Approaches

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

approaches_7123 - Tunisia

Completeness: 92%

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)

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)

Morocco

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)

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
ICARDA Institutional Knowledge Management Initiative {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1140, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) - Lebanon', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

2019

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

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.

  • Compiler: Joren Verbist

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

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 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Tunisia

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2016

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2019

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • enabling

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

institutional setting
  • enabling

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

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

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

policies
  • hindering

Feed block production has strict regulations

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

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

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • hindering

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

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

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

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

No communities but individual farmers

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

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

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.

  • researchers

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

  • international organization

ICARDA
GIZ

ICARDA: Overall technical and administrative coordination

GIZ: Trained AVFA trainers on FBS and BUS

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

ICARDA

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 The experiments were designed and set up by the research agency.
planning passive Methodology was also determined by the research agency.
implementation interactive The approach to dissemination that proved successful was interactive.
monitoring/ evaluation passive The experiment was monitored by the research agency.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Flows of the applied Randomized Control Test

Author:

ICARDA

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:

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

Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

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

Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered:

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 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

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

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.

Training sessions regarding cooperation can be organized.

Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

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

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

Yes

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Several research papers were published with authors from different partners.

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

400000.00

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

GIZ/BMZ

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • none
 

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

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 compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
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 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?
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. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

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

Title/ description:

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

URL:

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

Title/ description:

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

Title/ description:

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

Title/ description:

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

Title/ description:

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

Title/ description:

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

Title/ description:

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

Title/ description:

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

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules