Technical support to practice the technology (eg feed block composition) is important and was guaranteed by OEP

mercados (para comprar insumos, vender productos) y precios
  • impiden

Prices of substitute feed like subsidized wheat bran and barley hinder the adoption of feed blocks.

carga de trabajo, disponibilidad de mano de obra
  • impiden

Workload for feedblock production is high and manpower not always available.

3. Participación y roles de las partes interesadas involucradas

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

  • usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales

No communities but individual farmers

Inviting farmers to trainings,
Organization of baseline and follow up survey with OEP

  • especialistas MST/consejeros agrícolas

AVFA (National Agricultural Training and Extension Service)
CTV (Local Extension Service)
OEP (Livestock and Pasture Office)

AVFA:
Organizational and economic trainings (FBS, BUS, cooperatives, etc) to 280 HH
Organized logistics (transport, restoration, training room)



OEP:
Technical training on feed blocks to 560 HH
Distribution of inputs to CTV, selection of cooperatives.

  • investigadores

University of Goettingen
INRAT (National Agricultural Research Institute)

University of Goettingen:
Project development, PhD students, data collection for baseline and follow up survey

INRAT:
Development of new barley variety (Kounouz) in collaboration with ICARDA
Technical training on barley with OEP to 560 HH

  • organización internacional

ICARDA
GIZ

ICARDA: Overall technical and administrative coordination

GIZ: Trained AVFA trainers on FBS and BUS

Si varias partes interesadas estuvieron involucradas, indique la agencia principal:

ICARDA

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque
Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación pasivo The experiments were designed and set up by the research agency.
planificación pasivo Methodology was also determined by the research agency.
implementación interactivo The approach to dissemination that proved successful was interactive.
monitoreo y evaluación pasivo The experiment was monitored by the research agency.

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

Descripción:

Flows of the applied Randomized Control Test

Autor:

ICARDA

3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:
  • principalmente por especialistas MST en consulta con usuarios de tierras
Explique:

There was a strong focus on research rather than implementation, which required scientific expertise rather than land user knowledge.

Especifique las bases que sustentaron la toma de decisiones:
  • la evaluación de conocimiento MST bien documentado (la toma de decisiones se basa en evidencia)
  • hallazgos de investigaciones

4. Apoyo técnico, fortalecimiento institucional y gestión del conocimiento

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Especifique quién fue capacitado:
  • usuarios de tierras
Si fuese relevante, también especifique género, edad, estatus, etnicidad, etc.

Land user, with a strong focus on females for two treatment groups.

Forma de capacitación:
  • de agricultor a agricultor
  • áreas de demostración
  • reuniones públicas
  • cursos
Temas avanzados:

The four main trainings were given:
-Technical with SMS
-Economic (e.g., better farm management)
-Organizational (e.g., setting up farmer cooperatives)
-Female empowerment

4.2 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:
  • en los campos de los usuarios de tierras
  • en centros permanentes
Describa/ comentarios:

Advice was given through the training which included both on-site (e.g., demonstration fields) and meetings

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?
  • sí, moderadamente
Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:
  • local
Describa la institución, roles y responsabilidades, miembros, etc.

Training sessions regarding cooperation can be organized.

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:
  • construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Comentarios:

Four treatment groups were made based on different combinations of training, they were evaluated for their adoption of Kounouz barley and feed blocks.

Si respondió que sí, ¿la documentación se utilizará para monitoreo y evaluación?

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

Especifique los temas:
  • sociología
  • economía/ marketing
  • tecnología
Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:

Several research papers were published with authors from different partners.

5. Financiamiento y apoyo material externo

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Indique el presupuesto anual para el componente del MST del Enfoque (en US$):

400000,00

Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

GIZ/BMZ

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :

No

5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

  • ninguno
 

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

5.5 Otros incentivos o instrumentos

¿Se usaron otros incentivos o instrumentos para promover la implementación de Tecnologías MST?

No

6. Análisis de impacto y comentarios de conclusión

6.1 Impactos del Enfoque

¿El Enfoque empoderó a los usuarios locales de tierras, mejoró el involucramiento de las partes interesadas?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho
¿El Enfoque ayudó a los usuarios de tierras a implementar y mantener Tecnologías MST?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho
¿El Enfoque movilizó/mejoró el acceso a recursos financieros para implementar MST?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho
¿El Enfoque mejoró la equidad de género y empoderó a las mujeres y niñas?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho
¿El Enfoque resultó en mejor seguridad alimentaria/ mejoró la nutrición?
  • No
  • Sí, un poco
  • Sí, moderadamente
  • Sí, mucho

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

  • producción incrementada
  • incremento de la renta(bilidad), proporción mejorada de costo-beneficio
  • reducción del riesgo de desastres naturales
  • afiliación al movimiento/ proyecto/ grupo/ redes
  • conocimiento y capacidades mejorados de MST

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
Highest adoption rate for Kounouz was in T3 (61% in 2017 and 33% in 2018) where the whole package of extension was provided (technical training, SMS + economic and organizational training +female empowerment + access to input). This indicates that different adoption models should be combined rather than singled out.
The treatment groups T3 and T4 which received the female empowerment training have the highest Kounouz variety adoption rates in 2018 (T3 = 33%, T4 =24%). The implication of women in the project has a positive influence on the adoption of innovative technologies. The gender dimension should be considered as a vector of adoption of new technologies especially in Tunisian agriculture.
In terms of cost, the government can choose according to the available budgetary resources:
i) Highest level of technology adoption with the highest cost of trainings 34% in T3 with a total cost of trainings estimated at 900 TND per person
ii) Medium technology adoption rate with a lower cost of trainings 22% in T1 with a total cost of trainings estimated to 230 TND per person).

T3 is most effective but T1 is more cost efficient.
The strong collaboration between four public research and extension institutions (OEP, INRAT, AVFA and CTV) and one international agricultural institution (ICARDA) is one of the important factors for adoption and transfer of knowledge

6.5 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave ¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Concerning the technical extension methods, the field visit (with an intermediate cost) especially done in the similar areas is more efficient than the training (with a high cost) and the SMS text message (with a very low cost). However, these extension methods are complementary and encourage the project’s farmers to adopt innovative technologies.

7. Referencias y vínculos

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

  • visitas de campo, encuestas de campo
  • entrevistas con especialistas/ expertos en MST
  • compilación de informes y otra documentación existente

7.3 Vínculos a la información relevante disponible en línea

Título/ descripción:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Mohamed Zied Dhraief, Udo Rudiger, Aymen Frija, Jutta Werner, Liza Straussberger, Barbara Rischkowsky. (13/4/2022). Impact of improved agricultural extension approaches on technology adoption: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial in rural Tunisia. Experimental Agriculture, 58, pp. 1-16.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/67344

Título/ descripción:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Udo Rudiger. (24/12/2019). Synthesis Mind the Gap.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10505

Título/ descripción:

Udo Rudiger. (16/12/2019). Mind the Gap: Improving Dissemination Strategies to Increase Technology Adoption by Smallholders. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10471

Título/ descripción:

Samar Zaidi, Boubaker Dhehibi, Mohamed Zied Dhraief, Mohamed Arbi Abdeladhim. (22/3/2023). Résilience des ménages face à l’insécurité alimentaire et au changement climatique dans les régions du centre et du nord-est de la Tunisie: Une analyse empirique. New Medit, 22 (1), pp. 19-34.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/68229

Título/ descripción:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Jutta Werner, Matin Qaim. (7/3/2018). Designing and Conducting Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for Impact Evaluations of Agricultural Development Research: A Case Study from ICARDA’s ‘Mind the Gap’ Project in Tunisia. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/8209

Título/ descripción:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Jutta Werner, Hloniphani Moyo. (18/9/2018). Developing a policy framework for agricultural extension systems in Tunisia. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/8390

Título/ descripción:

Quang Bao Le, Jutta Werner, Boubaker Dhehibi, Mounir Louhaichi, Chandrashekhar Biradar. (10/11/2019). Functionally context socio-ecological type (fCSET) approach to support outscaling of agricultural innovation options.

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10801

Título/ descripción:

Boubaker Dhehibi, Udo Rudiger, Mohamed Zied Dhraief. (9/9/2019). Factors Influencing Farmers’ Decisions to Adopt Improved Technologies in Semi-Arid Farming Systems: A case study of the barley variety Kounouz and feed blocks technology in Tunisia. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/10223

Título/ descripción:

Hloniphani Moyo, Jutta Werner, Boubaker Dhehibi, Udo Rudiger, Cherifa Saidi. (14/4/2019). Improving dissemination strategies to increase technology adoption by smallholder farmers in Tunisia. Beirut, Lebanon: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA).

URL:

https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/9813

Vínculos y módulos

Expandir todo Colapsar todos

Módulos