Title: Collaborative Monitoring and Evaluation: Biomass transfer and improved fallows in western Kenya
1Collaborative Monitoring and Evaluation Biomass
transfer and improved fallows in western Kenya
- Steven Franzel,
ICRAF, KenyaTutui Nanok and Sabina Wangia,
Egerton University, Kenya
2Objectives
- The question Can 30 organizations promoting soil
fertility practices in an area develop a joint
monitoring system? - Should they even try?
- Issue In ME and IA, researchers either examine
or ignore local organizations, can they include
them as co-researchers? - Can they include all of them?
3Outline
- Describe study area and the 2 practices
- Describe collaborative M and E exercises
- Organization-level surveys
- Researchers special studies
- Evaluation of the exercise
- Conclusions
4Site description western Kenya
- highland 1250-1600 m
- 1,500 mm rain/year in 2 seasons
- High potential for agriculture, but degraded
soils - 600 - 1,200 persons/km2
- In much of area, 60 below 1 /day poverty line
5Farming system
- farms lt 1 ha
-
- 1/3 households have female heads
- maize/bean are main crops
- cultivation by hand hoe
- Few cash crops
- off-farm economy accounts for most of income
6Biomass transfer and improved fallows 2
practices to address farmers soil fertility
problems and lack of cash to buy mineral
fertilizers
- Biomass transfer cutting tithonia diversifolia
leaves and applying as green manure - Improved fallows Planting 1 of 5 legume shrubs
into a standing maize crop and letting it replace
a natural fallow during the following season. - Importance of integrating these with other
fertility mgt practices
7Evolution of practices
- Early 1990s Surveys found widespread problem of N
deficiency, food shortages and fallowing. - Mid 1990s On-station and participatory testing of
new options ICRAF, TSBF, KARI, KEFRI - 1997/98 Pilot project area concept in 17
villages promoting range of fertility practices - 1999 Wider scale dissemination begins
8Collaborative M E exercises
- Planning workshop 1999 Representatives of 27
organizations met to share experiences, generate
common indicators to monitor, and determine who
should collect the information and how - Participants
- Gov. extension services 4
- NGOs (intl) 3
- NGOs (national) 5
- Community based orgs 10
- Research orgs 5
- Total 27
9Advantages of joint monitoring cited at workshop
- Most organizations lack expertise to do technical
studies (eg, are the poor benefiting?) but all
need the information - Researchers lack day to day contact with farmers.
CBOs and NGOs have contact and can provide
feedback. - Joint efforts are more efficient
- Representatives of smaller organizations wanted
to learn about ME and impact assessment - But.
- Constraints were also present
- Would bosses understand?
- Do we have the resources to conduct ME
- Do we have the time?
10Workshop output Information needs and
responsibilities
11Implementation plan
- 8 person committee develops forms and implements
organization-level surveys. - Also acts as advisors on special research studies
- Org.level studies conducted in 2001, 2003
- Results presented at stakeholder meetings
12Results of organization-level survey
No. users of practices
Biomass transfer
Improved fallow
13Farmer innovations the topic the group was most
interested in!
14Promoting farmer innovations
pilot zone farmers using tithonia in compost
increased from 0 in 2001 to 23 in 2003
15Selected results of special research studies
Adoption Patterns in pilot areas 2002 ( of
1,630 households) (Place et al.)
Non-users Recent testers
Dis-adopters Adopters
16Use of soil fertility practices in pilot zone
(Place et al.) Use
By Well off Middle Poor Chemica
l Fertilizer 34 19 8 Improved
Fallow 27 20 24 Biomass Transfer 32 29 31
Fallows and biomass transfer reached about 33 of
persons not using any other soil fertility
practice
17- But
- use of the practices had no discernable impact
on - food consumption during hungry season
- household assets (mainly livestock)
- Non-food expenditures
- Probably because of
- - the small size of plots
- - the limited role of crops in peoples
livelihoods
18Participants evaluation of collaborative ME
of orgs.
Main learning areas Keeping records Identifying
and promoting farmer innovations
19But process proved unsustainable
- Project funding ran out
- Nearly all of the organizations helped form the
Consortium for Scaling up Options for Increased
Farm Productivity (COSOFAP) - When asked to allocate resources to collaborative
ME they preferred to allocate them to other
activities e.g., produce marketing, exchange
visits
20Conclusions
- Advantages of collab. ME
- Participants learned new skills
- Improved information flows
- Increased identification and promotion of farmer
innovations - But joint monitoring was not sustainable and
probably not practical, given - high transaction costs,
- differing interests and cultures of the
organizations