Focused evaluation
The Kingdom of Lesotho, which is surrounded entirely by the Republic of
South Africa (RSA), has an area of about 30 600 km2. About 18%, 18%, 51%
and 13% of Lesotho is classified as lowlands, foothills, mountains and river
valley in terms of terrain and altitude and, therefore, potential land use.
The country’s population in 1996 was estimated at 2.0 million with
an annual growth rate of 2.6%. The summers are warm to hot while the winters
are cold in the lowlands and foothills and very cold in mountainous areas.
Rainfall, the bulk of which falls between October and April, varies from
about 700 mm to 1 000 mm depending on location and is quite variable both
between years and locations. Droughts are common. The SWaCAP programme area,
covers the lowlands and foothills (altitudes from about 1 300 m to
2 000 m above sea level) of Maseru, Leribe, Berea and Butha Buthe districts,
and includes more than half Lesotho’s potentially arable land. Most
of the programme area’s soils are derived from sandstone or shale.
Erosion is a major problem, and has led to significant losses in arable
land. Maize dominates cropping. Yields are low and there is evidence of
a declining trend over the years. Some sorghum is grown and beans are usually
intercropped with maize. Small amounts of potatoes and wheat are cultivated
as cash crops. Lesothos’s economy is strongly dependant on the RSA.
Project design and objectives
Target group
The programme’s target group includes households with land but lacking
labour for cultivation; households with smaller than average holdings;
de jure and de facto female-headed households; and landless households.
Women were to be the programme's most important target group since both
the de jure and de facto female headed households include households with
smaller than average sized landholdings, those with land but lacking labour
for cultivation and the landless. The four sub groups defined
above together accounted for about 110 000 of the 130 000 rural
households in the area where the programme's soil and water conservation
activities would be implemented. However, all 278 000 rural households
in the country were to benefit from a properly trained and functioning
extension service, agro-forestry development and better conservation strategy
and policy coordination.
Objectives and components
Objectives. The objectives of SWaCAP were to assist the
Government of Lesotho (GOL) to: (i) promote soil and water conservation
measures as part of the farmer's normal agricultural activities in a way
that increases farm productivity, food production and family income; (ii)
establish an agro-forestry research capability to contribute to the development
of ecologically sound agricultural production systems; (iii) create an
effective agricultural extension service based on the client demand approach;
and (iv) monitor and coordinate its soil and water conservation policies,
programmes and projects. SWaCAP was funded under IFAD's Special Programme
for Africa (SPA). The ultimate goal of SWaCAP is to increase the income
and living conditions of its target group while, at the same time, assisting
with controlling erosion.
Components. (i) Conservation based agricultural production
with two sub-components; namely the development and refinement of agricultural
innovations and the introduction of conservation-based farming systems
(26% of costs); (ii) re-organisation of the extension system (39% of costs);
(iii) agro-forestry research and development (22% of costs); and (iv)
conservation strategy and policy coordination (13% of costs). The programme
was to be implemented by MOA through the Departtments of Field Services
(DFS) and Economics and Marketing (DEM). SWaCAP’s Programme Coordinator
(PC) was to be located in the Planning Division of DEM, reporting to the
Director of Marketing and Economic Affairs. Three Technical Assistance
Advisers (Agronomy, Extension and Agro-Forestry) were to be recruited
internationally.
Development and Refinement of Agricultural Innovations.
This sub-component would develop and refine the production recommendations
used by FISC (The SIDA financed Farm Improvement with Soil Conservation
Project). A programme for developing and demonstrating these technical
innovations would be undertaken in fields representative of the agro-climatic
zones in the four programme districts. The results of the trials would
be used to formulate improved cropping recommendations for delivery to
farmers by the extension service. Introduction of Conservation Farming
Systems. Assistance would be provided to farmers to construct
and/or repair the in-field erosion control structures (e.g. terraces,
waterways, etc.). The terraces would be planted with grass species (e.g.
bana grass) and fruit trees to assist in their stabilisation. Stall feeding
for cattle and fodder crops would be encouraged. For construction work,
farmers would receive payment on a task basis in the form of agricultural
inputs, while the landless who undertake conservation work on communal
land would be paid in cash. Biological methods of soil conservation would
also be promoted.
Reorganisation of Extension Services through the adoption
of a client demand approach which would create a demand for advice by
farmers, by promoting innovations and providing extension staff able to
meet that demand. Small Resource Centres would be established in each
district in places frequently visited by farmers and would include housing
for all EAs and Area Supervisors (ASs). Training would be provided to
EAs.
An Agro-Forestry Research and Development programme would
be introduced into MOA’s Research Division to develop ecologically
sound production systems by establishing a series of research trials and
develop an agro-forestry research capability. Trials would assess the
performance of potentially useful species of plants, shrubs and trees,
and promising results would be demonstrated and tested on farmers’
fields.
Conservation Strategy and Policy Coordination. This component
would assist MOA in coordinating and monitoring its policies, programmes
and projects in the soil and water conservation sub-sector. SWaCAP PC
would be responsible for its implementation and a Conservation Task Force
(CTF) would be set up.
Expected effects
and assumptions
Programme’s design implied a number of assumptions including: (i)
conservation incentives and crop production recommendations followed by
FISC are viable and should form the basis of SWaCAP approach; (ii) incentives
in the form of free inputs for conservation practices are sufficient to
guarantee sustainable adoption of the practice; (iii) extension contact
will be initiated by the farmers and staff role is to ensure that farmers
know what MOA has to offer; (iv) gullies (donga) reclamation is an adequate
activity in support of the landless; (v) reorganization of extension service
around the concept of client demand is feasible; (vi) cooperation and
coordination between various departments of MOA and between donors are
feasible and forthcoming; (vii) the PC can assist MOA in formulating,
coordinating and monitoring conservation policies and programmes. The
Appraisal Report (AR) estimated a minimum Internal Economic Rate of Return
of 15%, even if any longer term benefits from the introduction of agro-forestry
development and national institution-building aspects were excluded. The
15% return was based on increased crop yields (maize and sorghum) from
13 900 ha of land. Yields increase was expected from the combination of
soil and water conservation and improved production practices.
Evaluation
An inter-disciplinary Focussed Evaluation Mission (FEM) visited the field
for a period of five weeks to assess the achievements and constraints
of the programme's soil and water conservation and agro-forestry activities
and their effect (and impact so far) on the target groups. Discussions
were held with officials from the implementing agencies in the capital
and the districts and extensive field visits were made to the four programme
districts where interviews were held with farmers, and MOA staff from
District Headquarters and Resource Centres (RCs). Interviews for RC staff
and farmers were devised and pre-tested before final field use. The FEM
visited all RCs and MOA's research sub-stations (where agro-forestry activities
are undertaken). In addition to individual and group interviews of farmers
in the project area the mission conducted a focussed survey of some Machobane
farmers who have been following the system for some years.
Without exception SWaCAP was characterised by very poor collation
of field data. Severe deficiencies were encountered with regard to
information on input packages promoted by the programme to encourage farmers
to participate in conservation-based productive practices; records of
the numbers of on-farm trials and demonstration from both cropping and
agro-forestry activities; results from crop and AF trials; and the monitoring
of irrigation and bee-keeping activities. This, together with the fact
that monitoring and internal evaluation of programme promoted activities
have been very weak, greatly hampered quantitative assessment of performance.
Implementation context
The implementation of SWaCAP has been adversely affected by some unforeseen
factors some of which were beyond the programme’s control. Droughts
in the late 1980’s and mid nineties affected implementation. The
Structural Adjustment of the early 1990’s implied a significant shift
in policy from strong economic control by GOL towards de-regulation, re-orientation
of the role of government and reduced public service funding and staffing.
The steady decline in morale of the public service and the inability of
certain divisions to retain qualified staff led to a deterioration in
government’s capacity to implement and support the large number of
donor projects. Budgetary rationalisation and dwindling migrant remittances
from RSA affected counterpart funding and some aspects of programme implementation.
Financial mismanagement within SWaCAP led to a suspension of disbursements
from IFAD Loan for a period of 18 months. Many key programme staff left
and the programme implementation was seriously affected. The reluctance
of some departments within MOA to give its full cooperation to the programme
has in many instances hampered implementation.
The GOL, IFAD and the Cooperating Institution (UN/OPS) showed very considerable
flexibility in their approach to programme implementation. First a drought
relief component was incorporated at the request of GOL, second the promotion
of the Machobane farming system was agreed to by IFAD and OPS; and third
Technical Assistance inputs were increased when it became clear that MOA
could not provide technical staff as required.
Project achievements
Overall Objectives. Aside from providing some temporary
drought relief there is no evidence that SWaCAP has achieved its ultimate
objective of increasing the income and living conditions of its target
group and assisting with erosion control. The programme has, however,
successfully promoted Machobane farming, an indigenous concept which incorporates
cash cropping and elements of more sustainable farming systems, and has
provided some basis for a potentially viable Agro-Forestry research capacity,
and agronomic research for conservation.
Development and Refinement of Agricultural Innovations.
The SWaCAP research sub-component as developed in the AR stated that SWaCAP
would develop and refine the crop production recommendations of the FISC
project. This was discarded in the early stages of implementaiton as FISC
recommendations were found not sustainable and were only acceptable to
farmers because they were issued with free inputs. What was being advocated
was a relatively high input package with little relevance to farmers in
the target group. The main effort of innovation was re-directed to
the conservation of water in conjunction with low cost/low input packages
(a mix of fertilizers and manure) for resource poor farmers. Through
this approach, the programme developed technologies based on the rip-line
system of tillage. The period of research, contrary to AR stipulations
extended for five years. The MOA/ARD did not allow SWaCAP to set new priorities
different from established directions. The divergence of views was not
sorted out and ARD’s cooperation with SWaCAP remained minimal.
A large number of trial/demonstration work was conducted by SWaCAP the
most significant is that of tillage technology. Unfortunately, the reporting
of the trials does not do justice to the field work that was conducted
and gaps remain with respect to physical details of the trials and farmers'
comments and attitudes.
Tillage Technology. Because of the traditional use of the
mouldboard plough which inverts the soil sod to the same depth with each
cultivation a plough-pan or hardpan had developed at a comparatively shallow
depth. The hardpan inhibits moisture penetration and limits the depth
to which plant roots are able to penetrate. The hardpan situation was
addressed by shallow ripping, incorporation of animal manure into the
rip-line to prolong the effect of ripping and encouraging farmers to follow
the same rip-lines with each tillage operation. Between 1990 and 1994
trials with the rip-line were implemented in farmers’ fields. The
results demonstrated that from an agronomic view the rip-line technique
and its offshoots represent a superior technology to what the bulk of
the farmers were using.
Nevertheless, the FEM found little evidence of substantial use of the
rip-line technique amongst farmers despite availability of rippers at
the Resource Centres. The FEM’s assessment is that while
the benefits of the rip-line technology are indisputable given the results
of the SWaCAP trials, the use of this tillage practice has been limited
due to variations in soil type, unavailability of adequate animal draught
power and insufficient extension efforts.
SWaCAP conducted basic fertilizer trials with and without usig the rip-line
system. The use of relatively moderate amounts of fertilizer in rip-lines,
particularly LAN or dolomite resulted in substantial yield increase and
can be potentially, a major break-through. Its limitation is the dependence
of low fertilizer inputs on the use of rip-line tillage. If the rip-line
technology can be accessed by a significant number of farmers at
a reasonable cost SWaCAP research efforts will have a large impact.
Some trials on Vetiver Grass as a biological tool for soil and water
conservation were also undertaken but results were not encouraging. No
trial work for bana grass as a fodder or as a fodder related to conservation
practices were undertaken. The assumption appears to have been made that
bana grass is useful and then considerable efforts were made to multiply
and distribute it among farmers. As a result, bana grass is now widely
distributed throughout the programme area. Its performance has been
mixed. Because of its clumpy growth habit, as a soil conservation agent
its potential is quite limited, but it has the potential to serve as a
useful fodder species in some farming systems. As a result of its widespread
distribution by SWaCAP there is now a vast experience with this grass.
Overall, SWaCAP’s on-farm research activities did not achieve
the programme’s objectives of refining and generating conservation-based
technologies which could be immediately adopted by its target group.
However, some potentially effective technologies based on rip-line tillage
were produced. These technologies are limited by a lack of adequate animal
draught power and/or heavy soils with a significant plough-pan or hardpan
or both. If these problems can be overcome the technologies developed
under SWaCAP have the potential to increase yields significantly.
Introduction of Conservation Farming System. Building on
the FISC experience, a village by village approach to better conservation
practice, was to be adopted stressing the building or repair of conservation
structures. Incentives were to take the form of payments of farm inputs
or cash, calculated according to stated work norms. During implementation
design features were adjusted to fit the concerns of the MOA with more
emphasis on vegetation than on structural control. Seven Conservation
Incentive Schemes (CIS) packages were developed: (i) countor bund improvement;
(ii) donga reclamation; (iii) grazing management; (iv) kraal construction;
(v) village nurseries; (vi) water catchments; and (vii) bana grass multiplication.
The packages are composed of inputs specifically required for each activity.
Only some of these packages were widely distributed through RCs.
It was also soon realized that cash payments in relation to work norms
were no longer acceptable to MOA because of unsustainability, and that
incentives should comprise only the inputs required for the task. A keystone
of the AR’s proposal, that is the rewarding of participants in agricultural
inputs equivalent in value to conservation work performed was, therefore,
disbanded early in the life of the programme. SWaCAP no longer envisaged
the intensive, area by area conservation focused programmes which were
planned in the AR due to poor response from district and village officials
in the Berea district. The extension service had been ill-equipped to
undertake such efforts and its reorganisation was taking longer than expected.
Contour Bank Improvement. A large number of contour bank
improvement packages were issued. As contour banks were not particularly
prevalent in Berea, Leribe or Butha Buthe it is likely that many of the
packages were used for purposes other than reclamation/stabilisation of
banks. The FEM confirmed that at no RC was the distribution of the packages
linked to any conservation activity. Village nurseries were understood
to be small private agri-businesses that SWaCAP was capitalising and guaranteeing
a market. This lead to confusion about the ownership of the durable equipment
(shade cloth, treated poles, watering cans) and the responsibilities for
market development. The distinction between the role of government (MOA
staff) and that of the private sector (the farmer) was not clear enough.
When market support stopped the nurseries collapsed. In addition, SWaCAP’s
provision of free trees for planting in dongas (or elsewhere) affected
a potential market for nurseries dependent upon tree sales. Large amounts
of bana grass were distributed mainly for terrace improvement.
Gully (Donga) Reclamation. Dongas are geomorphological
features created by the hydrology of the landscape. Unless the hydrology
is changed, the processes that created the donga will still function.
Therefore, the notion of donga reclamation by building structures (silt
traps) or planting trees and grass is rather simplistic. Structures can
be washed out in heavy rains and, like other conservation structures,
need continual maintenance. Tree planting, without addressing the fundamental
causes of donga formation does little to change structural processes.
Donga reclamation is almost always beyong the resources and control of
individuals as their causes involve the activities of whole communities.
Incremental benefits, if at all achievable, have a long gestation. They
do not therefore present opportunities for the poor and landless as stipulated
at appraisal. If projects are to address donga reclamation or prevention,
their intervention must be community-based.
The FEM’s investigations indicate that although donga reclamation
is a popular concept in the expatriate community, it is not among the
Basotho. While the Basotho would like dongas to be stopped or filled in,
they are unsure of a successful and feasible technology. FEM found no
evidence that packages released for Donga reclamation have had an effect
on helping reclaim or prevent donga formation; or have for that matter
been indeed used for this purpose. Donga reclamation is hard, recurrent
work with no immediate returns and with high possibility of failure. Landless,
even after surmounting the tenure obstacle, did not find the venture remunerative.
Certainly there are cases of individual reclaiming dongas, but these are
farmers with other resources that provide them with a livelihood.
Overall, no evidence was found that CIS increased farm productivity and
household income or led to establish conservation as part of the farming
system. Inadequate coordination and cooperation between the programme
and the extension services, inadequacy of these services, lack of follow-up
by EAs on the distributed packages and the suspension of disbursement
have had some negative effects on the promotion of conservation-based
activities. Nevertheless, programme design has underestimated the complexities
and difficulties of identifying suitable interventions which would fit
into the farmers’situations. The packages devised under the programme’s
Conservation Incentive Scheme (CIS) were generally not compatible with
farmers’ needs and priorities. Gully (donga) reclamation is beyond
the resources of the poor while conservation structures were found of
limited importance in three of the four programme districts. The nurseries
are viable only in rare situations where viable marketing outlets exist
within farmers’ reach.
Agro-Forestry (AF) Reseach and Development. The output
of the AF component is not up to the AR's somewhat ambitious expectations.
Delays in rendering the MOA field stations operational for AF research
purposes, staff shortages including the failure to appoint assistants
for the Afro-Forestry Researcher (AFR) at headquarters level; lack of
cooperation, at times, from MOA and a divergence of attention of AFR to
the revival of Machobane farming, contributed to the component's inability
to reach its stated objectives. However, a good basis for AF research
has been established. Its sustainability hinges on AF research establishing
a niche within the Agriculture Research Division (ARD). The sustainability
of AF research relates to the whole issue of an appropriate organisation
and approach within the currently demoralised ARD.
While below appraisal stipulation, good effort has gone into testing
and promoting AF technologies on farmers’ fields and later on-station.
Trials encompassed screening of Multi Purpose Trees, inter-crop orchard,
forage/fodder alleys and variety trials. However, the failure of the AF
component to clearly colate and report the findings of its on-station
and on-farm trials and demonstrations, be it in an interim or final form,
is a major shortcoming. It is critical that a thorough assessment of
all AF experience, based on this data, is undertaken before the programme
is terminated. To date, agro-forestry results have not been integrated
within the extension system.
The AF component's main attention was focussed on the promotion of Machobane
farming from 1991 onwards with the explicit consent of OPS and
IFAD and, over the years, with tacit agreement from MOA. An AF Network
was established with support from SWaCAP, which is a good achievement
in cooperation to share (and, to a degree, generate) knowledge between
GOL, donors and NGOs.
Re-Organisation of Extension. Almost all infrastructure
stipulated (RCs) has been completed. Currently many RCs suffer from theft
of equipment and not all EAs reside there. The complexity of formulating
and implementing a full re-organization of the extension system was grossly
under-estimated. The concept of a service based on client demand using
a radically re-structured extension system proved a major undertaking.
The processes needed to implement such changes are time consuming and
require a major shift in attitude on the part of both extension workers
and the MOA hierarchy. Support from MOA was modest partly because it was
being subjected to pressure by other donors advocating and implementing
other extension methodologies. The refusal by GOL to appoint Area Supervisors
(ASs), a key element in the SWaCAP promoted system, is one indication
of the MOA’s less than whole hearted support. The multi-purpose extension
approach advocated at appraisal has not been effectively installed at
RC level. Many EAs, despite their training as generalist, still function
within their original discipline and the absence of ASs confuses programme
set up and reporting system.
"Client Demand" seems to have been interpreted as an approach
which makes farmers more aware of what is available through the EAs who
wait at the RCs for the farmers to approach them. This has not worked
to farmers’ advantage particularly the poor. Closer and more frequent
interaction between farmers and MOA staff, outside the RCs, is needed
to determine what the farmers real needs are before programmes are developed
and advice is offered. On balance the RC concept, with local adjustments
as necessary, is an improvement over the previous system of spreading
EAs in villages. The potential for better communication and coordination
between EAs is much higher and training by Subject Matter Specialists
in RCs is more cost efficient than EAs going to district centres. As a
training facility for local farmers RCs is a positive contribution and
probably the main benefit of SWaCAP's intervention with regard to RC extension
so far.
Drought Relief. IFAD'S financing of drought relief operations
represented a one-off intervention which was justified given the dire
situation in Lesotho at that time. SWaCAP's active involvement was effective
in implementing the input package activities and facilitating the provision
of borewells for potable water. In addition, it activated the bee-keeping
activity and started the pilot irrigation schemes. The last two activities
have been shown to have potential for expansion.
The Machobane Farming System (MFS). The MFS activity was
not included in SWaCAP’s project design but arose through the interest
and efforts of the programmes’ AFR. Dr. J.J. Machobane (a Masotho)
developed his farming system during the 1950’s on his own farm. The
technical parameters upon which the system is based are: (i) intensive
inter-cropping by growing several crops simultaneously or in relay in
the same field; (ii) adequate soil fertility and moisture retention capacity
is achieved through localised placement of ash (household waste) and manure,
combined with adequate weeding; (iii) ash and manure produced by a typical
family is sufficient for one acre of land using localised techniques;
(iv) one acre of land is sufficient to grow enough, for home consumption
and sale; and (v) intensive cropping on the above basis offers a further,
synergistic means of enhancing soil and moisture conservation and reducing
income fluctuations.
The Machobane approach embodies an ideological framework for the development
of endogenous capabilities, in which natural resource development and
people’s attitudes are inter -dependent. It emphasises self-reliance,
hard work, dedication and a willingness by participants to train other
farmers in adopting the system (farmers to farmers extension). In essence
Machobane’s approach requires participants to act as voluntary extension
agents.
SWaCAP’s AFR persuaded Dr Machobane to become involved in reinstating
MFS. A small amount of SWaCAP funds was used to test and promote the MFS.
Detailed recordings of input/output data for one year (91/92) were taken
and gross margin analyses conducted on the resultant data. The outputs
of the MFS were reportedly superior to mono-cropped fields. Between 1991/92
and 1996/97 the number of farmers using the Machobane system increased
from 22 to 1 998 a ninety fold increase. By 1996 growers did not
receive subsidies of any kind aside from free training.
The Focussed Survey undertaken by FEM on established Machobane farms
suggests a population that is not typical of rural Lesotho. The farmers
engaged in the system were older people with grown children and access
to means of production which reflect the first generation of Machobane
followers. Most of the farmers interviewed lived in areas with relatively
good roads and a landscape where scotch carts could be used. Strict Machobane
farming uses no mechanical implements at all - hand labour and hand tools
are advocated for every operation. However, all of the farmers used either
an ox-drawn plough or a tractor to till their fields. Half of the Machobane
farmers only weeded by hand, the other half used an ox-drawn cultivator
for between row weeding. Almost all farmers had access to free kraal manure.
Labour requirements in Machobane fields were higher mainly because potatoes,
a more labour intensive crop, were grown; manure and ashes (which are
bulky) had to be transported to the field; and mechanical cultivation
and weeding was difficult because of less space between rows of crops.
Combined returns of the Machobane field is by far higher than returns
of any mono cropping activity. Constraints are mainly labour availability
and marketing of crops. Other less endowed farms, of more recent followers,
practiced simple versions of Machobane but higher returns were always
reported.
Conservation Strategy and Policy Coordination. Very little
progress has been achieved under this component and the situation remains
virtually unchanged since the MTR of 1993 and its assessment remains valid.
Liaison between the programme and the Conservation Section of the MOA
Planning Division has been limited, and there is little evidence of national
monitoring or reporting on the conservation sector. Many of the shortcomings
in implementation of this component stem from the difficult experience
of the CTF, the limited time devoted by the PC, and lack of cooperation
between MOA Departments. The fact that the programme has been put under
the DEM has, to some extent, alianated other departments within MOA, whose
cooperation is crucial in the success of this component and indeed of
all others.
Effects assessment
and sustainability
The Farming Communities. FEM could not establish significant
or sustainable effects of conservation activities by its users. The records
that were kept were not consistent from RC to RC. To the extent that these
sources are reliable, most CIS activities appeared to have affected only
a few people at each RC. Fodder grass seed distribution was the exception.
This result was confirmed during FEM interviews with farmers (individually
and in groups) as well as with MOA’s staff. The CIS packages did
not function as envisaged. Both the AR and the designer of the CIS considered
the incentives (commodities and initially cash) to be payment for tasks
performed. For the most part those implementing the project delinked
the incentives from the task to be performed and transformed the incentives
into promotion packages (mostly fodder) run under client demand concepts.
Seeds or planting materials were announced at meetings, pitsos and on
the radio, and were issued equally to all clients who showed interest.
The activities for which the packages were supposed to be used were not
systematically verified and followed up by extension staff. SWaCAP
became identified with the provision of "free" inputs rather
than the intended conservation message.
As a result, the project affected people’s outlook,
with regard to externally funded intervetion. It has confirmed the impression
that projects and foreigners hand out things for free wihtout any obligation
on the part of the recipient. More than one government official characterized
SWaCAP as an entity that "spoiled the farmers" by "giving
away too much for free". This attitude was also reflected in the
group interviews conducted by the FEM, when expectations for continued
free inputs was invariably expressed. FEM found no evidence that soil
and water conservation measures promoted by SWaCAP, effected farmers income
or household food security, The packages devised under the CIS were generally
not compatible with farmers’ needs or priorities. Nowhere in SWaCAP
promotion/extension strategy was the conservation message clearly related
to increments in production.
Among on-farm research efforts by SWaCAP the rip-line technologies
and better dessimination have the best potential to impact a large number
of farmers provided the problem of insufficient draught power are solved.
So far, however, its actual effects and impact on farmers has been slight.
Direct impact on Agro-Forestry trials have so far been insignificant.
The FEM concluded that it is the "progressive farmers"
who have mostly taken advantage of the innovations associated with "free"
inputs. The participation of progressive farmers has been reinforced by
the extension staff as they focused the innovations on their known clients.
Recipients of SWaCAP services were predominantly middle-aged, male-headed
households with above average material resources, income and familiarity
with the extension system. By and large, the target group, the rural poor,
has received little benefit. Many participants have abandoned SWaCAP supported
activities following receipt of free inputs. Significantly, the FEM could
not find any evidence of the spread of activities due to farmer-to-farmer
interaction in obvious contrast with the Machobane practice.
The introduction of Machobane farming system has had so
far the highest impact on rural household with 2 000 practising farm
families. The "selling point" of the Machobane philosophy is
self-help, complemented by the need for very few, if any, cash inputs
which allows participants to produce food for consumption and an output
(potato, bean) for sale. The MFS, in the various forms, has the potential
to allow access to a multitude of farmers that were previously
shut out of the cash economy. It is probable that the re-establishment
of Machobane farming will be SWaCAP’s main legacy.
Drought Relief. Undoubtedly the 4 000 maize seed and
fertilizer packages made available to farmers have had some positive affects
on production compared to drought affected yields. Promotion of bee-keeping
and small scale irrigation is at a relatively early stage so impact on
production, to date, is limited but quite promising.
Targeting. The objective of targeting the poor has
been frustrated throughout the project’s duration by a failure to
define the poor. A series of studies and workshops were unable to clarify
the very general definition of the Appraisal Report. The responsibility
for defining the poor was relegated to extension staff at each RC. Shortage
of staff and other logistical problems made this task an unwelcome additional
burden. Some staff of RCs and community leaders believe that most Basotho
are poor, therefore most residents of the project area are within the
target group. Others with a more critical view found great difficulty
in discriminating at the point of delivery. They observed that tension
can easily be created or enhanced by giving opportunities selectively.
A common social concern is that to be labelled "poor" is a stigma;
it is therefore distasteful for MOA staff to seek out the rural poor.
No provision was made in the design for activities which would reach
women or female-headed households exclusively on the assumption
that they represent the majority of poor rural households. This assumption
may become increasingly invalid with the return of mineworkers from South
Africa and decreasing possibilities of new entrants in RSA labour market.
Two project components clearly restricted to the poor were not implemented;
cash payment for work on conservation structures and donga reclamation
for landless people. Drought relief was administered to the needy, but
determination of the needy in time of drought may be even more problematic.
Field investigation by the FEM led it to conclude that SWaCAP activities
have reached only a very small section of the intended target group. A
survey undertaken by SWaCAP in 1995 gives further support to this finding
despite some obvious statistical bias. In a sample of 189 households in
the project area only 46% were found to have benefitted to any degree
from SWaCAP intervention (of which 23% refer to Machobane farmers). If
statistical bias are eliminated, this ratio decreases to about 14%, which
indicate overall a very modest achievement in reaching the poor.
Participation was to have been achieved through the development
of a structure based upon representatives of farmers being selected as
Village Technicians (VTs), participation in on-farm agricultural trials
ad demonstrations, and the promotion of share cropping arrangements between
landless and households short of labour. Some VTs were selected and trained,
but a coherent system of VTs was never developed. Agricultural trials
and demonstrations were implemented on farmers’ fields but these
have not been consulted on the choice of these trials. Instead of the
development of a two-way dialogue, emphasis seems to have been placed
on stimulating client demand for packages and technologies developed by
SWaCAP. Pitsos were held to inform people of project components and activities.
Information about agricultural technologies and CIS packages also appeared
on farm radio programs and in farmer publications. The Agricultural Show
in Maseru promoted the use of the ripper. Beneficiary participation became
synonymous with enhancing demand for SWaCAP inputs and services rather
than providing what is demanded by farmers.
Institution Building: Agro-forestry Research Capacity.
Despite earlier reluctance by MOA the AF concept has now been accepted
by the ARD. The concept of AF is now entrenched within AF field station
staff but to a much lower extent within the extension service. An AF capacity,
although not up to AR expectations, has been developed within the ARD.
The infrastructure improvements to the existing ARD research sub-stations
represent a physical strengthening to ARD's capacity. For the AF activities
initiated under the AF component to be sustained and increased further
support, be it from normal GOL sources or donors, will be necessary.
On-farm Research. Due to the inability of SWaCAP and ARD
to effectively cooperate, the impact of SWaCAP’s research sub-component
on MOA as an institution has been disappointing. The formation of the
FSRU involved some input from SWaCAP. Recently a growing concensus has
been emerging within MOA that agricultural research - including forestry,
AF and conservation - needs to be better coordinated and focused on real
farming needs. SWaCAP's AFR has been instrumental in advocating a coordinated
research approach.
Extension. The construction of RCs has given the extension
system in four districts a better base to work from, particularly with
regard to farmer training. The "generalist" skills of some 90
field staff have been improved, to some degree, through training. However
the system currently used is not working effectively on the principle
of using multi-purpose extension agents. The FEM's conclusion is that,
given more direction and support, the system proposed by SWaCAP can be
acceptable to the bulk of the MOA's field staff. For the system to work
and be sustainable, commitment by MOA at headquarters and district level
is essential. Lack of such commitment has been a major factor preventing
implementation of the "Client Demand" extension to be sustained.
Adequately trained and remunerated ASs, with sufficient authority, will
need to be appointed and staffing levels will need to be raised. Above
all, support for the system at district level will need to be assured.
Main issues and recommendations
More weight should be given to detailed analyses of farmers
resources, needs, priorities and perceptions of soil and water conservation
in project design. Detailed interaction with implementing agencies
at all levels is an obvious requirement. Participation by the target group
and the on-the-ground implementers during design and implementation would
allow tentative ideas conceived elsewhere to be radically changed by local
discussion. Pre-conceived notions may be rejected completely, and widely
held beliefs challenged. It is less costly to change plans and readjust
design than to change or try to salvage a project with major problems.
The issue of effective cooperation betweeen the parent agency
and donor projects or programmes arose with all SWaCAP components.
Donor-supported activities should complement or supplement, under an atmosphere
of mutual agreement, existing agency activities. The donors role, aside
from providing funds, is to provide assistance with implementation (if
necessary) while at the same time assuring that its specific interests
(agreed to by both parties prior to implementation) are protected. The
donor should not be felt as the dominant partner.
IFAD should take steps, drastic if necessary, to ensure that reporting
by the project and the implementing agencies is adequate
to take advantage of on-going implementation experience as well as extract
maximum information from research/demonstration activities. If there is
an identified need of external assistance with reporting the donor should
ensure that this is provided. During the final phase of SWaCAP, specific
studies (detailed in the main report page 73-76) to analyse programmes
experiences should be undertaken. The evaluation feels that it is critical
that the studies be conducted while SWaCAP staff are still available for
consultation and while the programme’s interventions are still remembered
by farmers.
The MOA is in the process of formulting an appropriate extension
approach for Lesotho. On the assumption that a multi-purpose extension
force will form the basis of future extension methodology the evaluation
recommends that future intervention considers: (a) appropriate measures
(with regard to supervision, staff levels, staff training and operating
means) to support an effective multi-purpose extension system based on
genuine "client demand"; (b) the concept of RCs should be revisited
prior to further duplication and criteria of choice of location be adjusted
with provisions for on-farm follow-up by EA; and (c) the concept of client
demand should equally be revised to include a two way approach to taping
this demand from the inception of project.
At the RC levels the following steps should be taken:
(i) experienced and adequately remunerated ASs with sufficient administrative
authority would need to be appointed; (ii) a core of staff would need
to be stationed at each RC; (iii) a concerted, intensive effort of training
based on real needs would have to be conducted to allow EAs to function
confidently as genuine multi-purpose agents; (iv) effective lines of communication
would have to be reinforced between the Extension Assistants ASs and SMSs
Districts ; and (v) adequate means for the EA to function, including access
to transport would need to be provided.
IFAD should extend further suppport to adaptive research
pending on MOA completely re-orientating and re-organizing its research
structure. Realistically salary levels in ARD would have to be raised
if they are to become competitive with alternative sources of employment.
The time is currently ripe for agricultural research in Lesotho
to be rationalised and more emphasis given on to a Farm Systems Approach.
It is recommended that IFAD should assist, through SWaCAP funds if available,
in this process. Two workshops would be needed. The first, involving farmers,
government, donors, NGOs and other interested agencies, should assess,
define and prioritise farmers’ needs. On the basis of this effort,
a second workshop involving the same participants should devise the outline
for future agricultural research directions, priorities and methodologies.
Data from AF components’ on-station and on-farm
trials/demonstrations should be compiled and assessed prior to the closure
of the project. If necessary, assistance should be given to SWaCAP to
carry out this task. It is recommended that the assessment of results
be considered a priority. Steps should be taken to consolidate
the position of AF within Lesotho’s research establishment. For the
incorporation of AF in ARD to have any real relevance the ARD’s research
priorities and approaches will need to be thoroughly re-assessed along
the lines suggested in para. 57.
With regard to on-going SWaCAP research activities
the following recommendations are made: (i) SWaCAP should complete and
strengthen its provision of infrastructure for ARD’s research sub-stations
regardless of how these facilities are used; (ii) an effort should be
made during the final stages of SWaCAP to intensively train its TOs in
AF research techniques without jeopardising on-going activities; (iii)
a consultancy on the rural communities’ perception of AF is recommended;
and (iv) The IFAD-supported Sustainable Mountain Area Agriculture Development
Programme (under design) should incorporate AF research and, provided
the GOL undertakes comprehensive review of its agricultural research agenda,
IFAD should continue to support AF research initiated by SWaCAP within
and outside the mountain environment.
A detailed field study, using a practically-oriented agronomist and
a sociologist familiar with Lesotho conditions, should be undertaken to
investigate thoroughly over a number of years the yield response of rip-line
technologies developed under SWaCAP over various soil charactristics
and socio-economic conditions. The purpose is to precisely determine the
causes for the current non-adoption by farmers and device solutions.
Small enterprise development (e.g. private nurseries)
must observe appropriate forward and backward linkages and business principles.
Equipment or start-up materials must be understood to be a loan and not
a gift, with a clear understandings of expected repayment/return. Those
who agree to enter a business must be assisted initially with training,
identification of markets, connecting with it, effecting sales and keeping
track of costs. They should be capable to sustain such activities without
further intervention. Continuous dependence on a project entity or government
is self-defeating.
There is a urgent need for objective soil erosion research.
Donga prevention and control would benefit from an understanding of the
role of the geomorphological and hydrological processes in their formation.
A serious effort should be made to collect quantitative data which can
support or refute many of the standard beliefs about gully origin, growth
and control. This can only be a long-term project, since erosion processes
occur over time.
As with all SWaCAP-supported activities, the programmes’ experiences
with both bee-keeping and small-scale irrigation should be carefully documented
and detailed financial analyses provided for both enterprises. Small-scale
irrigation, particularly, is an area that future projects should consider.
Careful investigation and planning is necessary to assure that the water
supply is adequate, the potential participants are suitable and that sufficient
technical advice is available.
The MFS concept needs support. Given the current situation
with regard to MOA perception of the concept and its research capacity,
support to the Machobane Foundation would be the most effective way of
investigating and supporting the MFS. Regardless of whether IFAD and/or
other donors chose to support the foundation the following is required:
(i) detailed cost/benefit studies of the MFS over a number of years including
input, price, marketing implication of soil erosion and pest control;
(ii) MOA should officially recognise the MFS concept as an alternative
to current inorganic fertiliser-based systems and integrate into its extension
system; and (iii) the MFS is a concept based on the re-cycling of organic
materials and synergy between intercrops/relay crops, which in terms of
crops grown and methods already has many variations. Formal studies into
the multitude of practices that could be used within the MFS concept (for
example shallow ripping, deep ripping) should be undertaken.
Lessons learned
The SWaCAP design was largely based on the seemingly successful experience
of another donor in conservation activities. During implementation a change
in course had to be effected. Replication of Donors’ successful
interventions, particularly in complex fields like soil and water
conservation should be encouraged. To be viable, however, such replication
should be done only following a thorough evaluation of these experiences
which assesses farmers’ acceptability and the specific conditions
under which such experience appeared to be valid.
Extension Strategies based on Client Demand can easily
run the risk of becoming Supply Driven. It is inadequate
to assume that the resource poor farmers will take the initiatives of
visiting frequently Resource Centres to pick and choose from available
technological options. This behaviour can be typically expected from progressive
farmers. A two ways interaction is indispensable when dealing with poor
farmers. Extensionists should contact farmers in location and motivate
them to visit and use the Centres’ facilities. Centre visits, per
se, are no guarantee for adoption. Researchers have to learn to develop
their trials programmes with the farmers so that ultimate extension
advice and options offered are pertinent. Stimulating client demand for
packages and technologies developed in isolation of users socio-economic
context is a supply based strategy. Genuine "Client Demand"
necessitates a clear understanding by implementing agencies of their customers
real needs; before options are developed and offered.
In the context of conservation activities incentives
should be distinguished from subsidies. Incentives are measures
to motivate or stimulate an individual to act in a certain way/adopt a
certain practice. A subsidy is a payment (in cash or kind) provided to
reduce the cost/raise the returns of an activity. Subsidies are often
used, as in the case of SWaCAP, to reduce the cost of a number of conservation
activities for the farmers. When subsidies were discontinued practices
too were discontinued. Incentives on the other hand relate to the direct
benefit resulting from practicing a specific activity (increment in production
in the case of conservation). If this benefit is sustainable so will be
the practice. Subsidies can be construed as incentives if production increases
from conservation are delayed for some time, due to the nature of the
activity, and farmers have no means to bear the loss incurred over this
period. In such a case, the subsidy should be categorically related to
losses incurred and phased out over time in proportion to production increase/decrease
in losses.
The fast adoption of the Machobane farming system by
a large number of farmers flies in the face of donors’ attempts to
integrate conservation methods into farmers’ regular practices. While
several interpretations can be advanced, the single most important factor
is that the system offers farmers, within one season of adoption,
what seems to be a sustainable increase in net income from a cash/food
crop. Simultaneously, increments in food supply and net income
for the rural household are realized. These incentives are sufficiently
attractive that farmers are willing to invest their time, despite scarcity
of labour to train other farmers willing to adopt the system. The level
of financial input of this technology, the dedication of its promoters
and the fact that its success is demonstrated by other farmers in the
communities are also important. Promoters of conservation techniques have
to remember that as long as the practice itself does not result in a quick
felt benefit to the poor farmer, adoption will not take place. This basic
and simple economic fact is most often overlooked by donors and governments
alike.
Experiences
SWaCAP clearly illustrates the need for adequate consultation
between beneficiaries, implementing agencies and donors.
Because the interventions promoting conservation-based agricultural production
were not seen as attractive by farmers they had little impact. Regardless
of pressure from donors and/or government to proceed quickly to implementation,
focused studies,which identify the needs and priorities of the beneficiaries
and assess the capabilities of the implementing agencies, should be formalised
as a routine procedure between inception and formulation phases in project
design. During implementation interactions with beneficiaries for feedback
on project interventions should be done on a continuous basis.
The complexities of formulating and implementing major changes
to bureaucratic government organisations
(the MOA’s extension system in the case of SWaCAP), whose key players
are likely to have their own agendas often driven by donors’ conflicting
approaches, should not be under-estimated. If, after all avenues are explored,
agreement cannot be reached with governments or is only grudgingly given,
donors may be better off abandoning the intervention.
IFAD, regardless of pressure to disburse funds, should be prepared
to take action if critical Loan Agreement conditions are
not met, in the interests of the programmes or projects. Had more pressure
been exerted by IFAD on MOA to appoint ASs the re-organisation of the
extension service is likely to have been considerably more advanced. Similarly
if the AF and on-farm research components had been forced to report their
work properly comprehensive trial results might now be available. IFAD’s
failure, despite repeated demands by OPS for better reporting, to take
action be it sanctions or direct assistance with reporting, has been unfortunate.
Supervision missions are likely to benefit from periodical
changes (or addition) to the composition of their team members to include
disciplines pertinent to the problem at hand. Neither the OPS missions
or the MTR recognised the weaknesses inherent in the CIS proposals.
Gullies result for actions and practices undertaken
by the rural community as a whole. The reclamation of dongas or the prevention
of their formation must therefore be addressed by communities with appropriate
government guidance. Effective attention to dongas is beyond the resources
and control of a single individual.
There is a need for a financial analysis to validate any technical
options for farmers’ point of view.. None of the on-farm
research recommendations or the activities relating to the CIS packages
were financially analysed. Had the viability of village nurseries and
reclamation of dongas been analysed, these activities would not have been
undertaken in the forms in which they were implemented.
Enough time should be allowed for on-farm research.
SWaCAP’s initial intention of "refining" FISC findings
over one season was unrealistic. The bulk of the programme’s research
activities spaned over four years - this represents a minimum time-frame.
The programme would have benefited from a further period of focused investigations
to fine-tune findings.
Targeting should be accomplished through project activities
and in close consultation with the community rather than through assessment
of an individual’s socio-economic status. Targets should involve
identifying a group or communities worthy of assistance, working with
them to assess needs, and then designing a project to fill those needs.
The nature of the project would limit potential beneficiaries outside
the target group (self-targeting activities).
