Collaborative Monitoring and Evaluation: Biomass transfer and improved fallows in western Kenya - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

Collaborative Monitoring and Evaluation: Biomass transfer and improved fallows in western Kenya

Description:

– PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:62
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: stevef4
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Collaborative Monitoring and Evaluation: Biomass transfer and improved fallows in western Kenya


1
Collaborative Monitoring and Evaluation Biomass
transfer and improved fallows in western Kenya
  • Steven Franzel,
    ICRAF, KenyaTutui Nanok and Sabina Wangia,
    Egerton University, Kenya

2
Objectives
  • 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?

3
Outline
  • Describe study area and the 2 practices
  • Describe collaborative M and E exercises
  • Organization-level surveys
  • Researchers special studies
  • Evaluation of the exercise
  • Conclusions

4
Site 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

5
Farming 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

6
Biomass 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

7
Evolution 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

8
Collaborative 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

9
Advantages 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?

10
Workshop output Information needs and
responsibilities
11
Implementation 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

12
Results of organization-level survey
No. users of practices
Biomass transfer
Improved fallow
13
Farmer innovations the topic the group was most
interested in!
14
Promoting farmer innovations
pilot zone farmers using tithonia in compost
increased from 0 in 2001 to 23 in 2003
15
Selected 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
16
Use 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

18
Participants evaluation of collaborative ME
of orgs.
Main learning areas Keeping records Identifying
and promoting farmer innovations
19
But 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

20
Conclusions
  • 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com