dfid csaz q1 report (july-september - conservation … total of 961 disabled farmers attended...

DfID CSAZ 1st Annual Programme Report

(June 2016 – March 2017) By Eliot Zvarevashe and Mike Mailloux

30/04/2017

Mr and Mrs Phillip Mwansa – 1st year CF mechanised MT adopters with an excellent maize crop.

This is the 1st annual CSAZ report covering the programme start-up in June 2016 up to March 31st, 2017. The DfID CSAZ contract was formally signed on July 1st, 2016.

1st DfID CSAZ Annual Report (June - March) 2016-2017

1

Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

2. Core Programme Activities ............................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Farmer Coordinator Selection ................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Period One, Two, and Three Technical Training ..................................................................... 9

2.3 Field Days .............................................................................................................................. 14

2.4 Private and Public Partnerships and Collaboration .............................................................. 19

2.5 Mechanisation Activities ....................................................................................................... 22

2.6 Research and Trials ............................................................................................................... 26

2.7 Results Management and MIS Update ................................................................................. 30

3. Challenges and Lessons Learned ................................................................................................... 32

4. Value for Money ........................................................................................................................... 40

5. Risk Assessment ............................................................................................................................ 41

6. Upcoming Activities (April-June 2017) .......................................................................................... 43

7. Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 44


2

List of Acronyms

ADP Animal Draft Power BO MAL Block Officer CAD Community Agro-Dealer CAC Camp Agricultural Committee CAPI and II Conservation Agriculture Programmes I & II (of the Conservation Farming Unit) CASU Conservation Agriculture Scaling Up Programme CAZ Cotton Association of Zambia CEO MAL Camp Extension Officer CF/CA Conservation Farming/Conservation Agriculture CFU Zambian Conservation Farming Unit COMACO Community Markets for Conservation CSA Climate Smart Agriculture CSAZ Climate Smart Agriculture Zambia Programme DfID UK Department for International Development DAPP Development Aid from People to People FC Farmer Coordinator FO Field Officer FS Field Supervisor GEF UNDP Global Environment Fund 5 HA Hectare HQ CFU Lusaka Based Head Office ICIPE African Insect Science for Food and Health JTI Japanese Tobacco International M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAL Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock MAWA USAID funded Zambia Economic Resilience and Food Security Programme MCDMCH Ministry of Community Development, Mother and Child Health MFA Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs MT Min-Tillage MoE Ministry of Education MoH Ministry of Health MIS Management Information Systems MoU Memorandum of Understanding MRM Monitoring and Results Measurement MUSIKA Making Agriculture Markets Work for Zambia NAIS National Agriculture Information Services NCF Nordic Climate Fund NGI Norwegian Geotechnical Institute NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NWK NWK Agri Services Ltd RM Regional Managers RM, M&E Results Management, Monitoring and Evaluation SUN Scaling Up Nutrition Programme TFA Technical Field Agent (for MRI Syngenta) TLC Total Land Care Malawi TSP Tillage Service Provider ZAPD Zambian Agents for Persons with Disabilities ZANIS Zambian National Information Services ZNFU Zambia National Farmers Union ZNS Zambia National Service


3

1. Executive Summary This 1st programme annual report details the primary activities and progress realised from mid-June

2016 up to March 31st, 2017. A number of key preparatory activities were also undertaken prior to

the start of the CSAZ and included identifying new expansion areas, putting in place administrative,

governance, logistical and procurement procedures and systems that adhered to DfID standards and

norms, and identifying potential new staff for the programme. These pre start-up activities were

successfully carried out with support from and with existing CAPII resources made available from the

Royal Norwegian Government. Part of the new governance requirements made by DfID entailed a

reconstitution of the CFU’s Board of Directors. Five current and former CFU staff members who are

current Subscribers were replaced by selected members of the Board. It was felt by DfID that

reconstructing the Board in this manner would put in place a professional and independent Board

that would enhance the overall governance structure, performance, and norms of the CFU.

During staff orientation, all field based staff with support from Head Office managers were trained

on a number of activities and reorientations that DfID needed to have integrated into the CSAZ

namely disability and gender inclusion, safety and health, and DfID’s zero tolerance regarding

corruption and the misuse of any programme related resources. These modules will become an

integral part of future staff orientations over the life-of-the-programme.

A new M&E system, tools, and procedures were also put in place with external technical assistance

provided by VUNA. Following a lengthy and exhaustive recruitment and interview process, Mr Eliot

Zvarevashe, an M&E expert with significant donor funded M&E management experience was hired

in January to head up the MIS Results Management team. During the course of the first programme

year, the Results Management team have successfully developed a number of M&E tools that have

been used to start track certain outcomes – both at activity and impact level. These tools are

explained in greater detail in Section Two as are all other major programme activities undertaken

during the reporting period.

New Field Officer Candidates from an identified pool were interviewed from mid-June to mid-July

and those deemed suitable and capable with the potential to becoming successful Field Officers

were hired. A complete employee roster is available upon request from the administrative team.

Field staff and Farmer Coordinators successfully underwent a senior manager led orientation prior to

the start of the Period One training. The programme now employs 141 full time employees of which

four are expatriates. Of the 141 full time employees, there are currently twenty-nine females.

Period One training started 3rd and 4th weeks August – around 6-8 weeks after the CFU would have

normally started its in-field technical training.1 Period Three training for example, normally the

highest attended training, coincided with the start of the planting rains in certain areas and this

impacted attendance during that period.

The number of Farmer Coordinators remained constant at 1 690 during the first programme year –

refer to the table below.

1 Various administrative and procurement delays and their impact on field based activities have been

elaborated upon in two prior programme quarterly reports. National elections also disrupted, to varying degrees programme year one field activities.


4

Table1: Farmer Coordinators by Region – PY1

Region Total FCs Female FCs % of female FCs

Central 534 74 14%

Eastern 376 44 12%

Southern 390 36 9%

Western 390 66 17%

Totals 1 690 220 13%

The optimum number of Farmer Coordinators required by the programme has since increased from

2 460 to 2 700. In order to reach the new target of 2 700 Farmer Coordinators, an additional 1 084

will be identified and selected prior to the start of staff and FC Period One orientation in June. Some

Farmer Coordinator selection was carried out during the reporting period and prior to the March

field days. Since new staff did not start receiving their motor bikes till November and December,

they were unable to identify and select new Farmer Coordinators. Not having the full contingent of

Farmer Coordinators due to the late procurement and distribution of new staff motor bikes also had

a negative boomerang effect across key programme field activities – refer to Section 2.1 below.

CSAZ Farmer Coordinators with support from field staff managed to successfully train 446 573

farmers across new programme areas. Women attendance at trainings reached 205 035 (46%) of

those attending training. A total of 961 disabled farmers attended technical training. Farmer

Coordinators and staff became, over the course of the first programme year, much more pro-active

in engaging and recording farmers with disabilities at training and field days. It is highly probable

that farmers registered across training periods were the same farmers and were counted more than

once. The number of those attending training is most likely around 137 336 – the number who were

physically present at and accounted for at Period Three training. The setting up of unique farmer

identification is being finalised from the data.

Over the course of the prior nine month programme period, a total 1 773 representatives from 89

separate public, private, NGO and local leadership bodies actively engaged in core field based

activities. CFU field staff also spent an extra twenty-nine days providing additional training and

support to 1 910 representatives from third party organisations that have not traditionally been

regular CFU supported partners or clients – refer to Appendix Three and Seven. Support from local

leaders and government was instrumental in engaging farmers this first programme year. Regional

teams have continued to build upon the already strong relationships between local officials and

traditional leaders. In a number of cases, traditional leaders have led from the front – see Headman

Isaac Zulu’s story in Appendix Four.

During the reporting period the mechanised training team managed to train 97 CFU field staff, 314

TSPs and 15 representatives from CSAZ partners. Staff and the mechanised team also managed to

train a total of 3 768 larger scale farmers (601 women – 16%) on the CF mechanised MT land

preparation practice as well as on the use of CF mechanised planting, fertilising and spraying

techniques and equipment. The mechanised training team secured a working partnership with five

interested Zambian National Service Units. Support to those interested Zambian National Service

Units continued throughout the first programme year – this is described in more detail in Section 2.5

The rains started well and continued in an almost unabated manner throughout the course of this

past growing season. Most areas received ample rain, on time with a very even distribution of those

rains across the season. CF MT adopters – new and experienced did well as expected, though many


5

conventional farmers, despite the good season, continued to struggle versus those first year

adopters – see the photos on the following page.

A summary of results against key programme Log Frame targets can be found in Section Eight -

Appendix One. A number of first year farmer testimonials are located in Appendix Four and

throughout this report through photos and captions. The reasons for new adoption as they were

explained during the second quarterly report remained valid throughout the first programme year.

The two fields represented in the photos are loacted opposite each other in Chikanta. The

conventionally ploughed field above was, despite the good rains in this area, in poor shape like many conventional fields during a week-long trip across Southern Region in February. The CF ADP MT field

(1st year CSAZ adopter) below was also representative of the performance of CF MT plots that we observed during this field trip and succeeding trips in March and April.


6

Farmer, public and private sector field day attendance was very positive. A total of 204 403 farmers

including 614 disabled farmers attended 4 697 field days across CSAZ operational areas – see Section

2.1 for more details.

Finally, two in-house adoption surveys (TSP and CF MT adoption) will be carried out starting fourth

week April with in-field survey work completed in two weeks. The findings from these two adoption

survey reports will be finalised and first drafts submitted in mid-May to DfID as part of their annual

programme review. The current document will thus not yet include information on adoption rates,

lessons and challenges related to adoption data. A soil research consortium was selected to carry

out the soils research work. Two separate accounting firms were also selected after a three week

long tendering process to carry out the external annual audits and internal controls and checks.

2. Core Programme Activities This section details the key activities that staff were focused on and engaged in over the course of

this first programme year.

2.1 Farmer Coordinator Selection

In order to reach the programme target of 2 700 Farmer Coordinators, FC identification and

selection started in January and February. This process was hampered to a certain degree by the

rains that fell across most days and in most areas during those months. The process stopped during

the month of March as staff and current Farmer Coordinators were completely engaged in

organising and managing programme field days. The table below summarises current Farmer

Coordinator staffing levels and the number of FCs that will be identified and selected by the end of

May and prior to the start of staff and FC Period One orientation.

Table 2: Farmer Coordinators in Place by Region (as of March 31st

, 2017)

Region Number of new/replacement FCs to be recruited

Number of new/replacement FCs

to-date recruited

Balance of new/replacement FCs

to be recruited

Central 186 66 120

Eastern 527 448 79

Southern 273 105 168

Western 98 26 98

Totals 1 084 645 465

Delays in the CSAZ start-up which was then followed by a lengthy tendering and procurement

process meant that new FOs could not be hired until after the programme was formally signed off in

mid-June. The tendering and procurement process meant that these new Field Officers did not start

receiving their motor bikes until November. This obviously led to a number of negative

repercussions on a number of key field activities – see the table below.

New Field Officers unable to move around in their operational areas were forced to plug into

existing training and farm visit activities that existing Field Officers had already programmed. It was

imperative that existing Field Officers start technical training so that first year targets in 2016 and

adoption targets in 2017 were achieved. With the compressed season we were under, it was not

possible for existing Field Officers to stop their training activities to enable new Field Officers to start

the whole Farmer Coordinator recruiting exercise.


7

Table 3: Potential Farmer Coordinator Deficit Impact

Number of FCs

Not Recruited

Farmers Not

Exposed to

Training**

Field Days Not

Held***

Farmers Not

Exposed to CF at

mini Field Daysł

Adopters Not

Realisedłł

810* 81 000 1 620 63 180 12 150

*Based on a target of 30 new Farmer Coordinators (since revised to 33 FCs/FO) per new Field Officer **Based on an average of 100 farmers supported and trained per Farmer Coordinator ***Based on 2 Mini Field Days per Farmer Coordinator Ł Based on 39 farmers at attendance per min field day (see table 8) łł Based on an expected 15% first year adoption rate from farmers who attended technical training Experienced Field Officers did assist new field staff to carry out training to existing farmer groups

and new areas and new farmers were exposed to the training and field days.

There are no such issues surrounding this coming season and having the full set of Farmer

Coordinators in place prior to the start of this coming season will bode well for the programme.

New FC Mr Boniface Muleya (Choma Central) has a good CF ADP MT crop and is supporting 100

farming households across his operational area. He has 15 first year adopters, which is what we

would expect from a new Farmer Coordinator in a new area. He is also as he should, setting a good

example on his own farm.

Mrs. Mrs Minor Muleya who is one of the 1st year CF ADP MT farmers trained by and working with

Farmer Coordinator Boniface Muleya had a very good maize crop stand. She saved just over K4 000

when she switched to herbicides from hiring in hand weeding labourers this past season. She did a


8

very good job in safely and correctly using herbicides to control her weeds. In prior seasons, she used

to employ several labourers plus on-farm labour and her own time and efforts to control her weeds.

Staff used and are using three separate recruitment tracks to identify and select capable Farmer

Coordinators. The first one simply entailed a Field Officer identifying a first year adopter who was

performing well, helping other farmers, might have been a Lead Farmer under another programme

etc. The distinct advantage with this track is that it is relatively quick and enables the Field Officer to

dispense with having to set up meetings with the communities that farmer comes from. Conversely

there can be real pitfalls involved with having FOs make this type of selection – for one, unless they

have a long standing relationship or history in that community they run the risk of picking the wrong

person, maybe upsetting complex and subtle relationships which could in turn limit their ability to

work with that farmer group. Secondly, if they do make a poor selection, then they own it, and a

whole season can be lost, negatively impacting targets and progress for that area.

The second track involves using this FC selection meeting in direct conjunction with the target

community of farmer group. This meeting was developed in Uganda and used to good effect under

the MFA supported CA regional programme. It involves using a role play to hammer home the

negative consequences with picking the wrong person. Roles and responsibilities as well as a Farmer

Coordinator profile based against the roles and responsibilities are developed again directly with the

target audience. They are then guided through a complete nomination and election process for

selected candidates.

When done properly as was the case in Mpongwe when the Programme Manager was on hand to

observe a number of these meetings, then high quality FCs are selected based on actual hard

criteria.2 The drawback is that it can take some effort and time on the part of the FO to organise the

communities to come together to do this meeting. Farmers are busy in their fields and during

2 April 2017 Mpongwe FC Trip, pp 3


9

January and February rains and weeds can negatively impact turnout at these meetings. This in turn

means that some of the more serious farmers from that community might not be present and one is

now fishing around in a smaller pond for candidates.

The third track, developed by our Eastern Region team involves a combination of elements from the

first two recruitment tracks. Field Officers first approached traditional leaders with the

qualifications and characteristics developed in the second track meeting. Three well known farmers

who fit the criteria and capacity to successfully carry fulfil the Farmer Coordinator roles were then

put forth by the traditional leaders. These three candidates were then interviewed by the Field

Officer who selected the strongest candidate. This candidate was then presented to the community

or the farmer group who then had the final say on that candidate.

Obviously, no one system works 100% and finding the right person under any circumstance for any

number of endeavours can be fraught with certain risks. We will try and ascertain if any one track

worked better than the others and why and if one track does stand out as better than the others,

then we’ll move towards using that recruitment track to fill in any gaps or drop outs that might occur

after this upcoming season.

2.2 Period One, Two, and Three Technical Training

Despite the late start to the training periods and lack of transport for new Field officers, significant

numbers of farmers were trained. During the reporting period a total of 446 573 smallholder

farmers attended Periods One, Two, and Three technical training. It is likely as we noted in the

Executive Summary that the actual number of farmers who attended each training period is closer to

137 336 – the number of farmers physically recorded in attendance at Period Three training. It is

safe to assume that these farmers also attended Period One and Two training.

If one were to average out attendance across the three training periods the average attendance

across the three training periods would be 148 857 - one must also assume that a number of

conventional farmers also attended Period Three training in order to acquire the skills required to

better control weeds. Period Three training attendance was in certain cases, the most disrupted by

the late start to the programme and the timely arrival of the rains in a number of programme areas.

Output 2 – Zambian farming families depending on rain-fed agriculture trained in CSA practices

Log Frame Output Indicator 2.1 – number of farmers trained in climate smart agriculture practices

2017 Target Achieved % of target achieved

150 000 137 336 92%

Data from the M&E tools have been able to paint a more accurate picture of how many farmers

attended, though improvements (refer to Section 2.7) will still need to be made during the upcoming

season and programme year.


10

Table 4: Period One, Two, and Three Attendance by Region

Period One

Region Male Female Totals % Females

Central 27 937 25 199 53 136 47%

Eastern 21 023 18 913 39 936 47%

Southern 17 515 13 306 30 821 34%

Western 22 539 11 368 33 907 43%

Totals 89 014 68 786 157 800 44%

Period Two


Central 27 187 26 509 53 696 49%

Eastern 20 919 18 328 39 247 47%

Southern 15 437 12 909 28 346 46%

Western 16 526 13 622 30 148 45%

Totals 80 069 71 368 151 437 47%

Period Three


Central 25 378 23 178 48 556 48%

Eastern 16 808 16 270 33 078 49%

Southern 14 178 11 930 26 108 46%

Western 16 091 13 503 29 594 46%

Totals 72 455 64 881 137 336 47%

Period Totals 241 538 205 035 446 573 46%

As was mentioned in the two prior quarterly reports that though training was more or less

completed prior to the first rains, the tight time frame between one training period to another

meant that in-field monitoring on the part of Field Officers of how that training was being passed

down from the Farmer Coordinators to farmers was limited in scope and time. This will not be an

issue this coming season. From attendance rosters collected by Field Officers, a total of 2 677 new

medium to large scale farmers were also trained during the reporting period. Table 5 below

summarises attendance on the part of these medium-scale farmers by region.

Table 5: Summary of Training for Medium-Large Scale Farmers by Region and Holding Size

Central Male Female Total % of female

5-20 ha 396 69 465 15%

20-50 ha 183 7 190 4%

50+ ha 13 2 15 13%

Eastern Male Female Total - 670 % of female

5-20 ha 304 162 466 35%

20-50 ha* - - - -

50+ ha - - - -

Southern Male Female Total - 466 % of female

5-20 ha 265 57 322 26%

20-50 ha - - - -

50+ ha - - -

Western Male Female Total - 323 % of female

5-20 ha 915 304 1 219 25%

20-50 ha** - - - -

50+ ha - - - -

Totals 2 076 601 Total - 2 677 22%


11

We expect the number of medium to large-scale farmers to increase with the programme especially

in Mpongwe during the upcoming season. Medium to large-scale farmers represent currently

represent around 3% of the total number working with the programme. Though there numbers are

relatively small, their impact can be significant.

Mr Richard Nakeye, a local teacher in Magoye has done a tremendous job the past three seasons.

Three years ago, he tried out the mechanised MT on one hectare, last season he expanded the hectares under the practice to 28. This year he now has 65 hectares under CF MT.

Mr Nakeye, who purchased his own tractor with cash from last season’s crop, has started to provide ripping services to 10 new adopters. He has been instrumental in encouraging others to try out the practice, despite managing his own farming operations and continuing his teaching profession. He is

on the far right, with some of his current crop of clients.


12

Due to the tight training period, some field staff decided that the most strategic use of their time

would be spent focusing on small holders who after all make the brunt of the farmers we work with

and whom the programme is focused on.

There was during the first programme year a substantial increase in the attendance of farmers with

disability following the sensitization of the Farmer Coordinators and their communities to more

aggressively engage and encourage disabled farmers to come to and participate in technical training.

Table 6: Summary of Disabled Farmers Who Attended Technical Training

Period One Training

Region Male Female Total % of female

Central 13 10 23 43%

Eastern 16 4 20 20%

Southern 6 2 8 25%

Western 13 10 23 44%

Total P1 48 26 74 35%

Period Two Training

Central 25 4 29 14%

Eastern 17 15 32 47%

Southern 110 36 146 25%

Western 46 32 78 41%

Total P2 198 87 285 31%

Period Three Training

Region Male Female Total % of female

Central 26 11 37 30%

Eastern 83 61 124 49%

Southern 158 56 214 26%

Western 119 88 207 43%

Total P3 386 216 602 36%

Totals at Training 632 329 961 34%

In general, the Farmer Coordinators have continued across this first programme year in accurately

capturing the number of disabled farmers using the MRM tools. It is likely though that a number of

Farmer Coordinators are using visual observations to try and capture disabled farmers at

attendance, so farmers who do not have immediately visible disabilities might not be necessarily

counted as disabled. The majority of these farmers have limited limb based disabilities, and are able

to do some work in their fields. There were a limited number of farmers who were also partially

blind (one eye) and deaf and mute. The number of disabled farmers working with the programme is

around one percent.

The Eastern Region team also held a meeting with the Zambian Agents for Persons with Disabilities

(ZAPD) to discuss ways to engage their members in core field activities such as technical training. It

was agreed that that the Eastern Region team would provide technical training and support to their

ZAPD’s 40 hectare Lutembwe Farm Centre this coming training period. This would include providing

training to ZAPD members through 35 ZAPD Group Leaders. A list of member group locations was

provided to Senior Field Supervisors who will identify those groups that fall within or near current

operational areas.


13

Mr Mupenya Simba, a disabled CF MT adopter and local councillor addressing farmers at the

Chisamba field day

As was previously reported in the second quarterly report, training attendance sharply fell in some

areas during the last week of the Period Three training period. This was due in large part to the

arrival of the first planting rains as farmers wisely opted to wrap up their land preparation if they

had not done so. Those who had completed land preparation started sowing their crop.

During the training periods, Central Region engaged three separate radio stations to broadcast

training related announcements. Eighteen radio personnel staff also attended period trainings.

Eastern Region also engaged four separate radio stations to carry out training related

announcements. The Eastern team also used a number of broadcast spots to interview farmers and

staff regarding the benefits accrued from the practices. The Southern Region team used four local

stations to broadcast training related events. Unfortunately the local station in Western region was

closed during the first programme training periods.

With field staff and Farmer Coordinators now fully mobile and with Farmer Coordinator levels

expected to reach 2 700, outreach will increase with training and across all major field based

activities.


14

2.3 Field Days

The significant majority of field days took place in March. The tables below summarises attendance

by farmers, officials and third party partners. Minor field days refer to the Farmer Coordinator led

field days and major field days are set-up and managed by Field Officers. The catchment for minor

field days is the Farmer Coordinator’s training and support area and is smaller.

Table 7: Summary of Farmer Attendance at Field Days by Region

Central Region

Field Day Type # of FDs

Male Female Total Disabled % Female* M F Total

Minor 1 066 26 483 21 311 47 794 28 12 40 45%

Major 40 3 668 2 316 5 984 14 9 23 39%

District/Regional 7 2 063 1 042 3 105 14 10 24 34%

Totals- CR 1 113 32 214 24 669 56 883 56 31 87 43%

Eastern Region



Minor 1 121 28 841 22 764 51 605 76 42 118 44%

Major 6 1 712 1 631 3 343 3 1 4 49%

Regional 1 576 228 804 - - - 28%

Totals - ER 1 128 31 129 24 623 55 752 79 43 122 44%

Southern Region



Minor 1 206 20 303 15 186 35 489 169 102 271 43%

Major 27 3 033 1 139 4 172 31 20 51 27%

Regional 1 1 342 724 2 066 - - - 35%

Totals- SR 1 234 24 678 17 049 41 727 200 122 322 41%

Western Region



Minor 1 189 23 347 20 335 43 682 53 30 83 47%

Major 32 3 303 1 766 5 069 - - - 35%

Regional 1 496 180 676 - - - 27%

Totals - WR 1 222 27 146 22 281 49 427 53 30 83 45%

PY1 Totals 4 697 115 167 88 622 203 789 388 226 614 43% *Includes disabled women in attendance.


15

The table below summarises the average attendance at field days and by region.

Table 8: Field Day Average Attendance by Region

Central Region Number of Field Days Total Attendance Average Attendance

Minor 1 066 47 834 45

Major 40 6 007 150

District/Regional 7 3 129 447

Eastern Region Number of Field Days Total Attendance Average Attendance

Minor 1 121 51 723 46

Major 6 3 347 558

Regional 1 804 804

Southern Region Number of Field Days Total Attendance Average Attendance

Minor 1 206 35 760 31

Major 27 4 223 156

Regional 1 2 066 2 066

Western Region Number of Field Days Total Attendance Average Attendance

Minor 1 189 43 765 37

Major 32 5 069 158

Regional 1 676 676

All regions Number of Field Days Total Attendance Average Attendance

Minor 4 592 179 082 39

Major 105 18 646 176

Regional 10 6 675 668

PY1 Totals 4 697 204 403 44

A total of 9 654 farmers including twenty-five disabled farmers also attended field clinics that were

hosted and set-up by the Eastern and Central Region teams. These field clinics (photo below) were

used to enhance weed control practices and techniques to interested farmers who felt they required

additional weed control technical training and support.


16

Table 9: Field Clinic Summary

Central Region

# of Clinics Male Female Total Disabled % female

M F T

88 3 251 2 313 5 564 12 7 19 42%

Eastern Region

# of Clinics Male Female Total Disabled % female

M F T

90 2 428 1662 4 090 3 3 6 28%

Totals 5 679 3 975 9 654 15 10 25 41%

Field clinics are demand driven training that enables farmers to work on and enhance certain skills

such as the safe and proper use of herbicides. Field staff were instrumental in designing and using

these clinics under prior CFU managed programmes.

Central Region in conjunction with Agro-Forestry, GART and ZARI and was attended by 851 farmers.

Central also managed to hold all their field days at new sites which were not always the case in the

other regions.

In general, regional teams were pleased with how many of the field days turned out. There is an

overlying sense that new farmers in attendance were able to readily ascertain the benefits that

come from the correct application of the CF MT practices versus conventional tillage practices even

in a wetter than normal season such as the one recently completed – see the photos from Central

Region below.

This was an execllent example of a well chosen venue that clearly demontsrated the superior

performance of CF MT versus Conventional Tillage practices – it enabled the host Farmer Coordinator

to hold a useful discussion with those farmers in attendance (photo below).


17

In addition to readily and clearly showcasing the results that can be realised from the correct

application of the CF MT practices, field days were also used to highlight pest and weed control as

well as provide a ready-made and captive platform for our private and public sector partners. Field

Days were also used to expose potential TSPs to the commercial opportunities in providing CF

mechanised MT ripping services to farmers. These interested TSPs also had the opportunity to talk

to seasoned TSPs at these venues. This larger net has generated a high level of interest on the part

of these operators to take a harder and closer look at the viability in becoming TSPs for the

upcoming season. A total of sixty-nine new potential TSPs were identified and expressed an interest

during field days in pursuing the idea of providing this type of service to farmers in their locales.

There were a number of issues and lessons learned that arose over the course of the Field Day

period and these are discussed in greater detail in Section Three. Prior to the start of the field days,

regional management teams held planning teams with partners. This was done primarily to

coordinate efforts and map out areas of collaboration prior to and during the field days. In Western

Region for example, twenty-two partners attended this field day planning session in Mumbwa. All

the major seed companies were in attendance as were representatives from MAL, Ministry of

Livestock and Fisheries, local NGOs and the ZNFU Second Vice-President.

Table 10: Summary of Public, Private and Traditional Leader Attendance at PY1 Field Days

Region Government Officials Local Leaders Private Sector Partners Totals

Central 67 1 252 356 1 675

Eastern 544 184 37 765

Southern 911 286 463 1 660

Western 97 327 232 656

Totals 1 619 2 049 1 088 4 756


18

Looking at the table above it is clear that there has been significant support from traditional leaders

and government officials – this support most likely has an impact on target communities and that

bodes well for the programme.

Private sector partner and farmer contributions to field days were also tracked by staff and Farmer

Coordinators and came to a total of £11 991 – see the breakdown of these contributions by region in

the table below.

Table 11: Partner and Farmer Contributions to PY1 Field Days

Region Kwacha Value Sterling Value* CFU Contribution

Central K15 729 £1 306 K321 442

Eastern** K73 803 £6 127 K276 137

Southern K31 060 £2 579 K277 463

Western K23 832 £1 979 K250 295

Totals K144 424 £11 991 K1 125 337

* Oanda exchange rate used from £1:K12.0449 **Includes contributions made last quarter to demo kit support from seed dealers and farmer contributions

to their own training during Periods Two and Three (K16 806)

These contributions are positive and we suspect that they have been going on in some areas since

the CAPI programme and perhaps prior to that, though private sector contributions in the Western

Region were the first of its kind. As a representative from AGRIFOCUS told the Western Regional

Management team – ‘we have made a lot of money from the farmers especially through herbicides

and seed sales, this has been due to the good trainings the CFU has offered to the farmers and we

don’t see any reason for withholdings our monies for this serious cause (field days).’ In-kind

contributions made by farmers and Farmer Coordinators such as animals and other essentials (sugar,

oil) for meals were converted to a Kwacha value by staff.

All four regional teams engaged various media outlets to both inform farmers and the public of field

day dates, times, and venues as well as promote the importance of field days and the CF MT

practices. In the East, seven radio stations made field day announcements as well as airing live

discussions regarding the importance of field days. In the West, the regional team engaged ZNBC

news to cover its major and regional fields. The coverage was broadcast in five local languages on

ZNBC TV1, Radio 1 and Radio 2. These programmes have also been aired to a nation-wide audience.

Central Region used two separate radio stations to broadcast information related to their field day

programme.

Attendance at a number of field days across all regions were impacted by the on-going heavy rains

and access to others was made difficult by flooding and or inaccessible roads to the sites again due

to the heavy rainfall that fell throughout the month of March.


19

2.4 Private and Public Partnerships and Collaboration

A significant number of public and private sector partners participated in all core field activities

during the first programme year– a detailed list can be found in Section Eight – Appendix Three. The

log frame indicator below related to the number of new stockists who have joined the e-voucher

scheme this first programme year.

Output 3 – PS Engagement: private sector networks of rural input suppliers and tillage service providers established and expended to serve the needs of CF adopters

Log Frame Output Indicator 3.3 – number of stockists/apex dealers linked to rural stockists in programme areas increases to 150


20 16 80%

E-Voucher Scheme

During the first programme year, the value of the voucher scheme was set at K3 200 (£249.52) per

Farmer Coordinator. A total of 108 Agro dealers were trained and signed up to receive the cards in

exchange for goods, averaging about 5 participating shops in any given town close to CSAZ

operational areas.

The total value of the scheme was £421 692.85 (K5 408 000), was as we know less than the originally

budgeted amount, due to fewer Farmer Coordinators having been signed up in the first two months

of the Programme due again to the timing of the start of the programme.

The scheme itself ran comparatively smoothly, running live from October 5th to December 31st 2016.

An amount of K9 919 was unclaimed by the end of the scheme, representing 1.8% of the total value.

Some degree of unclaimed funds is normal in any given year, and this percentage fell within our

historical norm. There are no reports of Farmers Coordinators being disadvantaged by the system,

and it is understood that the remaining balance reflects the gap between goods given out by dealers

on credit before later attempting to link the cards to the system and failing – a practice that the CFU

explicitly warns against.

As was reported in the prior two quarterly reports, the contract with Zoona to run the e-voucher

scheme beyond 2017 was terminated and the tendering for, and identification and selection of a

new firm to manage the scheme is now underway and will be completed by the end of April.

The table below summarises the organisations and number of representatives from each

organisation that were engaged with CFU staff during Period One, Two and Three training periods

the reporting period.

Table 12: Summary of Partner Engagement PY1 Technical Training

Public/NGO Sector Partners

Number of Organisations/Projects Number of Representatives

39 953

Private Sector Partners

Number of Organisations Number of Representatives

50 820

Total Number of Organisations/Projects Total Number of Representatives

89 1 773


20

In general, the CFU’s private and public sector partnerships continue to grow in strength and volume

and this trend continued over the course of the first programme year. The level and involvement of

partners in training and field days was very positive and we expect this trend to continue over the

coming programme year. A significant majority of these firms have been partnering and working

closely with the CFU under the CAPII programme and some under the first MFA supported

Conservation Agriculture Programme. Many of these relationships are now effectively managed

through our existing regional team structures.

Community Agro-Dealers

Output 3 PS Engagement: private sector networks of rural input suppliers and tillage service providers established and expended to serve the needs of CF adopters

Log Frame Output Indicator 3.2 – number of in-community sales agents (ex-CF Lead Farmers) employed by the private sector


160 17 11%

In Eastern Region, field staff identified 27 potential Community Agro-Dealers (CAD’s) from among a

pool of the ex-Farmer Coordinators to be screened by Syngenta MRI. This identification followed the

review of current CADs and their performance. Most of whom were under performing due to a

number of reasons including poor selection of CADs, competition from well-established dealers, lack

of business acumen on the part of those selected, and inadequate support from MRI-Syngenta. It is

hoped that the newly identified CADs will be supported by all parties so that they perform according

the expectations. In the end 17 of these candidates were chosen and successfully completed the MRI

technical and business training course. They were joined by twenty-five other CADS chosen during

the CAPII programme.

The number of CADs is lower than expected for two main reasons:

1. MRI-Syngenta who pioneered this programme with the CFU has changed ownership and the

focus has shifted away from supporting Conservation Agriculture; and

2. The timing of the first year target should have been set in PY3 making the timing too early in

the programme. It is expected that the CFU will remain engaged in new areas for 2.5 years.

It is only after the programme engages a pull out after that 2.5 year period would interested

and capable ex-Farmer Coordinators be transitioned into an agro dealer network. We will

revisit the target and reset if deemed necessary.

This target should have been set for the third programme year and will need to be reset to reflect

when this activity is actually going to take place. We are however already identifying potential CADs

to transition into the private sector and new private sector partners are also being identified.

In addition to the normal level of active participation by our private and public sector collaborators,

regional staff also provided related Period Two and Three themed training and held CF related

meetings and support to a number of third party partners and farmers who requested

supplementary training and support requests during that period – see the table in Appendix Seven.


21

UNDP Global Environment Fund 5 (Itezhi Tezhi, Mumbwa and Nkeyema Districts)

Due to the relatively late start-up, Lead Farmer orientations and technical training were completed

in December. In addition to the CF MT technical training, Lead Farmers were trained on their roles

and responsibilities and project objectives. These activities were also coupled with the collection of

GPS points at Lead Farmer home steads and across four points on their farms. All the GPS

coordinates were collected from the 60 Lead Farmers and the data has since been submitted to the

UNDP office for map productions in project areas. Sixty Buffalo bicycles and training kits were also

successfully distributed to the 60 Lead Farmers operating across the following six chiefdoms -

Mulendema, Kabulwebulwe, Chibuluma, Kaingu, Shimbizhi, and Kahare.

As was noted in prior quarterly reports, the late start to the project, meant that training sessions

across our usual training periods had to be done all at once. Farmers in fact had already carried out

their conventional land preparation and some had started to plant their crop. Despite the late start,

a number of Lead Farmers have tried doing Conservation Farming MT in small plots. Those who did

their conversion well to CF MT hosted project field days.

A total of 49 project Lead Farmers (45 male and 4 female) managed to undergo technical training

and orientation with 11 unable to attend scheduled training sessions. Those who did not attend

were trained at the start of field day orientations. During the course of the season, field assessments

by the two dedicated Field Officers found that 15 out of the 60 Lead Farmers and 4 Group Farmers

had tried out the practices and that the crop in those holdings were doing well. With a full season

ahead pf this project it is expected that these numbers will significantly climb upwards.

The Field Officers in conjunction with the project Lead Farmers also managed to complete 14 mini

field days and 3 major field days – see the attendance table below.

Table 13: UNDP GEF 5 Field Day Summary by Gender*

Field Day Type

# of FDs

Male Female Total Disabled % Female

M F Total

Minor 14 388 302 690 - - - 44%

Major 3 117 137 254 - - - 54%

Regional - - - - - - - -

Totals- CR 17 505 439 944 - - - 47% *These totals are included in the WR field day data in table seven above.

It is also interesting to note that the level of women participation in field days mirrors that of the

CSAZ.

Finally, a project Mid-Term Review was carried out from February 27th to March 1st, 2017 by an

independent Biodiversity Conservation Consultant. The aim of the MTR was to assess the impact

that the CF MT practices were having on the lives of those first year adopters. The assessment was

carried out in the Mumbwa, Mufunta, and Namwala Game Management Areas. The assessment

tried to also ascertain with the limited number of adopters how the project and the CF MT practices

were going to lead to a reduction in illegal offtakes from poaching, charcoal production and

deforestation with those Game Management Areas. A field trip was part of the assessment and was

carried out to adopter fields in Itezhi Tezhi and Mumbwa. Planned field visits to Nkeyema were not

undertaken. It is hoped that this MTR will be made available to the CFU once it is finalised.


22

Cost Sharing and Donors Engaged

Under the fourth output is required to actively engage the private sector and other donors to cost

share a number of core programme activities. Reporting against this output was slated to start in

2018. However, cost sharing opportunities have arisen with private sector partners, Farmer

Coordinators and Farmers who have contributed to training and field days.

Output 4 – Institutional Development: CFU on track to achieve a sustainable business model

Log Frame Output Indicator 4.3 – CFU cost shares selected activities with the private sector


$0 $17 476* na

*OANDA exchange rate – 1.2072 USD:GBP and includes the ‘Push-Pull’ trial ($3 000)

Additional donor support for CF focused activities has been secured with UNDP and the Norwegian

Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) has also requested the CFU to develop a budgeted

$2.4m four year technical proposal to provide support to two of our regional In-Country Partners in

Kenya and Uganda and our Dar based CFU office.

Output 4 – Institutional Development: CFU on track to achieve a sustainable business model

Log Frame Output Indicator 4.4 – additional donors/benefactors identified and engaged


0 2 na

It needs to be noted that the CFU was not expected to formally pursue additional donor support till

the third programme year, but opportunities obviously need to be acted upon as they arise.

2.5 Mechanisation Activities

Both mechanised and ADP Tillage Service provision are important core activities to spread the

adoption of the CF mechanised and ADP MT practices.

Output 3 – PS Engagement: Private sector networks of rural input suppliers and tillage service providers established and expanded to serve the needs of CF adopters

Log Frame Output Indicator 3.1 –

2017 Target Achieved* % of target achieved

400 TBD TBD

*TBD from the TSP adoption survey to be completed in May

During the first programme year, the mechanisation team focused on building the capacity of the

CFU staff, TSP’s and their operators to correctly provide CF mechanised MT land preparation,

equipment maintenance, and business skills training during Period One. Staff and TSPs were also

during Periods Two and Three trained to correctly calibrate and use tractor drawn Vicon fertilizer

spreaders, boom sprayers and planters. The trainings were as always hands-on allowing the

participants to gain the necessary experience to use the above implements effectively.


23

Table 14: Number of TSPs Trained During the Quarter

TSPs – P1 Technical Training

Region Male Female Total % of women

Central 37 5 42 12%

Eastern 138 12 150 8%

Southern 86 6 92 7%

Western 23 7 30 23%

Totals* 284 30 314 10%

TSPs – P2 and P3 Technical Training

Region Male Female Total % of women

Central 42 3 45 7%

Eastern 56 9 65 14%

Southern 40 3 43 7%

Western 17 - 17 -

Totals 155 15 170 9% *Totals for P1 training were higher as the training included tractor operators, owners, representatives from organisations and institutions that owned tractors attended P1 training. P2 and P3 training was attended in large part by operators and owners and those interested in furthering their technical skills set beyond land preparation. A number of farmers (male and female) who might have been interested in becoming TSPs or just curious about the whole practice also attended P1 training.

It appears from qualitative senior management field based observations of training carried out by

field staff that the technical training capacity of the field staff to provide technical advisory services

to TSP’s and other tractor owners was enhanced following the training. It also appears that the

quality of services, especially ripping services provided by TSPs and observed by field staff and senior

managers during field trips that the skills and knowledge of the TSP’s and their operators were also

improved following their completion of these trainings.3 This skills transfer when coupled with a

serious TSP such as Mr Sunday Shamabanse in the photo below enables that TSP to really put into

operation a bonafide and viable commercial service that farmers find very beneficial and use. He has

in fields we observed and clients of his that we have spoken to been able to provide a professional

and timely ripping service to five hundred clients.

A typical training curriculum is presented below and was used throughout the training periods this

first year. TSPs and staff were required to undertake both technical operational training and

business related training for their service provision activities.

In addition to the aforementioned technical, maintenance and safety training, business training

centred on the following sessions:

How to choose the appropriate tractor and supporting equipment.

Purchase options and avenues - cash and loan schemes.

Legal requirements for operating a formal business

Competency tests for tractor operators

How to advertise tractor services. Fee setting training for various tractor services

Basic bookkeeping skills training Common challenges first by TSPs.

3 The CFU Programme Manager for example visited 67 fields that had been prepared using CF mechanised MT

this past season and all of them were well done – e.g. good spacing, good ripping depth, and vigorous plant growth.


24

3rd year CF Mechanised MT adopter and TSP Mr Sunday Shamabanse who provides MT mechanised

ripping services to 500 clients around the Shibuyunji Area and added 125 new clients under the CSAZ. The significant majority of his clients’ farm on two hectares or less.

Calibration formulas and working through those same formulas can be problematic for some staff

and operators. Getting this right requires practice like all other new activities and support needs to

be provided to staff and operators who tend to struggle with any sort of maths based work. A

separate report detailing the calibration formulas developed is available upon request.

A formal partnership with the Zambian National Service (ZNS) was developed and formalized in

September 2016 and continued through over the duration of the first programme year. The aim of

this activity is to increase the spread of the CF mechanised MT practice through interested ZNS Units

and to continue to build upon the already considerable working relationship that the CFU has with

the Government of Zambia.

The initial program worked with five ZNS units and has been managed by the CFU Head office

mechanised team. Selected officers from the units were trained on a number of technical sessions

similar in nature and scope to what other TSPs have undergone under the programme. Selected

staffs were also taken on exposure visits to CF mechanized MT adopters in the midlands area.

Theory orientations regarding the CF mechanised MT practice were successfully carried out for the

HQ, Airport, Mangangu and Mumbwa units. The Airport Unit started the CF Mechanised MT land

preparations after the practical orientation was completed.


25

Table 15: ZNS Unit Training Attendance

Period 1 Training

ZNS Unit Topics Covered Male Female Total % of female

Kaoma Theory CT 14 4 18 22%

Mumbwa Theory CT 16 0 16 -

Airport Farms Theory and Practical CT 13 1 14 7%

Nyimba TBD - - - -

Mpika TBD - - - -

Totals 43 5 48 10%

Period 2 and 3 Training

ZNS Units Topics Covered Male Female Total % of female

Kaoma The correct calibration and

use of the

Boom sprayer for herbicide application.

Vicon Fertiliser Spreader

Baldan Planter

12 2 14 14%

Mumbwa 16 - 16 -

Airport Farms 15 2 17 12%

Nyimba 9 6 15 40%

Mpika* - - - -

Totals 52 10 62 16%

*Training was cancelled at the Mpika ZNS unit due to logistical and transportation problems.

In early October 2016, the CFU in conjunction with AFGRI Ltd carried out a number of emergent

farmer field days in Chikankata, Kabwe, Mkushi, Mpongwe and Petauke. These field days reinforced

the need to ensure that TSPs receive the CF related equipment that is suited to their needs and that

generates sufficient income to repay their loan obligation as well as turn a profit.

As was noted in prior quarterly reports, the repossession of most tractors by NWK from their clients,

most of whom were TSP’s has created a number of problems. The absence of TSP’s with tractors has

meant that farmers who had planned on using a mechanised tillage service have not been able to do

so. Undoubtedly, a number of potential financial lenders have also taken note of the high default

rates under the NWK programme (without fully understanding the underlying causes for these high

default rates – namely poor TSP selection) which most likely made them either wary of providing

finance for this type of commercial service venture and or influenced their decision to offer very

stringent lending conditions. In December alone for example, 5 NWK tractors were repossessed by

the NWK Mumbwa office.

The CFU has continued to explore various finance and lease options with a number of providers and

programmes and these will be finalised this upcoming quarter and presented in greater detail in the

next quarterly report. Field staff under the guise of the MRM team is currently undertaking a final

TSP stock taking exercise to determine the number of active TSPs as well as new TSPs and this will

also be finalised during the month of May.

It does appear (though this will be confirmed after the data and information from the TSP adoption

survey is completed) that more and more small-holders with holdings totalling 5 hectares or less are

paying TSPs to carry out their land preparation and are dispensing with the CF Hoe MT or

establishing basins on very small (around 1 lima or less) household food security plots. Mr Songolo

Nakubiana (photo below), a mechanised TSP based in Mumbwa town is currently servicing 102


26

small-holder clients who paid him to provide CF MT ripping services for 118 acres – roughly 50

hectares or around ½ hectare per client.

This needs to be watched further over a longer time frame, but the trend amongst farmers including

the smaller land holders might be shifting towards CF mechanised MT. Many CF MT farmers start

out on a small portion of their land (be it under hoe, ADP or mechanised), with larger expansion

coming after that first increase in yields on that first portion. That first on-farm increase boosts

income, stabilises the household food security situation, and starts to enable that household to build

up their on-farm asset base – usually animal purchases that act as buffers against lean seasons like

the 2015-2016 season.

2.6 Research and Trials

The CFU is required to conduct systems comparison trials during the CSAZ to compare the CF and

conventional agricultural systems. The trials vary according to the dominant agricultural practice of

the CFU region in which they are sited. A table showing the treatment lists, varying by region is given

in Appendix Eight. These same trials will also be used to study soils benefits parameters, this study

will be conducted by independent research organisation. Details of the organisation chosen are

discussed in greater detail below.

All staff received training in field trials techniques in July 2016. For the established staff this was a re-

cap on the previous season’s training and for the new staff, an introduction. The training consisted

of a theory session on the managing of field trials, the practical methods of marking out trials and

which natural and man-made features to avoid when marking out.

The established staff were required to find one trial site, all of which were checked for suitability by

either the Research Manager or the Research Adviser. Due to logistical constraints, the new staff did

not have motorcycles until November- December 2016, with some final deliveries not completed

until January 2017. As a result it was neither sensible nor practical to ask the new staff to locate and

manage a trial for the 2016 – 2017 season. These staff will be re-trained in trials techniques and will

be required to find a site by the end of June 2017 for the upcoming agricultural season. These new


27

staffs have worked closely with an established staff member, observing and assisting on all trials

activities during the 2016 – 2017 season. A final training session that will be carried out during June

staff orientation will enable new staff to effectively manage their own trial for the upcoming season.

The final tally of trial plots correctly set-up remained at sixty-three– see the table below for a region-

by-region breakdown. It is expected that the full complement of trial plots will be identified and set-

up in the upcoming quarter by the new Field Officers.

Table 16: Summary of Regional Trial Plots

Region Number of Trial Plots Established

Central 20

Eastern 17

Southern 14

Western 12

Total 63

As has been reported from a number of quarters - an outbreak of fall army worm (spodoptera

frugiperda) has affected the trials but not significantly in any of the regions. The RM’s were ready

with insecticides which were applied at the first signs of attack. The Field Officers are checking the

trials regularly and were able in conjunction with the host farmers able to reapply insecticides

should the insects resurge.

The Research Manager and the Research Adviser inspected the trials twice during the season, once

for suitability, as stated above and again later in the season. Generally all trial plots were well

managed. Overall, a few of these trials will be relocated to other areas because of the distance and

impassable roads especially in the rainy season which makes cost of supervision high.

The agronomic research will determine the comparative financial and climate smart benefits of the

complete range of CF Min Tillage practices with their conventional alternatives with regard to the

predominant farming systems practiced in the areas which will be implemented by CFU Field staff

over 4 seasons. As indicated in the CSAZ proposal the aim of the agronomic research is to produce

evidence of the returns based on comparative and conservative farm budgets using Maize as a proxy

as this crop occupies over 85% of all land cultivated by smallholders for the production of rain-fed

crops in Zambia. However a crop rotation regime will be followed on the CF MT trial plots because

the soils research will target the same trial setups to analyse the benefits to the soil with regard to

CT.

Trials Harvest Procedure

Dr Victor Shitumbanuma of UNZA was contacted regarding the trials harvest procedure and asked to

recommend a procedure which would be statistically viable.

Dr Shitumbanuma was satisfied that the plot size in all regions was large enough to produce

statistically significant results given the variables involved with farmer administered systems trials.

He suggested that each plot in each of the trials should be divided into four sub plots, effectively

giving four replicates per plot. Each of these sub-plots will be harvested, shelled, weighed and

samples taken for grain moisture testing.


28

Trials Harvest Training

Following further advice from Dr Shitumbanuma, the CFU Research Manager produced a staff

harvest guide which was used to train all staff: the Research Adviser training the staff in Southern,

Western and Central Regions and the Research Manager training Eastern staff. This guide is available

upon request from the CFU Research Team.

Final trials results for the 2016 – 2017 season should be available in time for the production of the

Q1 CFU CSAZ report. Results from the trials harvesting will also be used to measure impact and

outcome level indicators.

Fall Armyworm

Fall Armyworm (FAW), new to Africa, which originated in the Americas appeared in Sao Tome in

2016 probably carried on imported food. The spodoptera species moth, which is able to fly 30kms

overnight, quickly invaded West Africa and has since appeared in crops in most of sub-Saharan

Africa. FAW was first seen in Zambia in January 2017 and has infested many of the maize growing

areas.

Understandably as FAW is new to Africa, farmers were not aware of what FAW was or of the

damage that this pest can do to the maize crop. In general, farmers thought that they were dealing

with maize stalk borer which, except in isolated cases, does little real damage, FAW damage is on a

totally different scale. Most of the maize which was attacked was the later planted crop, this could

be because the pest did not arrive in Zambia until January and has a preference for young more

succulent plants. As the pest is now established it remains to be seen at which growth stage the pest

will strike next season. The CFU intends to run training sessions to forewarn farmers as to the

control methods which they must employ at the Manager – FO, FO – FC and FC – farmer levels, well

before the start of the 2017 – 2018 planting season.

The research team will design this technical training session and guide book for CFU field staff and

Farmer Coordinators.

CSAZ Soils Research Contract

After due diligence and DfID approved tendering and selection protocols were adhered to and

successfully carried out, the contact was awarded to a consortium led by the Norwegian University

of Life Sciences, UNZA, the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, and Newcastle University, UK for the

following reasons:

The personnel represent a sound mix of individuals across the international partners and in

Zambia, forming a strong, experienced team, with at least one person working on the

project full time;

Most of the team have worked with the CFU on previous contracts. Their work is therefore

known and trusted;

The Proposal indicated very realistic time allocations relative to the work required,

representing good value for money;

The consortium does not (except in the case of the full time personnel) propose travel or

salary contributions, this is considered to be a very substantial contribution to the CFU

research budget; and


29

The proposed budget and costing was the most competitive of all the bids and is within the

budget allocated by the CFU to this Research.

The points method of choosing the contractor and the personnel involved with the choosing of the

winning proposal are available from the CFU upon request.

Secondary Trials – ICRISAT and Push-Pull

Both of these trials represent different funding streams, but results and possible benefits arising

from the results of both trials could be incorporated into existing CSAZ research and field activities.

Ten kilos of ICRISAT improved pigeon pea seed was received from Total Land Care (TLC) Malawi over

the Christmas break. This seed is intended for bulking up for use in the possible upcoming biochar

project which the Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) has applied for funds from the Nordic

Climate Fund (NCF). This new variety will produce up to 4 tonnes of biomass per hectare and is

capable of producing 2 tonnes of peas per hectare in ideal conditions.

The CFU received this variety from ICRISAT late in the season, over the Christmas break, as much as

was possible was planted at Agroforestry, germination was poor. It is not known whether the seed

had poor viability but rodents also dug along the rows and destroyed much of the planted crop.

What remains will be saved and planted again in the upcoming season for bulking.

Total staff time spent on set up and management has been 12 hours.

Climate smart ‘push-pull’ technology training took place on the 1-2nd December 2016. This training

was conducted by International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) at KASISI Training

Centre. Three CFU staff attended the training to acquire the technical knowhow to set up the Push-

pull on station trial at Agroforestry. The 1st day training consisted of the necessary theory which was

mainly given as power point presentations. These concerned the background and rational behind

the technology while 2nd day was devoted to in-field practicals. Dr George Genga from Uganda and

Rachel Owino from Kenya were the facilitators from ICIPE. A budget of $3 000 for the trial set up was

developed and agreed upon with ICIPE.

It has become obvious during the 2016 – 2017 season that the brachiaria grass in these trials will not

reach a growth stage sufficient to be able to affect the ‘pull’ necessary to attract maize stem borers

and hopefully FAW. The ICIPE team visited the trial site at the CFU Agroforestry Research Demo farm

in Chisamba and along with the CFU team observed that there is no striga weed but will mainly focus

on the ‘pull’ effects of Brachiaria and Napier on the borers and FAW. The Centre of Insect Physiology

and Ecology (ICIPE) have agreed to the continuation of these trials at Agroforestry for the seasons of

2017 – 2018 and 2018 – 2019. The funding for the extension (US$3000/annum) will be made

available to the CFU.

A follow up training (2nd training) was conducted by ICIPE team on 10th April 2017. The training was

held at KASISI and the focus was on data recording protocol and sharing of experiences on the Push-

Pull trials. Total staff and management time spent on this trial was 28 hours over the programme

year.

Details regarding the ‘Push-Pull’ approach, budget and trial as well as the CSAZ trial plots protocols

can be found in Appendix Eight.


30

2.7 Results Management and MIS Update

VUNA commenced work on revamping and improving the CFU’s MIS system at the start of the CSAZ

contract. This contract was wrapped up in February. The CFU’s MIS team has been revising and field

testing a number of M&E tools developed both during and after the closure of the VUNA contract.

The MIS MR, M&E Manager’s position was filled with our first-choice candidate and he assumed his

contract in January.

Overall, the regional teams have reported that there was an improvement in the use of all the new

M&E MRM tools on the part of the staff and Farmer Coordinators, but that some revisions might still

be necessary for the upcoming second programme year.

The names of farmers were captured using the paper registration forms from the Periods One to

Three 2016 trainings, the Period Two and Three from the Excel templates originally designed by

VUNA, and in Period One with a new template designed by the CFU. Capturing of Period Two and

Three data provided an opportunity to review the VUNA farmer registration system and build on it.

Table 17 below presents some of the key issues that have been noted as well as improvements

made.

Table 17: Farmer Data Capture – PY1

Item Key Issue(s) Way Forward – PY2

Farmer Households Vs Individual Members

It is anticipated that the unit of analysis for a project is the Household. The registration is capturing farmers as individuals and does not link the farmers to a household. This means that where members from the same household are trained, we will not know the number of households

Year 2 trainings will make efforts to link farmers to households. A registration exercise could precede the trainings and the actual training could then serve to confirm who eventually turned up for actual training. The Household head’s NRC number will be employed to create a database of households.

Unique Farmers - IDs The VUNA systems assumed that 1. Farmers would be registered as FIRST

NAME+SURNAME. A good number of farmers were registered as SURNAME+FIRTSNAME and this means that they would then have a new ID;

2. It will not be possible to have two farmers whose initials are the same and they both don’t know their birth dates. The reality was that even those knowing their birth dates could have the first THREE letters in both first name and surname being the same and hence same UNIQUE ID number; and

3. Farmers would not have same names and surnames and at the same time not knowing their birth date. In reality, in a country with so many same family surnames this is a common feature.

A subsequent adoption survey is revealing that in actual fact most farmers do have a NRC and hence national identification numbers. Year 2 registrations should proceed to alert farmers to bring some form of nationally recognized registration item (and NRC is the identification of choice). Meanwhile, the CFU then went on to automate the creation of Farmer unique IDs and used up to four letters from each of the Farmer names. We are also in the process of resolving extra challenges of farmers whose names started with Surnames as well as farmers that repeated trainings but under different FCs.


31


Unique Farmers –

Repeating training

The same farmers would occasionally

repeat trainings under the same FC and

sometimes up to 3 times. In some cases,

that same farmer would also go for the

same Period’s training to the next FCs. A

slight variation in the Farmer’s particulars

lead to duplicate names, the farmer being

allocated two Unique IDs, etc. This means

that the number of reported trained

farmers is slightly higher than the unique

farmers trained.

As above

Pre- and Post-Tests. The system tests farmers before and after

the trainings. There was no test for Period

One training as the system was not yet

developed to allow for that. In most cases,

only one test results are available and

therefore not of any value. Where both

Pre-and Post-test results are available, the

Post test results are on a sampled few

trained farmers while the pre-test is from

everyone. Comparison becomes almost

meaningless since in most cases the

results are the test group plenary

responses and incredibly good for the

whole group of trainees inclusive of those

that did not take the test.

Pre- and Post-tests are only

valuable if administered in a

way that makes results

credible. We simply dropped

the idea of utilizing this data.

The CFU will continue to est the

efficacy of training through pre

and post-test tools, but will

explore the viability of reducing

the sampling size.

Data Management Systems

The VUNA system is largely paper based. By the time the system was handed to the CFU, we needed over three months to capture, clean and analyse the data (and we are still doing that for first year data). Software for transferring data from paper to computer is Excel. This has introduced a huge amount of data quality threats such as those already noted above (and more). Data analysis was also cast and set hence not allowing for any other further analytics and tracking of Logframe indicators.

The CFU is in the process of improving the system of data management by using tablets and laptops as well as data management software such as CSPro and SPSS (software that, during Entry, actually contains data quality checks and rules). Year One Excel captured data is being cleaned using SPSS and will thus become available for several other analysis options. CSPro data will be, from Year 2 trainings onwards, be uploaded to a readily available data platform, and so will the results and reports generated by the M&E department.


32

Table 17 (continued)


Other Data The VUNA system has not allowed for data beyond farmer registration (even though it mentions adoption and impact studies).

The CFU has started building up a system to capture other interventions such as Tillage services, Field days. An adoption survey is currently under way and an outcomes evaluation survey will also be started in the last week of June 2017. All this will allow systematic monitoring of project’s Log Frame indicators.

The CFU will explore testing the effectiveness of field days. In theory, field days should impact

farmers in one of two ways –

1. They adopt from what they saw and heard on a field day, which is rare, since they might

have a number of questions(mainly technical); and or

2. They are motivated to attend technical training – which is what most farmers who after

attended a field day and are interested in learning more, decide to start attending technical

training.

We will explore the feasibility of asking new farmers this coming season if a field day provided the

incentive and impetus on their part to attend training.

3. Challenges and Lessons Learned A number of lessons were learned over the reporting period including how well received on the part

of farmers some of the new activities embedded in the Period Two technical sessions. Some of these

listed and described in greater detail below were explained in the second programme quarterly

report and have remained in this report as a written record of what transpired over the course of

the past nine months. Some of those previous lessons learned have been updated to reflect changes

that might have occurred after the second quarterly report. Challenges and lessons following from

the TSP and Adoption surveys will be included in those separate reports.

Period Two Training (Nutrient Application, Liming and Planting)

Output 2 – Farmers Trained: Zambian farming families depending on rain-fed agriculture trained in

CSA practices: Output Indicator 2.1: number of farmers trained in CSA practices

It appears that Farmer Coordinators and farmers alike appreciated a number of new twists we

introduced for the nutrient, liming and planting technical sessions. The introduction in the nutrient

and liming sessions on how to make 10ml lime and fertiliser applicators has been positively received.

Farmers are now able and thus more likely to make applicators if the material they need to do so is

readily available such as plastic water bottles. Prior to the introduction of plastic water bottles,

these technical sessions focused on using 100 ml Vaseline jars as applicators.


33

The Vaseline jars are of course perfectly suited for the work, but their lack of availability meant that

farmers did not a) use applicators and most likely made less accurate applications or b) in some

cases did not try the actual practice at all, waiting in for the CFU to hand out the Vaseline jars.

Farmer Coordinators and farmers also appreciated the use of water bottle caps (again readily

available) to apply fertilizer and lime in basins if farmers don’t have a blue or white cup to use. The

use of bottle tops encouraged utilisation of already available and perfectly suited resources as

opposed to waiting for CFU to give them the fertiliser cups.

Farmer Coordinators appreciated the training on spacing and seeding rates in rip lines from paces to

metres. A 10m rope or string was used so farmers could practice and get used to seeding in one

meter strips. This should increase plant populations, assuming of course the farmer uses the

recommended nutrient rates. Field visits during the upcoming quarter should start to confirm if the

introduction of meters and this rope to practice with has that type of impact.

Period Three Training (Weed Control) and Herbicide Use

Output 1 – CSA practices adopted by Zambian farming families depending on rain-fed

agriculture: Output Indicator 2.1 number/category of farmers applying herbicides for the

control of weeds; and

Output 2 – Farmers Trained: Zambian farming families depending on rain-fed agriculture

trained in CSA practices: Output Indicator 1.4: number of farmers trained in CSA practices

It was imperative that Field Officers carefully monitor the herbicide elements to this training. Those

who worked in close conjunction with their Farmer Coordinators were able to ensure that ample

working equipment was on hand so that participants at the training were able to have enough

hands-on practice with equipment that was in working condition. Those who were unable for

whatever reason(s) discovered that some Farmer Coordinators (especially new FCs) could get

overwhelmed at training especially if the training group was large and the available equipment was

in less than ideal shape.

Herbicide training requires a high level of detail and it starts with farmers being able to differentiate

between herbicides chemical names and their corresponding market trade names. The herbicide

booklet that was produced prior to the end of the CAPII has proved useful in guiding farmers

through the byzantine maze that is now the Zambian herbicide market with its seemingly endless

choice of products. The CFU will continue to ensure that this booklet is updated as more and more

products enter the market.

Many new farmers still have misconceptions that herbicides destroy the soils, herbicides are

expensive, and others say they are difficult to use. Correctly done technical training is the only sure-

fire way to push through these misconceptions as it has been for farmers under all prior CFU

managed programmes.

Some farmers still do not use the recommended safety attire despite constant reminders during

technical training sessions of the importance of using the recommended safety attire and

precautions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is because some farmers simply feel they can

dispense with the safety attire without incurring any problems. Others feel that the safety attire is


34

too expensive or not available in their areas. Field staff will continue to emphasise the safe use of

available herbicides and what is required to safely use those herbicides.

Mechanisation and Commercialisation

Output 3 – PS Engagement: Output Indicator 3.1: number of service providers offering mechanised

tillage services and ADP tillage services

Better and increased use of social media platforms could be used to advertise programme activities.

Experience from existing staff Facebook accounts shows how farmers who can't show up physically

for training yet are still eager to obtain technical information via this social media platform.

We have realised that some farm owners and potential TSPs do not attend any CFU organised

meetings or trainings because they are done in the Monday to Friday period when they are involved

in other businesses. This is the class of people with sound resources to be TSPs or hire TSP services.

These weekend farmers claim that notification for CF meetings are better posted on the popular

social media such as Facebook than the traditional radio, television and print media.

There is a better interface on social media too. A farmer for example can quickly post using narrative

and pictures a pest problem and make technical related to a pest problem so technicians and other

experienced farmers can quickly respond with potential solutions and advice – much quicker than

traditional and current extension channels.

Agricultural extension messaging and the dissemination of technical know-how and knowledge has

evolved like many other endeavours with the ICT evolution. Partner institutions like Musika are using

social media sites for both the programme information and to market their services to targeted

communities. The mechanisation team will further explore this idea in the upcoming quarter, though

we understand the internet connectivity issues that in most rural and peri-urban settings. And of

course there is no substitute at the end of the day for the skills building that comes from physically

being present at training under the guise and support of experienced staff and other farmers.

There could be a number of ex-civil servants, now retired who have access to finance through

various loan schemes that would be interested in procuring the equipment required to start a tillage

provision service. This might be particularly relevant in light of current commercial lending

conditions. To this effect NATSAVE is being engaged as a possible source of financing and a

programme and collaboration between NATSAVE and the CFU is currently mapped out.

Some TSPs who wish to explore finance options for equipment purchase are still not fully aware of

what options exist. Once finance options, finance and supply partners, and products are available,

these need to be made available to field staff and potential TSPs alike. This will enable those TSPs

who are interested in exploring finance solutions to their equipment needs to start the process of

identifying those finance products that best suit their needs and budgets. The mechanisation team

will be developing and disseminating information sheets regarding available finance and equipment

options to those potential TSPs so they can start to make decisions and identify finance and

equipment options that fit with their planned business and available resources.

It is also important that TSPs receiving finance fully understand what is expected of them and what

the consequences will be if they fail for whatever reason(s) to fulfil those financial obligations. This

requires pushing the bank or the holder of the loan or lease to interface directly with their client as


35

they would do presumably with an urban or peri-urban client who takes out a mortgage. It can be

very disconcerting to a person with a loan of any sort not to be fully conversant with how certain

deductions are made and applied to the loan or how certain penalties are assessed and how they

affect the future repayment obligation.

The CFU will when feasible (after all both the bank and the farmer should in theory want to make

sure that both parties understanding the lending terms and conditions)ensure that the financial

institutions and TSPs interface so lending obligations and terms are clearly explained by the financial

institution to the bank.

Output 3: PS Engagement Output Indicator 3.2: number of community sales agents (ex CF Lead

Farmers) employed by the private sector

The change of ownership at MRI-Syngenta has put the CAD programme with that firm in doubt; the

commercialisation team will explore other viable and interested companies who will be willing to

employ ex-Farmer Coordinators as potential agro dealers and or in-community agro agents. Putting

all one’s eggs in one basket as it were in this case can negatively impact a key activity. Going

forward, multiple companies will be engaged under this activity.

MRM

Across all log frame targets and indicators

We must continue to be cognizant of the fact that the pre- and post-test questionnaires have at

times significantly extended the amount of time that farmers are in any particular training session.

In order to keep farmers engaged, some Farmer Coordinators were under pressure to take short cuts

with some farmers not having enough time to participate in the practical work. We obviously cannot

compromise the technical training content and in particular the practical elements in training. CFU

staff have been able to cut back on the actual number of MIS questions being posed during both the

pre- and post-test questionnaires, so this should help.

Obviously, everyone involved in administering these questions will also become more proficient this

coming year and this will enable them to use the time required to carry out these assessments in a

much more efficient manner. The need to collect farmer data should, in due course, be well

balanced with delivery of quality training. The MRM team will continue to find ways of effectively

collecting data during trainings without risking quality.

All data collected and collated needs to be verified at every level – from FC to FO, from FO to FS, and

from FS to RM prior to sending the information up to Lusaka. This ensures both the accuracy and

completion of the data being collected. Incomplete or unclear data that was submitted at times by

regions this past year necessitated time consuming and costly follow-ups.

Field Day data capture forms could also be improved upon. The first field day form (FD1) needs to

capture the village where the field day venue is being held. The column asking the question whether

the farmer practices CF MT or not should possibly be removed as most respond ‘yes’ even if they are

not practitioners. The response is perhaps them responding in the manner that they think we wish

to hear, but it ends up distorting the actual number of new farmers who attended field days in some


36

cases and areas. The second field day form (FD2) was useful in enabling Farmer Coordinators to

summarise information, but the question regarding ‘unsolicited quotes’4 and or how to capture an

‘unsolicited quote’ was not. This is tricky and unsolicited quotes do happen from time-to-time, but

the substantial majority of these quotes arise during one-on-one farmer interviews and on-farm

visits.

Clear templates need to arrive on time. This was not always the case this past year. That is normal in

some respects and forms are normally flexible management tools that do change from time-to-time,

but some forms arrived during the middle of activities – this happened with the field day forms. It is

expected that all data capture forms this coming season will be more refined and will arrive on time.

Field Days

It is important that pre-field day meetings be held with partners. These planning sessions increased

both partner participation and financial and or in-kind support from our partners. The same goes for

Farmer Coordinator orientation so they understand both the timing and type of venue that needs to

be selected in order to maximise the impact of their field days. The orientation was also used to line

up the equipment and signs required for the chosen venues as well as to make sure staff were all on

the same page regarding the messages and objectives that needed to be conveyed during the field

days. Staff were also reminded of the information and data we needed to collect this season which

included tracking the various cash and in-kind contributions made by partners, farmers, and Farmer

Coordinators.

Well selected venues and well prepared Farmer Coordinators significantly impact that the field has –

especially on new farmers who might be seeing the results of what is being showcased and focused

done at the field day for the first time. Correctly managed field days on well-chosen sites usually

elicit high levels of questions and participation on the part of farmers in attendance, other farmers

take notes and start making queries regarding training dates and venues. This season’s field day

schedules were tightly compressed due in part to the end of the budgetary schedule. This meant,

that in some cases, field staff were unable to provide the support and back-up to some of the mini-

days as they would have liked or perhaps had done so in prior seasons.

However, during the life-of-the CAPII, field staff and their Farmer Coordinators managed to organise

and carry out 24 934 farmer-managed field days to showcase the range of benefits from the correct

application of the CF MT practices to over one million farmers. During the final year of the CAPII,

staff and Farmer Coordinators, many of whom are working with the CSAZ manged to organise and

successfully hold 5 774 Field Days that was attended by over 270 000 farmers – the single largest

number of field days and attendance recorded under the CAPII.

So in theory and on paper, the majority of the current crop of Field Officers and Farmer Coordinators

should have been well versed with the relevant experience and expertise on how to organise and

manage field days. Apparently some staff members were attending field days as guests and were

not directly involved in managing the event or assisting with the management of the field day.

Senior field managers should have stepped in whenever this was the case and made sure that field

staff were either managing an event or providing assistance.

4 Unsolicited quotes refer to when a farmer or partner says something that is interesting – e.g. the field day

really opened my eyes to the benefits of CF MT. They are hard to capture as it is almost always unplanned and just happens at any given moment.


37

However we will explore various options to alleviate the crunch of field days being held in one

month. This will be especially relevant this coming season with so many new Farmer Coordinators

joining the programme. There are a number of options that can be explored and include the

following:

1) Start in mid-February – this will spread the field days around and enable better monitoring

of those field days. This is not without risk. This past February saw heavy rains across most

operational areas and heavy rains of course would significantly and negatively impact

attendance by both farmers and some partners – not the outcome we wish to see. The long

term forecast insofar as we know right now portends to a similar season as the one we just

went through;

2) End Field Days in mid-April – this is another option that has two main problems. One relates

to the timing of the completion of the programme financial year which ends on March 31st

and the second relates to a certain degree of the drying out of the crop which can have less

visual impact then a green crop;

3) Staff identify weaker, less experienced Farmer Coordinators and focus their support on

backing up those Farmer Coordinators during Field Days as they are wont to do with training

since they obviously cannot be everywhere all the time. This however, is more problematic

for a second year Field Officer who has thirty-three new Farmer Coordinators; and

4) Allocate field days out during other critical periods in the cropping calendar – field days that

are held for example on a farmer’s field who has done excellent post-harvest land

preparation.

During the CFU’s upcoming management meeting slated for May 5th, these options and others will

be discussed and explored and a strategy or set of strategies will be mapped out for the 2018

programme field days.

Finally, frequent use of the same host farmer and same venues can lower the number of new

farmers and attendance at those field days. Field Day fatigue sets in or set in already with some

venues – after a number of years, farmers in those areas start to have had their full and the number

of new farmers is obviously not going to be as large if it were in a completely new area.

A case in point is a mini field day attended by the Programme Manager in which the same field day

venue has remained unchanged since CAPI. The number of new farmers in attendance was small,

even though the host farmer is an excellent example to emulate – see the photo below.

There were six seed companies running demos on her farm – as they well should as she is an

excellent farmer to promote their seed varieties – of which there were 23 different maize seed

varieties on hand. Those seed companies should of course continue working with her, but we spent

9 minutes discussing the merits of the CF MT practices and 59 minutes talking about seed varieties.

Our interest during field days is to make sure that the benefits of the practices are amply discussed.

This will also be discussed and hashed over during our May 5th management meeting.


38

Christine Musowe with her excellent soya under CF Mechanised Min-Tillage. Mrs Musowe retains her

crop residues and practices crop rotations and is a full blown CF farmer.

Some of our partners also expressed their concerns with the volume and tight Field Day scheduling

during March. No doubt this is a valid concern and one we will be cognizant of, but we obviously

cannot cater to every logistical or planning whim or need of our ever growing basket of partners and

they are going to also have to be perhaps more strategic in the field days they attend. We are here

to manage our programme and partners are there of course to support and fit in when and where

they can so they maximise their service and or product exposure to the wide and ready-made

platforms that our Field days offer up – see the photo below from a Central Region field day.


39

Mr Cephas Mkandawire noted during the field days he attended that there was an average of twelve

private sector firms per field day – a significant improvement over past seasons; so obviously, our

private sector partners were finding ways despite the compact scheduling to get to the events.

Research

Across Impact and Outcome indicators

Field follow ups by senior managers are essential in ensuring that trial plot sites were correctly

chosen and set-up. Some field staff, despite their experience and the training they all underwent

prior to the start of the first training period still made poor site choices. These were all rectified.

In response to the Fall Army Worm invasion and on-going termite attacks on crops, the research

team will be designing and carrying out two pest control sessions during the upcoming training

periods in order to give staff and farmers the technical know-how and knowledge to combat those

pests.

Farmer Coordinator Selection

If a Field Officer uses a third party to set-up a time, date and venue for this meeting, then that Field

Officer must follow-up to make sure that the correct information has been disseminated to the

farmers. Keep in mind, that it is the Field Officer and not the MAL extension officer or anyone else

for that matter who is ultimately responsible for the relaying of correct starting times, dates, and

venues. Even if a Field Officer asks someone else to do this it is at the end of the day, still the Field

Officer’s responsibility to make sure information has been correctly passed on.

Time keeping starts with the Field Officer – set a time and be there on time.

Make sure that the role is done and done properly. Before the meeting starts, make sure the two

farmers selected to do the role practice in front of the Field Officer. Use the role play that was

revamped first by Mr Mkandawire and then per a suggestion by the DfID representative, to include

gender. This role play when done correctly saves time and avoids problems when the Field Officer

moves onto the rest of the meeting. This new role play was disseminated with instructions to all field

staff and has been used in on-going FC selection meetings.


40

General

All new field based hires should be paired up with an experienced field hand for at least one month.

This enables the new Field Officer to quickly gain a significant level of insight into what their role is

and what they need to do to successfully carry out their functions and responsibilities across all

major activities – field days, training, TSP screening, and FC selection. Senior managers in general

need to spend sufficient time supporting staff – old and new when all key field based activities are in

progress.

4. Value for Money Over the course of the first programme year, the CFU embarked on an on-going effort to adhere to

the DfID value for money requirements. The CFU has taken some deliberate steps which will enable

the organisation do this. A number of the Finance and Accounting policies were improved, with

particular attention paid to the procurement and authorisation sections to close any identified gaps

in the inputs, processes, and output. The revised policy was approved by the Board of Directors

during the last quarterly Board meeting prior to this report. A formal VFM matrix with indicators

was developed in conjunction with DfID to ensure it addresses the Efficiency, Effectiveness and

Economy of the programme impact. This VfM matrix will be presented to the CFU Board of Directors

in May for formal approval, and used during the upcoming DfID annual review to report progress to-

date and set targets for the upcoming programme years.


41

5. Risk Assessment The table below represents a summary of the CFU’s risk assessment against major DfID risk concerns

during this reporting period.

Table 18: CSAZ Risk Assessment Update

Identified Risk Description and Potential Impact

CFU Assessment/Mitigating Actions

1. Failure to report on the impact of CFU’s work

Severe Impact Rating Failure to identify capable research technicians; delay in MIS system set up and data analysis.

CFU first choice MIS Manager hired and has started managing the MIS team and carrying out post-training assessments as well as TSP adoption and general adoption surveys with field staff and his team.

A qualified and experienced research consortium was successfully selected and a contract is being negotiated.

2. Market distortions worsen with more extensive public sector interventions undermining adoption of CSA.

Moderate Impact Rating Input subsidies and state role in marketing continue at the same level or escalates leading to skewed farmer incentives to grow alternative crops, away from maize. Some farmers use the late arrival of inputs from FISP as a reason to not try out the practices.

CFU continued to closely monitor in conjunction with our private sector partners current and impending micro and macro-economic policies and trends.

The general slowdown in the economy coupled with the fluctuation of the Kwacha against all other major currencies has increased the costs of all major inputs.

As was noted in the prior reporting period, bank lending conditions negatively affected the number of new TSPs entering the tillage provision service sector – however, current TSPs have been servicing to a certain degree new areas and new farmers.

3. Farmer Coordinators not using correct training

Major Impact Rating Adoption rates amongst poorest households lower than expected.

Field staff and mangers have been actively providing ample backup and support to FC led training.

New FCs have been paired up with experienced and capable FCs.

Qualitative observations as have senior managers regarding CF MT land preparation with new farmers has shown a positive response on the part of new farmers to the practices. Summaries can be found in the mechanisation section of this report.

The MRM team will make available data and information regarding the two adoption surveys slated to finish in May.


42

Table 18 (continued)

Identified Risk Description and Potential Impact

CFU Assessment/Mitigating Actions

4. Cost of administering the programme rises substantially to impact value for money.

Major Impact Rating Spend on admin costs do not justify the intervention.

The CFU make significant strides over the first programme year in institutionalising the VfM to ensure that the program impact is achieved at the most reasonable cost One of the main steps taken is to revise the current Finance and Administration policy to ensure the procurement process complies with VfM requirements. The new policy has since been approved by the Board. The VfM matrix (attached to this report) has been employed this past quarter and will continue to be reassessed each quarter.

5. Financial Fraud Severe Impact Rating Downstream use of funds in regional offices, and to Farmer Coordinator.

Some mitigation measures are being put in place to ensure that this risk is reduced. One of the mitigating measures is the appointment of Internal Auditors to be carrying out on-spot audits to our downstream regional offices and implementing farmer coordinators. A firm to carry out internal audits has been selected and these audits will start at the end of May. Other mitigating measures include staff fraud and whistle blower training, and spot checks by HQ senior staff during field visits and regional staff meetings.

The CFU will of course continue to monitor these identified programme risks and concerns

throughout the upcoming reporting period.


43

6. Upcoming Activities (April-June 2017) A number of key field based activities will be carried out over the course of the upcoming quarter

Field based staff will be finalising the final recruitment of the Farmer Coordinators required by the

CSAZ so we have our targeted number of 2 700 on board prior to the start of the June field staff and

FC orientation activities. There are a number of key meetings between DfID, the Board of Director

and CFU senior managers as well as our annual management meeting where we will be taking stock

of the prior year with our senior field managers as well as mapping out the upcoming three months.

A detailed quarterly work plan can be found in Section Eight – Appendix Two.

MRM/MIS Systems

The MIS team will be heavily engaged in continuing to analyse prior data sets and information from

the post and pre-test M&E tools. They will also be collating the data and information from the two

adoption surveys – TSP and CF MT adoption surveys. Final reports detailing the findings from those

surveys will be made available in June.

The MRM team will also focus on compiling feedback from field staff regarding the usefulness and

efficacy of the MRM tools that were developed during this first programme year and making any

modifications deemed appropriate and useful for the upcoming year.

Finally, the MRM team will work with one private media company to collect and collate CSAZ farmer

impact stories for a 24 page magazine that will highlight programme impact. It is envisioned that 350

copies of this magazine will go to print and be distributed to a wider audience.

Mechanised Unit

The mechanised team will in conjunction with the regional teams vet and screen potential TSPs.

TSPs wishing to access finance will be screened by both the programme and the bank. The

mechanised team will also carry out P1 training orientation in June with the rest of senior

management. New TSPs will also undergo the full business, technical and maintenance training

sessions that all TSPs are required to pass through.

Finally, the TSP stock taking exercise will be wrapped up this coming quarter as part of the TSP

adoption survey.

Potential CADs will be identified by field staff, with the aim of having on-hand a list of those

candidates who would be a good fit for a participating agro dealer once the time comes for the CFU

to transition out of an area.

Research Unit

The research team will continue to monitor the progress of the current trial plots and make sure

new staff are ready to set up the remaining thirty plots. Trial plot harvesting will be closely

supervised in order to maintain the validity and accuracy of all yield results coming off the current

trial plots. Yield data from the current crop of sixty-three trial plots will be properly assessed and

reported back out in a final report.


44

7. Appendices This section contains eight separate appendices that form part of this annual report. They are as

follows and are attached separately from the main body of this report.

Appendix One CSAZ Up-To-Date Results - Log Frame Indicators (June 2016 – March 2017)

Appendix Two Quarterly Work Plan (April to June 2017)

Appendix Three Private Public Sector Partnerships (2016-2017)

Appendix Four New Farmer Testimonials

Appendix Five Field Day Partner Participation by Region (2017)

Appendix Six Partner and Farmer Contributions to Core Field Activities

Appendix Seven Third Party Support Training (July 2016 – March 31st, 2017)

Appendix Eight Trial Protocols – CSAZ Systems and Push Pull

dfid csaz q1 report (july-september - conservation … total of 961 disabled farmers attended...

Documents