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

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:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Introduction of No-Till crop production systems to rural small scale farmers.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Convert small-scale farmers from conventional ploughing to minimum tillage to no-till crop production. Introduce/upgrade technology by using certified seed, fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides. Associated cost increase results in a time saving which allows for additional production. Increased yields result in wealth creation. Develop marketing options for farmers e.g. a maize farmer can sell green maize (boiled or roasted) for human consumption, maize grain, maize meal, poultry feed or poultry, small or large livestock feed or the carcass (feedlots). Change perception that farmers produce food for own consumption only. They must produce a surplus for sale to generate an income which is wealth creation in the rural areas. Rich farmers = Wealthy Nation Poor farmers = Poor Nation Government policies must support rural farmers and ensure a good price for agricultural produce. Upgrade the knowledge/skills level of extension officers (E.O.s) - gain farmers respect for E.O.s. E.O.s must be measured on farmer performance. Improve the link and information flow from research organisations to E.O.s (and then to the farmer). Research organisations are encouraged to initiate no-till projects to support farmers and E.O.s, e.g. herbicides for weed problems; fertiliser deficiencies and recommendations; crop options.

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 (Training. Field implementation. Technology implementation review. Input supply system. Finance support. Processing and marketing.)

Introduce no-till crop production systems. Make farming profitable. Create markers - input and output. Develop local knowledge / expertise. Reduce / stop soil erosion.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of political support (e.g. Tanzania). Policy/ Know-how's. Mechanisation is expensive - No-Till cheap - demonstrate. Soil and Water conservation. Crop surplus production - sale/process - financial benefit.

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	other
planning	passive	public meetings; Training of E.O. and farmers.
implementation	external support	responsibility for major steps; Farmers conduct own demonstration with E.O. support.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	measurements/observations; Farmer supervised by E.O. E.O. compiles report.
Research	interactive	on-station

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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

directive (top-down). Also by extension officers. Directive as-well as consultative. A successful method was developed and adopted for local conditions.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). directive (top-down). Also by politicians and leaders. Directive as-well as consultative. Many land owners/users have no knowledge of fertilisers, pesticides, seed cultivar choice. Guidance is essential.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists, extensionists/trainers, politicia

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

Agaronomis system. Herbicides and pesticide use. Processing. Fertilisers. Profitability.

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: Village demonstration; Key elements: 1 time E.O. with 5 - 8 farmers (1 farmers = failure), Supply inputs for 0.1 ha demonstration (tree), Farmer & E.O. must do there demo together (both learn); 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system 2) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users, technicians/SWC specialists; Activities: lectures, slide show, practicals, own demos; lectures, slide show, practicals, own demos

Advisory service is very adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Yes : RSA, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya Almost: Malawi, Mozambique, Uganda No: Tanzania

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:

• financial
• equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements
technical aspects were regular monitored through measurements

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored through measurements

economic / production aspects were regular monitored through measurements

area treated aspects were regular monitored through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored through measurements

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored through measurements

There were many changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Application techniques. Choice of cultivars. Fertiliser type and dose. Herbicide dose. Pesticide dose and type. Planting technique.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Solving local problems - fertiliser levels, weed problems, cultivar choice. Soil benefits come later.

Research was carried out both on station and on-farm

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: government (national): 20.0%; international non-government (-): 70.0%; local community / land user(s) (labour): 10.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Time and labour saving
increase in yields, area and income

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Increased yields (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Adoption of technology - technical/extension support)
Increased areas under production (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Financial incentive for farmers to increase production)
Increased prosperity
Time and labour saving

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?
Import supply	Expand distribution
Finance	Improve banking services

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Prices paid to farmers for surplus must be realistic	Maize grain: World price 100 dollar /ton Mozambique farmer 35 dollar /ton Malawi farmer 40 dollar /ton
Politicians do not see that many farmers can get wealthy 'farmers are poor'

7.1 Methods/ sources of information