1. 1
Tearfund
TEARFUND-OPERATION TRUMPET CALL
2015
Jan-Feb 2015 OTC-
Impact Evaluation
Field work carried out from January 26 through
February 7, 2015
Report author: Chris Woodring
Contributors: Ken Flower and Nicole Senderayi
Tearfund Zimbabwe, 19 Broadlands Road, Avondale, Harare

2. 2
Contents
Contents
Glossary.............................................................................................................................................3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................4
Background........................................................................................................................................8
Methodology......................................................................................................................................8
FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................11
CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................. 25
RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................. 26
ANNEX 1: Draft Action Plan............................................................................................................ 37
ANNEX 2: Evaluation Team............................................................................................................. 42
ANNEX 3: Map of OTC Sites........................................................................................................... 43
ANNEX 4: Map of Selected OTC Sites.............................................................................................. 44
ANNEX 5: Selected OTC Sites Characterizations............................................................................... 44
ANNEX 6: Sample Community Mapping .......................................................................................... 47
ANNEX 7: Key Informants............................................................................................................... 48
ANNEX 8 Documents reviewed........................................................................................................49
ANNEX 9: Interview Guides-FGDs, Farm Visits, Stakeholder Interviews........................................... 50
ANNEX 10: Pfumvudza and Actual Sample Cost Analysis .................................................................60
ANNEX 11: Terms of Reference for the Evaluation............................................................................ 63
ANNEX 12: Evaluation Schedule ......................................................................................................71
ANNEX 13: Persons participating in the Evaluation ........................................................................... 72
ANNEX 14: Field data used during the Evaluation, including baselines ............................................... 73
ANNEX 15: Bibliography................................................................................................................. 73
ANNEX 16: A self-evaluation of the evaluation using the BOND evidence principles .......................... 74

3. 3
Glossary
AER Agro Ecological Region
CA ConservationAgriculture
CYMMT International Maize andWheatImprovement Centre
EFZ Evangelical Fellowshipof Zimbabwe
FAO Foodand Agriculture Organization
FfF FoundationsforFarming
FGD FocusGroup Discussion
Ha Hectare
HH House Hold
MT Metric Tonne
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NFCZ NewFrontiersChurchinZimbabwe
OTC OperationTrumpetCall
RoL Riverof Life

4. 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 Background (page 8)
Operation Trumpet Call (OTC) is a conservation agriculture (CA) project supported by Tearfund
New Zealand, UK, Australia, and Netherlands, World Vision Canada; and a number of Zimbabwe
church partners. OTC uses the Foundations for Farming faith-based approach to promote
conservation agriculture and is in the last year of a six year intervention. This evaluation
focuses on the impact of the agricultural techniques, the methodology of implementation
through the local church and the evidence for holistic transformation, providing quantitative
and qualitative evidence of the impact of Foundations for Farming in Zimbabwe.
 Evaluation Methodology (pages 8 to 11)
This evaluation was carried out by a team of 8 evaluators, including OTC staff, Tearfund partner
staff and independent evaluators. The team used 4 tools: Focus Group Discussions, farmvisits,
key informant interviews, and literature review.
 Findings (pages 11-25)
1. OTC AS COMPARED TO PEER ORGANIZATIONS: OTC promotes similar CA technology as
its peers but differs in that it also promotes the management principals of timeliness, to
standard, without wastage, and with joy; originally it provided free inputs but has
discontinued this practice. It is unique in that it organizes all programming through
local churches instead of secular farmer groups, possibly a more sustainable model.
While most NGOs peers target resource poor families, OTC invites all community
members to participate regardless of need.
2. PROJECT IMPACT: Farmers who adopted CA through OTC have increased yields. The
OTC farmers visited during the evaluation averaged 717 kg of maize per farmer in 2014,
providing sufficient maize to cover a typical family’s maize consumption for a year. The
yield per Ha was 1.5 to 2.4 MT, depending on the point of reference.
 CA production comes at a high labour cost. Farmers reported that CA requires
more labour than conventional production per Ha and per MT of grain produced.
 Increased production has led to improvements in schooling, household supplies,
livestock holdings, and increased vegetable gardening.
 Women specific impacts included improvements in food production and income
while men were better able to improve family food security.
 Girls and boys particularly benefited from the increased income being applied to
their school fees

5. 5
3. EVIDENCE OF LONG TERM CHANGE, ADAPTATION, AND LOCAL OWNERSHIP:
About 14% of OTC farmers are now using CA for all grain production. The average
farmer has 2.5 Ha and is using 0.48 HA for CA. During the 2015 evaluation the average
crop appearance for the CA farmers was very similar to that of their conventional
neighbours. Several critical CA components were poorly adopted, or not adopted at all,
especially crop rotation, permanent soil cover and weed control. Little signs of adapting
the systemto the local environment were observed.
4. MONITORING AND EVIDENCE COLLECTION: The monitoring platforms did not
consistently report on project indicators. Some project objectives were not reported on
or tracked while weak indicators of change were sometimes used. There were
significant variations between the OTC official participant lists and those used in the
community.
5. THE CHURCH AS AN EXTENSION VEHICLE AND VEHICLE FOR HOLISTIC CHANGE:
Evaluation participants were positive about the church as a vehicle for change while
there were a few cautionary observations. Almost all Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
identified at least one holistic change (any HH change beyond increased yields). Most
of the reported changes were a direct result of increased income. There were a small
number of changes reported that reflected changes in values, including increased family
harmony, better relationships between spouses, and less drunkenness.
 Conclusions (pages 25 to 27)
1. The FfF approach to CA used by OTC is achieving similar results as its peers promoting
hoe based CA in Zimbabwe and abroad. Most farmers are adopting minimal tillage but
neglecting or not adopting permanent soil cover and rotations. Most farmers are
adopting CA on a small portion of their land. Most farmers are increasing the amount of
labour needed to farm but are more food secure as a result.
The technological limitations are the same and similar results are being achieved when
looking at three key results areas:
 yield per hectare has increased dramatically over conventional, often more than
100%
 total land area adopted is usually a small portion of the total available, between
0.15 and 0.5 of a Ha
 total production (or value of production) through CA is often about the amount the
family actually consumes in a year; 800-1000 kg
2. The key limitation to increasing the impact of OTC programming is the high labour
demand of the system.
 The labour demand manifests itself most critically in weed control because weed
control must be done in a short window of time during the growing season to
achieve good yields. Farmers cannot plant an area larger than they can effectively
weed.

6. 6
 The preparation of basins, preparation of composts and the external sourcing of
mulch also all imply large labour demands
3. Both OTC and peers report holistic changes as a result of their programming.
 Farmers have better health, their children have better schooling, their homes
are more comfortable, they have more cattle, and they often have more
businesses.
 Holistic changes related to changes in values and attitudes were reported
sparingly by both OTC trained and non-OTC trained CA farmers. In particular
CA appears to offer increased gender harmony and family well-being.
However, conflicts do arise from CA adoption in families and communities,
often in response to the struggle for scarce resources, especially land, manure
and fodder.
4. Project Reporting covers yields per Ha extensively and the level of adoption of
some of the components of CA but does not report on the increase in the amount
of food or income attributable to FfF, probably the most important measurable
result of programming.
 Yields per Ha do not indicate how much was actually produced, or if it is
more profitable than the previous system.
The cell phone platform has not gathered monitoring information in the quantities
and timeliness needed to be credible for reporting purposes. Project participation
is not reflected faithfully by the official registration lists.
 Recommendations (pages 27 to 37)
GENERAL RECCOMENDATION #1: Tearfund and River of Life should continue to
develop and promote CA with small holder farmers in Zimbabwe, Africa and
around the world.
 CA is a powerful tool that often enables a food insecure family to become much
more food secure in just one season (Conclusion 1, bullets 1 &3; Finding #2) .
GENERAL RECCOMENDATION #2: Tearfund and River of Life should explore ways
to make the CA system more profitable.
 CA using the current basin and mulching technology is very accessible (simple,
only labour required), but farmers quickly reach the limitation of labour
availability, limiting their productivity and potential profit (Conclusion #1&2;
Findings #3).
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:

7. 7
1. CA programming should explore technologies that diminish labour, enhance farmers’
ability to increase their total land area under CA and adopt key CA principals
(Conclusion 1, bullet 1 &3; Finding #2 &3). Adaptation of CA to the local context is an
integral part of this process. Recommended paths include:
o low external input options such as green manure cover crops, live
fencing, and fodder production
o high external input options such as herbicides use paired with ox drawn
rippers, planters and manual jab planters
o Promotingdroughttolerantcrops indroughtprone areas
2. OTC/FfF programming should strengthen existing local structures (work with local
authorities) to increase CA adoption. Relationships with local traditional leadership and
government authorities should be cultivated and nourished (Finding #5).
3. OTC/FfF programming should actively seek to diminish points of friction in families
and communities, especially related tothe struggle for scarce resources, especially
land, manure and fodder. Local churches should be engaged throughout
programming to assume the vision of the program at the community level (Findings #5).
4. RoL should not take programming to new geographical areas until key challenges
have been successfully addressed, especially innovations that will enable adopting CA
to larger farm areas and effectively incorporating rotation and soil cover (Conclusion
#1&2; Findings #3).
5. OTC Monitoring and Evaluation Systems should be significantly improved. Project
impact indicators should be more focused, the cell phone platform reviewed and either
abandoned or made functional, registration lists should be updated regularly and
systematically. OTC monitoring and evaluation capacity should be increased (Conclusion
#4; Finding #4).
6. OTC project capacity building design should be field based. Training and monitoring
staff should be more locally based. Pastor and trainer events should be carried out
locally or regionally (Finding #1).
7. The design used for this evaluation is recommended for replication forother projects.
Key issues that should be considered include ensuring strong representation of women
on the evaluation team, ensuring the representation of women in FGDs, including youth
and children in the evaluation process, providing alternative interview formats for key
informant interviews, and ensuring good transportation logistics.

8. 8
Background
This evaluation of Operation Trumpet Call (OTC) was jointly commissioned by the 3 Tearfund
funding partners and RoL, under the authority of Ben Nicholson, Tearfund Zimbabwe country
representative, and in close coordination with Tearfund UK, Australia, New Zealand, and
Netherlands. OTC is a project of River of Life (RoL), the social action wing of the New Frontiers
Church in Zimbabwe. Tearfund has partnered with RoL since 2002 and supports RoL in training
farmers in Foundations for Farming (FfF) through OTC, now in its sixth and final year of
programming.
FfF is a faith-based approach to Conservation Agriculture (CA) based on the three key CA
principles (minimum tillage, crop rotation and permanent soil cover) combined with 4
management principles that address the need for holistic transformation. FfF is often
implemented through local churches.
There is evidence that CA is an effective approach for sustainable agriculture but there are
challenges to CA from academic sources. To respond to these challenges, improve effectiveness
and provide an evidence base for future programmes, The OTC stakeholders commissioned this
study to understand the impact of FfF in Zimbabwe through the OTC programme. This
evaluation focuses on the impact of the agricultural techniques of FfF, the methodology of
implementation through the local church and the evidence for holistic transformation. It
provides quantitative and qualitative evidence of the impact of FfF in Zimbabwe and is
expected give guidance for future programming to all partners’.
Methodology
Evaluation Team Selection: The evaluation team was selected by Tearfund Zimbabwe, in close
collaboration with OTC and RoL. Eight members were selected from diverse backgrounds: two
OTC staff, two Tearfund supported program staff from Zambia and Mozambique, two
independent evaluators from Zimbabwe, and two independent evaluators from outside
Zimbabwe. See Annex 2 for a brief description of each team member.
Evaluation Site Selection: Twelve of 70 project sites were selected (17%). Before selection all
sites were characterized by OTC according to province, years of participation, number of
participants, change in participation over time, rural/urban location, climatic conditions, and
type of land holding. Sites were selected to be representative of the larger group. For
example, 50 of the 70 groups were formed in 2010 (71%); as a result, 8 of the 12 sites were
selected randomly from these 50 sites formed in 2010 (67%). Of those sites chosen from 2010

9. 9
a proportional selection was made of sites based on a net gain or loss of members, climatic
conditions (agro ecological regions 3, 4, and 5), rural/urban location, and type of land holdings.
Eighteen sites located in Mashonaland and the extreme north of Matabeleland North were
removed from the selection in order to diminish travel time and make it possible to visit a larger
number of sites. All other sites were included in the selection process.
The selections were made by the team leader, an external evaluator with no prior knowledge of
sites. The initial selection was shared with OTC and it was observed that no sites from the
higher rainfall regions had been selected. As a result two sites from low rainfall were replaced
with sites from higher rainfall areas from the same region. No other changes were made in site
selection. See ANNEX 3 for a map of all OTC sites and ANNEX 4 for a map of the selected sites.
See ANNEX 5 for a summary of key characteristics of the sites selected. The initial site selection
was carried out and shared with the implementing partner 18 days before starting field work
and the final selection was confirmed 10 days before the evaluation team arrived in the field,
diminishing the risk of manipulation of the sites by the local partner.
FGD Participant Selection: Thirty six FGDs were held, three per project site visited. The FGD
participants were selected by the local OTC group leadership, usually a pastor or site trainer
directly in charge of organizing the local training site. Four different kinds of FGDs were
organized:
 OTC trained CA adopters
 CA volunteer adopters inspired by OTC programming
 CA adopters trained by other agencies (government and other NGO trainers)
 Conventional farmers.
Every site had a FGD with OTC trained farmers, for a total of 12 FGDs with OTC trained farmers.
The other three types were assigned to each site randomly with a total of eight each. 195
farmers participated in FGDs; 121 females and 74 males. There were 25 male/44 female OTC
trained CA adopters, 13 male/31 female CA volunteer adopters inspired by OTC, 14 male/23
female CA adopters trained by other agencies, and 22 male/23 female conventional farmers.
Farmer Selection/Farm Visits: A total of 149 farmers were visited in their homes and fields.
75 were OTC trained farmers and 74 were conventional farmers. The farmers visited had the
following socio-economic characteristics:
 Gender: 69% of the OTC farmers were women; 31% were men. 68% of the
conventional farmers were women; 32% were men.
 HH Size: OTC farmers reported an average of 5.9 family members. Conventional
farmers reported 6.3 family members.

10. 10
 Main Livelihood: 78% of the OTC farmers identified farming as their main livelihood.
68% of the conventional farmers identified farming as their main livelihood.
 Land Holdings: OTC farmers reported holding an average of 2.5 Ha. Conventional
farmers reported holding 2.7 Ha.
 Livestock Holdings: OTC farmers reported holding an average of 3.6 cattle and 7.7
goats or sheep. Conventional farmers reported holding 6 cattle and 5.9 goats or sheep.
OTC Farmer Selection: OTC farmers targeted for field visits were selected randomly from the
participant lists provided by the organization and updated by the local leadership. In most
cases these farmers were not participants in the FGDs. In most cases a map was drawn to
identify the physical locations of the different farmer clusters and then farmers were randomly
chosen from different clusters. For FGDs and farm visits there were three evaluation sub-teams
at each site. For farm visits by each sub-team, one OTC farmer was randomly chosen from the
identified clusters, followed by their closest OTC adopting neighbour, giving a total of six OTC
trained farmers visited at each site. The interval for selection was identified by confirming the
age of the eldest person in the meeting and using their age to create an interval for selection.
For example, if the eldest person present was 72 years old, every 9th person (7+2=9) on the list
was selected for a farm visit. In this way the community also participated in the random
selection of the farmers visited.
Conventional Farmer Selection: During each farm visit the closest conventional farmer to the
selected OTC trained farmer was visited. A total of 6 conventional farmers per site were
targeted for farm visits using this methodology. See ANNEX 5 for a sample of a community
participant map and farmer selection.
Key Informant Interviews: Key Informant interviews were carried out with RoL staff, AGRITEX,
Community leaders, peer organizations and government officials. See ANNEX 6 for a list of Key
Informant Interviews. Interviews were usually carried out with at least two evaluation team
members present. An interview guide was used to elicit relevant responses. A number planned
key informant interviews were not achieved due to scheduling difficulties, including visits with
CYMMYT, the Ministry of Agriculture, and Christian Care.
Literature Review: Key project documents were reviewed to provide baselines and context for
the evaluation. Research and report documents were used to provide additional context. See
ANNEX 8 for a complete summary of documents reviewed.
Arrangement of Data: for the purposes of this report the data is organized as follows:
FINDINGS: Data from Farm Visits and Focus Group Discussions; relevant information
gathered from documents reviews

11. 11
CONCLUSIONS: Concise conclusions based on analysis of the data from different
information sources
RECOMMENDATIONS: Pathways for change with concise rational
FINDINGS
Specific Objective 1: OTC approach to conservationagriculture as
comparedwith other approaches:
Key CA principals: OTC is similar to its peers in promoting the three key principals of CA:
minimal soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and crop rotation.
Additional FfF principals: In addition to the three CA technology principals, OTC also
embraces four management principles key to the Foundations for Farming methodology:
o on time
o to standard
o without wastage
o with joy
These additional principals are a holistic approach to address the need to change values and
attitudes. Good farmers and businesses also apply three of these four principals. Most
organizations promoting CA also promote planting on time and to standard, even though
they would not identify these two principals as independent management principals to be
actively promoted in their own right. The principals of “minimal wastage” and “with joy”
are probably unique to the FfF/Farming God’s Way movement.
Technology: Like many of its peers, OTC has been promoting hoe and animal traction based
CA as well as other complementary technologies including compost making, micro dosing
using manure and chemical fertilizer, improved seed use, OPV seed propagation, small
grains production, improved pest control, post-harvest grain storage, marketing, and others
related to grain production. While OTC reported promoting animal traction versions of CA,
only two of the practitioners visited or interviewed during the evaluation reported using an
ox drawn ripper. All others reported using the hoe. These same two farmers reported that
their principal source of training was German Agro Action and AGRITEX respectively.
Complementary Programming: While some peer organizations focus programming only on
CA production, OTC reported training farmers on unrelated food security activities, such as
bee keeping as well as ‘Basic Life Skills’ (BLS). It is unclear how prevalent or helpful this

12. 12
complementary training has been. It was mentioned by project staff and in reporting but
not by project participants in FGDs. The project report for year 5 indicates that concepts
taught through BLS training were learned by 40% of participants. No systematic reporting
was provided on the application of the training but anecdotal stories were provided
suggesting that there was some application in commercialization of vegetables, and an egg
layer project. Many other development organizations also promote income generation
activities, including market gardening, irrigation projects, and improved livestock rearing.
Free Inputs: OTC and peer organizations, including Oxfam, Christian Care, Christian Aid, the
Brethren in Christ Church and FAO (to name only a few) have promoted CA through the free
provision of inputs.
 OTC provided free seed in the first year of programming
 OTC is currently not providing free inputs
 Many other organizations continue to provide inputs (especially seed and fertilizer) or
subsidized inputs (Chinamasa, 2014), Oxfam (BISHOP, 2015), the FAO (Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2010), and many others (World Bank,
2015).
 OTC reporting shows a very strong link between the change in numbers of project
participants and inputs provision.
o One year of inputs based programming resulted in a 42% decrease in
participation over the first 4 years of programming.
o Programming without had an increase in participation of 72% in 2 years of
programming.
Church Based Programming: While there are a number of faith based organizations
promoting CA in Zimbabwe (Christian Aid, Christian Care, Caritas, Brethren in Christ Church,
among others), OTC is different in that it promotes CA using the local churches as its
framework. This framework is present in all Zimbabwe provinces. No other church based
promoter of CA was encountered working at a national level. Most other organizations
work closely with government authorities and organizations (AGRITEX, District Drought
Relief Committees, District Authority, etc.).
Formation of Farmer Groups: OTC and most other organizations promoting CA form
community farmer groups for training and monitoring purposes. While most of the
organizations promoting CA form temporary secular groups that disband at project end,
OTC works through church based farmer groups, a strategy that offers the possibility of
continued CA farmer support groups after the project has ended. While most NGOs target
families with the least resources, OTC programming invites all farmers to participate,
regardless of available resources.
Harare-based training: OTC carries out several training activities for pastors and lead
trainers for all sites at the Harare Foundations for Farming training centre. Other training is
carried out at field level and regional centres in Harare and Bulawayo.

13. 13
Specific Objective 2: Measurable Impact of OTC programming:in terms
of the impact of FfF’s conservation agriculture approach and the role of the
church as an extension agent and vehicle for holistic change.
Improved Yields & Food Availability: The most
often cited impact of CA adoption was increased
food availability. This was cited by 68% of the
FGDs. 65% of the FGDs also cited improved yields
as one of the key reasons for CA adoption.
The below table summarizes yield information for both CA and conventional farmers from
the farm visit data:
-Average farmsize:2.5 and
2.7 Ha for OTC and
conventional farmers,
respectively;OTCfarmers
plantedanaverage of 0.48
Ha underCA
Total
Harvest
(kg)
Yieldper
Ha (kg)
YieldPerHH member(kg)
-Average HHsize:5.9 and6.3 for OTC and
conventional farmers,respectively
CA-average perFarmer
717
2361 134
CA-average perHaplanted 1447 121
Conventional-Average per
farmer
1488
902 294
Conventional-Average perHa 729 238
A 3 year study in Zimbabwe from 2008-2010 showed similar increases in yields under CA,
going from about 800 kg per Ha under conventional to 1600 per Ha under CA (Mazvimavia,
“Now I have enough food for my family!”
~CA farmer from Gwanda FGD
Observations:
The smallest fields for both CA and conventional farmers had the highest
yields per Ha. As a result, yields per Ha per farmer are higher than total
yield per Ha for the total area under CA and Conventional
 More than 33% of OTC farmers had fields smaller than 0.2 Ha; about
25% had plots 0.1 or smaller, amplifying this effect for CA farmers

14. 14
Ndlovu, An, & Murendo, 2012). These yield are similar to those
encountered by this writer in visits to similar programs in
Zimbabwe and in other countries in Africa.
The above table does not take into account the conventional plot
most CA farmers planted. On average, CA farmers also planted
1.1 Ha under conventional tillage and harvested 743 kg per
farmer/559 kg per Ha. As a result the total amount of maize
available to CA and Conventional farmers was almost identical,
1460 for CA farmers as compared to 1488 for Conventional
farmers.
There appears to be an incoherence between the farmers claimto be more food secure and
the fact that they produce almost exactly the same total amount as their conventional
neighbors.
There is no incoherence. The families claimto be significantly more food secure in FGDs,
individual interviews, and anecdotally, and this is almost certainly the case. They are poorer
than their neighbors, as shown by their livestock holdings and as reflected by their lower
conventional yields per Ha (559 kg/Ha for CA farmers as compared to 729 kg/Ha for
conventional farmers). Their original total harvest before adopting CA was almost certainly
significantly lower than after adoption. Now they are able to produce similar amounts of
grain as their neighbors on less land.
Labour: 68% of the FGDs observed that CA requires more labour, and harder labour. See
below table comparing labour requirements for CA and conventional farming in terms of
labour per Ha and labour per MT of grain produced:
Labour perHa inperson
days
Labour perMT harvestedinperson
days
CA-average perfarmer 298.5 days 201.1 days
CA-average perHa 172.2 days 130.9 days
Conventional-average per
farmer
83.0 days 173.6 days
Conventional-average perHa 59.5 days 81.6 days
For comparison purposes:
 An evaluation of Christian Care CA programming carried out in 2011 reported that
between 75 and 277 days are required to prepare a Ha of CA, depending on the number
CA FARMERS
PRODUCE ABOUT
THE SAME TOTAL
HARVEST AS
CONVENTIONAL
NEIGHBORS.

15. 15
of years of adoption and other factors, as
compared to 49 to 51 for conventional tillage
(Woodring & Braul, Conservation Farming in
Zimbabwe Evaluation Report, 2011).
 A referenced study in 2009 showed that
between 109 and 122 days are required per Ha
for CA while 69-77 are required for
conventional tillage (Mazvimavi & Twomlow,
2009).
The possible significance of this finding cannot be
overstated. First, this is a question that warrants
further study since it is a key challenge to CA
adoption. CA probably is more labour intensive
than conventional under poor management; for
example, the labour cost is almost identical,
whether a farmer applies fertilizer or not; but
there is a huge difference in labour per MT
produced depending on just that factor. If CA is
only more profitable than conventional when all high standards are adhered to, our
programming will fail because the participating farmers have not been able to achieve these
high standards.
Farmers may still find CA a valuable option, even if their return on labour is lower than
conventional. If they do not have other options for employment, they may choose CA
because it provides them with a return for their time as compared to idleness. However,
farmers will abandon CA as soon as they encounter a more profitable option.
Long Term Impacts:
Improved family economy: 32% of
the FGDs reported that CA
improved the family economy.
Economic impacts included
improved cattle holdings, ability to
pay school fees, increased
household supplies, among many
others reported. As a result of
increased yields and farm
Key Finding: Many families now have enough
maize and are no longer balancing on the
knife’s edge of hunger.
“CA changed my life. I used to pay others to
farm, now I have money for school fees, to
invest in other businesses.”
~CA Farmer, Nkayi FGD
OTC promoted CA:
less efficient than
conventional
The data providedbythe farmers
suggeststhat:
 CA farmers produced 4.9
Kg of maize per day of
labour
 Conventional farmers
produced 5.8 kg per day
of labour.

16. 16
profitability some FGD participants reported investments and activities in other productive
areas such as commercial vegetable gardens and livestock.
Improved education: 45% of FGDs reported that families are now better able to pay school
fees and other educational expenses. In FGDs this was the most cited impact of CA for girls
although boys also benefited.
Quality of FamilyLife:Most FGDs reported differentkindsof qualityof life impactsdue toCA
adoption,including:
• Peace of mind for women and men as the family economy improves and as there is a
greater probability of a harvest, even in drought years
• Greater purchasing power & increased consumption of clothes, purchased foods,
kitchen ware, and other HH goods
• An increased ability to produce food without relying on others, especially for oxen
for ploughing.
o For women this has been liberating. For abandoned, widowed, and
otherwise single women this has given them the ability to produce their own
food without relying on men for tillage.
o For married women CA has provided them with their own source of income.
o For men without cattle this has enabled them to improve their family food
security in spite of their diminished resources.
• Improved teamwork between husband and wife as they work together on their fields
with improved results.
• Increased opportunities for boys to contribute to productive labour, deviating them
from antisocial activities (such as theft) to farm production, enhancing family and
community quality of life
• Two FGDs reported that CA adoption can bring conflict to families, especially when
only one of the HH heads attempts to adopt:
o There is sometimes a struggle for land access as men usually control land use
and are reluctant to provide women with land for production.
o When women have success and increased resources, at times their husbands
become jealous.
o When increased amounts of labour and labour outside the traditional
agricultural season are required, resentment and family pressure can result.
Profitability: CA clearly increases
yields per Ha, however, this is not
the same thing as profitability.
Some data generated by the
evaluation process suggests that the
current package of technology
frequently promoted may not be
profitable in many parts of the country and may not produce a living wage ($5 a day or
Key Finding: CA maize production may
not providea living wageof even $5 a
day; or may producemaize at a loss.

17. 17
more). Using the cost data provided by the Foundations for
Farming Pfumvudza initiative as a point of reference, farmers in
higher rainfall regions (AER 1-3) may generate a wage of $4.41
a day (based on an average yield of 6MT and maize sale price of
$265/MT). In lower rainfall areas with yields of 3MT per Ha or
less the farmer will not cover the cost of seed and fertilizer.
Under the assumptions of zero cash inputs (the farmer
produces their own seed and fertilizer for ‘free’) and using the
actual reported yields and labour costs from this evaluation
and project reporting farmers might generate a wage of
between $2 and $4 a day (see ANNEX 8 for a detailed
worksheet).
 INCRISAT data from 232 farmers from 12 districts using
hoe based CA in 2006-2007 showed a return on labour
of between $5.22 and $5.26 per days labour (Mazvimavi & Twomlow, 2009)
 FAO data from 2012 reports a return on labour in CA of between 10 and 15 cents an
hour, or $0.8 to $1.20 for an 8 hour day (Marongwe, Nyagumbo, Kwazira, Kassam, &
Friedrich, 2012)
The main issue with profitability in CA is labour. The promoted CA systemis labour
intensive in 4 key areas:
 Holing out
 Mulching
 Weeding
 Compost making
It is unclear if all of these are profitable practices.
 Mulching by bringing in external stover doesn’t make logical sense; it amounts to
teaching our farmers to steal the ‘gold’ from other
fields (even if it is their own conventional fields).
Furthermore, bringing in grass and forest leaves has
never been adopted by small holder farmers in the
long term, except in a few rare cases where farmers
receive constant monitoring visits. It is probably
not profitable!
 Composting in dry land field crops (crops
other than vegetables and wet land rice) has never
been adopted by small holder farmers in the long
term, except in a few rare cases (Bunch, 2012). It is
probably not profitable!
External Sourced Mulch
& Composting:
Probably not profitable!
“Most people
hesitate in
adopting CA
because it is
laborious. Time
required in CA is
too much.”
~OTC farmer, Bezha FGD

18. 18
Specific Objective 3: Evidence of long term change, adaptation, and
local ownership
Long term adoption of a technology
can be measured by the degree to
which practitioners adopt it, in
exclusion of competing
technologies. Long term adoption
of CA can be measured by the
amount of land dedicated to the 3
key principals of CA production as
compared to the amount of land
dedicated to production using
conventional tillage. In the OTC
2014 year-end report 60 to 70% of beneficiaries were “modelling FfF to acceptable
standards,” suggesting a similar level of adoption. The adoption of specific principles were
not reported on, although some information was available from the complementary
monitoring and evaluation report from the same year. During this evaluation adoption of
the specific principles were encountered as follows:
Minimum Tillage
• About 14% of OTC farmers are now using minimum tillage for all grain production
• OTC farmers are currently planting an average of 0.48 Ha of grain under minimum
tillage.
o This is above the average of 0.31 reported in the 2014 Complementary
Monitoring and Evaluation Report and well above the average of 0.17 per CA
farmer reported in the Christian Care Evaluation report from 2011.
• OTC farmers are currently planting an average of 1.1 Ha of grain under conventional
production
• For OTC farmers there has been no significant change in the amount of land
dedicated to minimum tillage and conventional tillage when comparing the current
season with the previous season.
Permanent Soil Cover: Data from the evaluation showed that 3% had adopted mulch
on more than 75% of their plot, while the average plot was 24% mulched. The
September 2014 Complementary Monitoring and Evaluation Report for OTC reported
that 17% of farmers had mulching in 2014. It is unclear from that report if 17% of OTC
farmers had mulching to standard or applied any amount of mulch.
Key Finding: Two of the three CA
pillars have not been widely
adopted:
 Permanent Soil Cover
 Rotation

19. 19
Crop Rotation: 32% of OTC trained CA farmers
showed evidence of an active rotation in their
fields as compared to 21% of conventional
farmers who reported or demonstrated
rotations in their fields. The Complementary
Monitoring and Evaluation Report from
September 2014 reported that 75% of
participants used crop rotation.
In addition OTC has promoted 4 management
principles: on time, to standard, without
wastage, and with joy. No attempt was made by the evaluation to gather quantitative
information on wastage and joy; however, information was gathered as concerns
timeliness, and to standard.
Timeliness: there was an average variation of 15.3 days between the optimal planting
date (based on farmer’s identification of the first effective rains for their community)
and the actual planting date as reported by the farmers. Ideally the difference would be
‘0’.
To Standard:
• The level of weed control is a reflection
of work done to standard. Using a scale
of 1 to 4 (1 being very well controlled
weeds and 4 being uncontrolled weeds)
weeding by OTC Farmers was rated at
2.0, between ‘poorly controlled’ and
’well controlled’. Weeding by
conventional farmers on the same scale
was very similar, 1.9.
• Crop Stand: the appearance of the crop in the field is the
sum of the environment and many different aspects of
management to standard, including the quality of the seed,
the plant population, fertility, and weed control. Both OTC
trained and conventional farmers’ fields were compared and
scored as to their crops’ general appearance on the day of the
visit. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the best and 5 being
the worst:
o OTC trained farmers had an average score of 2.1
o Conventional farmers had an average score of 2.3
“THOSE WHO ARE
PRACTICINGCAARE
NOT BETTER THAN
US!”
Conventional Farmer,
Rathanyana FGD
CA without rotation &
soil cover is like a one-
legged stool!

20. 20
Adoption of other promoted farm practices:
Compost: 14% of the OTC trained farmers used
compost fertilizer as compared to 1% of the
conventional farmers from the same communities.
Winter Weeding: 61% of OTC trained farmers
reported carrying out winter weeding. 20% of the
conventional farmers reported winter weeding.
Stover Use: 26% of the OTC trained farmers used
stover for mulch and 21% used stover for
compost, while 59% used stover as livestock
fodder. 93% of the conventional farmers used
stover as fodder and 4% of conventional farmers
used stover for compost making.
Adaptation tothe local environment: Conservation
agriculture must be adapted to the local conditions for best
results. Adaptation to the local context is one indicator of the
degree to which local farmers have adopted the technology
sustainably. No significant adaptation of the CA systemto the
local context was observed. Maize appears to have been
promoted equally across all regions, even in the lowest
rainfall areas (AER 4 & 5) where millet and sorghum and other
crops are more reliable in the drought conditions frequent in
those areas.
Specific Objective 4: Effectiveness of
monitoring and evidence collection
IndicatorReporting:
Challenges with
Rotation and Soil
Cover
Why don’t our farmers
rotate their crops in CA?
 To date FfF is mainly
focused on growing maize
for home consumption.
Families consume a MT
of maize a year; they
cannot consume 0.5 Ha
of any legume they might
rotate with their maize (or
millet or sorghum)
 The market for maize is
weak in many rural areas.
It is hard to sell 5 MT
locally. It is often far
weaker for beans, cow
peas, soya beans, etc.
Why don’t our farmers
mulch?
 The labour involved in
bringing in external mulch
is often very high
 The stover from the crop
is generally not enough
for a robust mulch cover,
enough to control the
weeds
 Farmers love their cattle;
in many dry areas cattle
may be a more reliable,
drought tolerant form of
food security then CA
maize

21. 21
Monitoring and evaluation should
provide timely, accurate, and
relevant information covering the
indicators of change of a particular
intervention as well as other
relevant information.
The project identified two key impact indicators/targets:
• 75% of Participating households produce 1,5 tonnes/hectare
• FfF yield is higher than yields of traditional cultivation techniques by 50% by 2015
There are a number of indicators for change in practice that have been reported on by
various platforms, even though these were not identified in the approved proposal,
including:
• Adoption of permanent soil cover (mulching)
• Adoption of crop rotation
• Adoption of composting
• Numerous others (not covered directly in this report)
There are a number of expected project impacts that were identified in the planning
documents that were not covered in reporting by the various platforms, including:
• awareness of nutrition and health
• access to education and health
• reduce the need for labour migration
There are four key sources to compare project progress: the December 2, 2014 OTC year 5
annual report, the September, 2014 Complementary Monitoring and Evaluation Report, the
Operation Trumpet Call Cell Phone Data Report (April – July 2014) covering 122 farmers and
this evaluation report. The below table compares the information from these sources:
Target/Indi
cator
December 2,
2014 OTC year 5
annual report to
Tearfund UK
2014
Complementary
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Report
Mobile
Phone
Platform-
Jan-July
2014.
Jan-Feb 2015 OTC-
Impact Evaluation
75% of
participati
ng
household
s produce
68% in
2013/2014
% of
participating
households
producing 1.5
Not Available 60% of the visited
households produced at
1.5 MT or more per
hectare in 2013/2014
season.
Key Findings:
 There are large reporting gaps
 The mobile phone platform hasn’t
measured many key indicators

22. 22
1.5
tonnes/hec
tare
MT or over not
reported
-OTC farmers
averaged 2.5
MT per Ha on
their CA plots.
FfF yield is
higher
than yields
of
traditional
cultivation
techniques
by 50% by
2015
OTC FfF yield is
320% of the
national average
yield in
2013/2014.
-OTC national
average for
2013/2014 was
2.66 t/ha
compared to 0.83
t/ha (ZIMVAC).
OTC yield is
141% higher
than the yields
of conventional
farmers from
the same
communities in
2013/2014
Not Available OTC FfF average yield
per Ha per farmer was
160% higher than the
yield per farmer of
conventional farmers
from the same
communities
OTC FfF yield per total
Ha planted was 98%
higher than the yield per
Ha of conventional
farmers from the same
communities
Practice
Outcomes:
December 2,
2014 OTC year 5
annual report to
Tearfund UK
2014
Complementary
Monitoring and
Evaluation
Report
Mobile
Phone
Platform-
Jan- July
2014.
Jan-Feb 2015 OTC-
Impact Evaluation
% of OTC
farmers
using
mulch.
Not part of
Proposal/Reporti
ng Framework
86% of OTC
farmers
collected mulch
in 2014.
Data
available but
not include in
report
56% of OTC farmers
used at least some
mulch in 2014/2015
planting season. 3%
mulched their entire
field.
% of OTC
farmers
using
compost
Not part of
Proposal/Reporti
ng Framework
54% of OTC
farmers had
started a
compost in
2014.
46% of OTC
farmers had
started a
compost by
July of 2014.
12% of OTC farmers used
compost in 2014/2015
planting season.
% of
beneficiari
es using
Not part of
Proposal/Reporti
ng Framework
75% of
beneficiaries
use crop
rotation,
32% of OTC participants
used crop rotation,
compared to 21% of

23. 23
crop
rotation
compared to
47% of non-
beneficiaries.
(2013/2014)
non-beneficiaries.
(2014/2015)
ParticipantRegistration
During the evaluation there was a significant variation between the official list of
participants registered for a particular site and the actual participants identified at the local
level. In three sites, Dakamela, Ratanyana and Lonely Mine, this was tracked methodically.
Between errors of inclusion (including people who moved away, withdrew or died) and
exclusion (excluding active participants) there were marked differences between the official
list of participants and the locally recognized ones. In Dakamela there were 45 variances
identified by the local leadership of 139 participants. In Lonely Mine there were 12
variances of 44 official participants; in Ratanyana there were 17 variances of 12 listed
participants, between inclusion and exclusion.
Specific Objective 5: The churchas an extension vehicle and vehicle
for holistic change
ChurchVehicle
In focus group and stakeholder discussions there were a number of different comments
made as concerns programming through the local church. The vast majority of the
respondents were positive or very positive about the church promoting change while there
were a few cautionary observations.
 22% of FGDs reported that the church support or the faith component of OTC
programming was beneficial for supporting local adoption; 2 groups reported that
programming encouraged their faith growth.
 2 FGD suggested that the churches would sometimes limit programming to church
members; that the church saw programming as a way of strengthening its membership
and church giving, but didn’t open up programming to ‘rival’ churches or the non-
churched; project staff also shared that in some cases local pastors saw the OTC
programming as an opportunity for them to build their own church membership and this
had been an issue in a few cases.
 It was observed by the evaluation team that while the project is ostensibly open to all
Christian churches, no effective engagement has been made to engage the leadership of
the Vapostori churches (Masowe Apostles and similar churches), even though this may
be the single largest Christian segment in Zimbabwe (RelZim, 2015).

24. 24
 Several FGDs and stakeholders observed that OTC did not engage effectively with local
and regional government representatives. Project reports and staff, coordinate with
local and region authorities as a component of programming; however, staff suggested
that engaging with government entities has been a low priority.
HolisticImpacts
The evaluation terms of reference
identify ‘holistic’ changes as those
“which address the need to change
values and attitudes focusing on whole
life transformation and not solely
sustainable agriculture.” Changes in
values and attitudes were reported in
small numbers during FGDs, including
(by the percentage of FGDs that
mentioned them):
 19% - ‘greater peace of mind’; men and women working together, families working
together
 14% - improved family harmony
 11% - empowered women better able to care for their families
 11%-CA adopters are stigmatized by poverty
 6% - improved care of orphans and the vulnerable; increased time with family; more
faith growth; less alcohol abuse;
 6%- increased family conflict, ‘even divorce’
 3% - men abuse their families less; increased community tensions due to newfound
prosperity
There were other changes in families and communities shared in FGDs that do not reflect
changes in attitude and values but do reflect other non-agriculture changes due to increased
income from CA production. These are summarized below:
 44%-increased ability to pay school fees for girls and boys
 19%-increased livestock holdings,
 17%-improved household supplies (clothes, kitchen utensils)
 3%-more timely bride price payments,
 3%-more time for other productive activities
Key Finding: Holistic Impacts have
been:
 Most prevalent as economic
impacts
 Modest in terms of changes in
values and attitudes

25. 25
CONCLUSIONS
1. The FfF approach to CA used by OTC is achieving similar results as its peers promoting
hoe-based CA in Zimbabwe and abroad. The church is an effective extension vehicle
for change in farm practice
 Most farmers are adopting minimal tillage but neglecting or not adopting
permanent soil cover and rotations.
 Most farmers are adopting CA on a small portion of their land.
 Most farmers are increasing the amount of labour needed tofarm but are more
food secure as a result, with the benefits that increased food security brings.
 In spite of the promotion of animal traction options, most farmers are using hoe-
based CA.
The technological limitations are the same and as a result similar results are being
achieved when looking at three key results areas:
 yield per hectare has increased dramatically over conventional, often more
than 100%
 total land area adopted is usually a small portion of the total available,
often between 0.15 and 0.5 of a Ha
 total production (or value of production) through CA often about the
amount the family actually consumes in a year; 800-1000 kg
2. The key limitation to increasing the impact of OTC programming is the high labour
demand of the system.
 The labour demand manifests itself most critically in weed control because
weed control must be done in a short window of time during the growing
season to achieve good yields. A farmer cannot plant an area larger than
they can effectively weed.
 The preparation of basins, preparation of composts and the external
sourcing of mulch also all imply large labour demands
3. Both OTC and peers report holistic changes as a result of their programming.
 Farmers have better health, their children have better schooling, their
homes are more comfortable, they have more cattle, and they often
have more businesses.
 Holistic changes related to changes in values and attitudes were
reported sparingly by both OTC trained and non-OTC trained CA farmers.
In particular CA appears to offer increased gender harmony and family
well-being. However, conflicts do arise from CA adoption both in
families and in communities, often in response to the struggle for scarce
resources, especially land, manure and fodder.

26. 26
4. Reporting covers yields per Ha extensively and the level of adoption of some of
the components of CA but does not report the increase in the amount of food or
income attributable to FfF, probably the most important measurable result of
programming.
 Yields per Ha do not indicate how much was actually produced, or if it is
more profitable than the previous system.
The cell phone platform has not gathered monitoring information in the quantities
and timeliness needed to be credible for reporting purposes. Project participation
is not reflected faithfully by the official registration lists.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL RECCOMENDATION #1:
Tearfund and River of Life should seek to continue
to support, develop and promote CA with small
holder farmers in Zimbabwe, Africa and around the
world. CA is one of the best investments in small
holder food security.
 CA is a powerful tool for transforming a food
insecure farm family into a much more food secure one in a very short time
and with little or no external resources.
GENERAL RECCOMENDATION #2:
Tearfund and River of Life should explore ways to make the CA system more
profitable and more attractive as a business opportunity.
 CA using the current basin and mulching technology is very accessible (simple,
only labour required), but farmers quickly reach the limitation of labour
availability, limiting their productivity and potential profit. This makes CA
“I used to worry about
food but now I have
enough, even when
there are dry spells.”
~OTC farmer,Bubi FGD

27. 27
unattractive for youth and the progressive element in communities as
compare to migration and immigration.
SPECIFIC RECCOMENDATIONS:
1. Explore Alternative CA Technologies (Findings #2,3 & 4 on p. 15-24;
Conclusions #2 &3 on p. 25-28)
CA programming should explore
alternative technologies that diminish
labour and enhance the farmers’ ability
to adopt CA in terms of total land area
and incorporating the key CA principals
of rotation and permanent soil cover.
CA has been adopted by most OTC
participants to a small scale and without
permanent soil cover or rotation. This is
not an anomaly; the biggest limitation
to upscaling and rotation under CA (and conventional) is weed control. Under conventional
practice farmers control weeds at the start of the season at a low labour cost by ploughing; later
they use a cultivator. CA farmers are either tasked with applying huge amounts of mulch, which
effectively diminishes the size of field they can adopt, or must hoe/weed by hand, which also
limits their field size to the amount of land they can manually control weeds on.
Farmers and stake holders have requested options for mechanizing and upscaling CA. One of
the technologies promoted is the use of the ox-drawn ripper. While the ripper enables farmers
to quickly prepare their land, it does not
control weeds, the main barrier to upscaling.
Future CA programming should explore weed
control options that provide opportunities for
farmers to upscale using two tracks of
technology: A. those that take advantage of
available local resources and require very little
as concerns external inputs and B. technologies
that require capital intensive external inputs.
Key Assumptions: farming should be profitable
and attractive, not just an escape from
starvation. CA should ve a smart vocational
choice for youth.
 The CA system promoted must be
profitable and provide a living wage
The biggest limitation to
upscaling and rotation
under CA is weed control.

28. 28
Technologies for very low external input weed control/upscaling include opportunities
through:
 the use of green manure/cover crops to supress weeds, provide fertility, provide an
effective rotation and increase soil cover
 live fencing (to protect actual mulched fields and decrease the labour needed to bring
additional mulch); sisal has been adopted by some farmers in Zimbabwe and Zambia
and may be a good option in appropriate areas.
 fodder production (to reduce livestock pressure on stover/mulch)
Technologies for weed controlthat depend on capital include
opportunities through:
 herbicide use paired with ox drawn rippers or jab planters
Both of these pathways have had positive results elsewhere in
Africa. Both offer significant opportunities for farmers, while they
also have inherent risks in their promotion. To enhance
sustainable adoption, it is recommended that programming carry
out trials on a small scale with a small number of innovative and
motivated farmers. These same farmers should then be the focus
Near Karonga, Malawi farmers use
lab lab bean as a cover crop
associatedwith maize and pigeon
pea. Lab lab providesas much as
60 Mt of organic matter and 200 kg
of nitrogenper Ha withcomplete
soil cover, effective weedcontrol,
and a deliciousbean.
In 2015 I visited50 small
holderfarmers in
Kenya, Tanzania,
Malawi, Zimbabwe and
Zambia. 27 used
herbicidesand23 used
manual weedcontrol.
The average plotsize for
those using herbicide
was 2.2 Ha while the
average for those using
manual weedcontrol
was 0.5 (almost
identical to the OTC
average from this
evaluation).

29. 29
of replication efforts in the case that a particular systemis found to be viable.
Adaptation must be made according agro ecologicalregion. Currently programming seems to
be almost identical from region to region.
 In agro-ecological regions 4 & 5 alternative crops that are more drought tolerant need to
be explored. This is not a simplistic or gender neutral issue and requires an interactive
and community response. Issues of marketing, diminishing losses to birds, crop
protection, diminishing (women’s) labour in processing, and supporting a culture of
consumption should all be explored.
 Attractive rotation options need to be identified as appropriate, according to climate,
local diet, and market factors, as well as the compatibility with the predominant cereal
crop.
 Cash crops should be explored and effectively promoted. Farmers, especially youth and
young farmers need cash income in order for them to reach their aspirations.
 Fertility options should continue to be a priority and should be focused according to the
crop needs and local resources, including local access to cattle manure, poultry bedding,
subsidized and free chemical fertilizers, and green manure cover crops.
The organization should promote self-reliance and ownership while promoting adaptation.
 Farmer experimentation should take place on the farmer’s fields, not on community
plots (to ensure ownership)
 Little or no inputs should be provided.
o Only green manure seed should be provided to a small number of initial
experimenting farmers; upscaling should depend on the ability of the community
to reproduce or purchase the seed.
Farmers who receive free seed should
pass that gift forward to other
farmers; this should be planned from
the outset.
o Hardware should not be purchased for
farmers, although it may be helpful to
facilitate their purchase (a ripper can
be delivered at cost)
o Herbicide can be purchased for a
farmer trial plot but the sprayer should
be provided by the farmer
 Initial adopters will most likely be farmers
with above average economic resources.
Farmers with more resources are better able
to take risks and often reflect other social
virtues that enable community
transformation.
Technology Trials:
To enhance sustainable
adoption, it is recommended
that programming carry out trials
on a small scale with a small
number of innovative and
motivated farmers. These
farmers will be the focus of
replication efforts in the case
that a particular system is found
to be viable.

30. 30
Mulching & Composting must be
profitable: Mulching and compost use
enhance yields, especially in the long
term, when water is scarce. However,
importing mulch from off field and
making compost may not be profitable,
a view point held by notable expert
Roland Bunch (Bunch, 2012). This
question should be explored with
farmers. The organization should be open to the possibility that imported mulch and making
compost is only profitable under certain circumstances; or may not be a profitable or
sustainable practice. For example, if the value of the increase in yields per area is more than
the value of the labour required to mulch that same area, the practice may be profitable. If the
value of the labour is greater than the increased yield, the practice is probably not profitable.
There is also a literature review and research opportunity for the organization to determine the
impact of different levels of crop residue on maize yields and weed control.
2. Strengthenexisting local structures (workwithlocal authorities) to
increase CA adoption (Findings #1, 5 on p. 14 & 25; Conclusions #1, 5 on p. 26
& 30)
The connection with local traditional leadership
and government authorities should be
cultivated and nourished to enhance results.
OTC has done this to varying degrees but needs
to strengthen this component of programming.
This will be embraced and spurned at different
times and places, depending on personalities
and local dynamics; but a concerted attempt
should be made to engage more productively.
Specifically, during planning and
implementation:
 Local and district officials should be
contacted and given regular updates on
programming. MOUs and yearly reports should be done routinely. Inviting officials to
yearly training events or fields days could go far to improving their buy-in to
programming.
PROGRAMMING SHOULD ANSWER KEY
QUESTIONSOF PROFITABILITY:
 DOES MULCHINGPAY?
 DOES COMPOSTINGPAY IN
MAIZE?
Inviting traditional
leaders and officials to
yearly training events or
fields days can go far in
improving their buy-in

31. 31
 AGRITEX workers should be incorporated into programming as is possible, especially in
training, field days if any, in evaluations and impact assessments.
 Traditional authorities and religious leaders of all kinds should be invited and
embraced by programming. They can be key in facilitating adoption of CA and should be
targeted because community members greatly respect them. They should be
encouraged to participate in programming events, to bless, and to adopt programming
 None of these entities should be paid cash or provided with material incentives to
participate or support programming. They should be encouraged to understand their
participation as part of their current mandate. If supporting agriculture and community
development in the community is not part of their mandate they should not participate.
3. Strengthenthe Holistic Impact ofProgramming (Findings #1, 2, 3 and 5
on p. 14,18, 18-21, and 24 & 25; Conclusions #1, 3 & 5 on p. 26, 27 & 28 and 30)
Diminish Points of Friction: Friction within the family, church and community caused by CA
adoption should be anticipated and mitigated.
 During initial community and family contacts, in training, and during monitoring
husbands, wives, and community members should be engaged on issues of
resource allocation (the amount of land dedicated to CA, the quality of land
dedicated to CA, the resources dedicated to CA production, the labour dedicated
to CA production) with the goal of achieving full buy in to CA by husbands, wives,
and other family & community members. The encouragement of full gender
buy-in should be incorporated into training, monitoring mentoring, and in
engagement with traditional, government and religious authorities.
 Issues related to livestock control & mulch protection should be addressed with
local and traditional authorities proactively
 Jealousies between trainers, practitioners and churches should be minimised
and proactively mitigated through messaging during trainings, meetings,
monitoring, etc.
o Preaching a gospel of humble servanthood, of working in a kingdom that
is far greater than the initiatives or labours of any one person,
organization, or church may be helpful.
Local churches should be encouraged and enabled to organize holistic training
 Training on other locally relevant projects should be encouraged through the
structure of the OTC site leadership and structure (broilers, bee keeping,
improved livestock keeping, marketing, etc.) This is not to suggest that OTC
should carry out these trainings, but rather should encourage and enable the
local groups to take ownership and organize these kinds of trainings.
 Training should be carried out by OTC on money management and marketing
with trainers and for replication with farmers. This is a key business skill that will
help enable farm management as a business and enable upscaling.

32. 32
Throughout programming site leadership should be enabled to carry out continued holistic
development, including CA training and monitoring, in the absence of OTC trainers
 Site leadership should identify their realistic goals as an entity as well as the
activities they plan on carrying out into the future in the absence of OTC
monitoring and support.
 Individual sites should be encouraged to identify structures for continued
monitoring and supporting of CA uptake. They should also be freed to identify
their own path forward in supporting holistic change in their communities from a
multi-church platform even if this does not include CA.
 The last 6 months of programming should include a well-organized component
of closure.
4. OTC-RoLshould not take programming to new communities until key
challenges have been addressed. (Findings #2 & 3 on p. 15-17, and 18-21;
Conclusions #2 & 3 on p. 26-27 & 27-28)
 Programming should explore innovations that will enable adopting CA to larger land
areas and effectively incorporating key components (rotation, soil cover) before
upscaling programming.
While the need for improved food security has not been resolved across Zimbabwe, CA
offers one of the most immediate and sustainable contributions to food security in the rural
areas. OTC programming has made a large contribution to improved food security through
CA adoption, however, current CA standards by trained farmers are often poor across
geographical areas and lead to a very limited contribution.
Future programming should focus initially on exploring together with farmers innovations
that will enable upscaling CA to larger land areas. This upscaling should enable larger areas
under minimum tillage, rotation, and permanent soil cover. Upscaling will require that the
system promoted be more profitable. The technologies suggested in Recommendation #1,
‘Explore Alternative CA Technologies’ may be helpful in refocusing technical components of
programming, especially as concerns more efficient weed control.

33. 33
5. Monitoring and evaluation systems shouldbe significantly improved
(Finding #4 on p. 21-24; Conclusion #4 on p. 28-30)
Outcomes reporting should
cover the most relevant
indicators.
 The total amount of grain
contributed by CA per family
member should be adopted
as a key indicator for change.
 For knowledge focused
outcome areas such as
composting, mulching and
others there should be a
focus on total production
and total application.
Baselines used should be the
most relevant.
 When comparing CA farmer
production to conventional production, conventional farmers from the specific
community where the CA farmers are located should be used as the baseline, rather
than provincial or district averages (although the provincial and district averages can
and should be used as additional points of reference).
 Composting, rotation practices, weed control, planting timeliness, and other promoted
practices can all benefit from conventional and practicing farmer baselines.
Barriers to an effective mobile phone platform should be identified
The cell phone monitoring platform is not functional. While in theory the cell phones can
provide instant data across many regions and geographical areas, in practice data has been
gathered from very small populations at irregular intervals.
This evaluation did not explore the challenges with the implementation of the cell phone
platform. There could be many different barriers to functionality such as:
 The person identified for gathering the data may not have the mobility, time, or
motivation to effectively gather the data
 The person identified for gathering the data may not have the technical expertise to use
the system
 The cost of airtime may be a barrier to implementation
The use of good indicators is
critical to understanding
project impact:
 “Number of farmers attending CA Basic
Training” tells us nothing of impact.
 “Yield per Ha” is a good indicator of the
value of the technology promoted, but is a
weak indicator of impact on HH.
 “Change in total harvest” gets closer to the
heart of immediate impact.”

34. 34
 There may be a need for additional organization and training
The cell phone platform should be reviewed and its goals identified. Its design will be
different if it is expected to provide field trouble shooting data, monitoring data for
reporting, key project participation data, or other kinds of information. The cell phone
platform will be more functional if it is more focused on fewer key areas and gathers less
subjective data for reporting (e.g. harvest data, CA plot size, amount of land mulched,
rotations, and actual planting date). The selection process for the sample and the sample
size should be identified and reported on. Cell phone monitoring may not be a cost
effective way to gather accurate information from the field via volunteer personnel. Data
gathering via cell phone may need to be a paid activity to become effective. Data gathering
via cell phone technology may not be a superior or cost effective way of data gathering as
compared to paper formats.
Participant Registration should be accurately updated twice a year, at planting and
after harvest.
Currently the registration lists do not reflect the actual participation in the field. Site
leadership should be engaged twice a year to remove inactive participants from the project
registers and include newly active participants.
Additional monitoring and evaluation capacity needs to be gained by OTC
Currently 4 staff members are titled ‘M&E Officers’ or ‘M&E Assistants;’ however their
actual activities correspond more to that of field trainers. Capacity can be gained either by
additional training & mentoring of current staff so that they can develop better tools and
improve their monitoring and evaluation function or through the provision of an M&E
specialist on staff. A part time or shared M&E specialist could be an appropriate option.
6. Project capacity building design shouldbe field based (Finding #1 on p.
13-14)
Training and Monitoring Staff should be more locally based and training should be
carried out locally or regionally instead of nationally.
Currently the training of pastors and
lead trainers in Harare is a large
time and economic investment. At
the same time, the Harare site
doesn’t best reflect the agro-
 LET’S TAKE TRAININGTO THE
FARMER!

35. 35
ecological, economic, and social realities of most project sites, those located in remote
areas of agro-ecological regions 3, 4 and 5. It is recommended that training and meetings
be held in regional sites as geographically accessible as possible. For example, instead of
carrying out training in Harare the sites from Manicaland could meet at a local site; the sites
from Midlands and Mat North could meet in a single site for training pastors and community
leaders.
 The current site in Harare celebrates CA in a high rainfall area on some of the
country’s best soils, based on the work of food secure hired or salaried workers:
conditions that are alien to most project sites.
 The project may find that there is incredible power in rotating through different
local project sites for hosting regional meetings, showcasing local achievement,
learning, and progress.
 There should be a significant savings in resources, both time and money. In the most
recent budget year just over 30% of the budget was for transport and lodging for
lead trainers, pastors, and site leaders to Harare or Bulawayo.
7. The design used for this evaluationis recommendedfor replication
for other projects after incorporating anumber ofkey adjustments
(Based on evaluation team post field discussions)
Key Evaluation Components recommended for replication include:
A. Evaluation team: a diverse evaluation team, including independent members, members
from the local organization being evaluated, and peer Tearfund partner representatives
• Key Recommended Adjustment: women should be well represented on the
evaluation team
B. Focus Group Discussion (FGD): Site Selection should be targeted based on key criteria
(location, membership, uptake, years in the program, climate/rainfall, crop, etc.).
Women should be well represented in FGDs.
• Key Recommended Adjustment: Youth should be involved in the evaluation
process. It may be better to have 3 FGDs types: project CA adopters, non-
adopters and youth
C. Farm visits: randomly selected adopters and randomly selected conventional farmers
are key to gathering representative information on adoption. Women should be well
represented in farm visits.
• Key Recommended Adjustment: Children from the Households visited should
be included in the interview process as a way of incorporating the voice of the
youth. If this is not possible during home visits due to school scheduling,

36. 36
alternatives should be sought out to give them a voice (such as meeting with
them at the school)
D. Key informants: gathering information from key informants needs sufficient planned
time.
• Key Recommended Adjustment: Alternative interview modes should be
considered when key informants are not accessible personally (the ideal
format), including telephone/skype interviews and simplified written surveys
E. Logistics: Good transportation is key to the evaluation design and should be well
organized from the outset. A back-up vehicle should be identified in the case of
breakdown and this contingency planning.
• Key Recommendation: Some participants travelled long distance at their own
expense for the evaluation; the evaluation should mitigate for long distances
by maximizing vehicle use, strategic identification of meeting sites, and where
appropriate, reimbursement for travel expenses.

37. 37
Annexes
ANNEX 1: Draft Action Plan
1. Explore Alternative CA Technologies
What: Gain capacity as an organization with existing experiences with alternative forms of CA
based on low and high external inputs CA, especially using green manure cover crops (not
conventional green manures which are ploughed under!), living fences, and improved fodders,
and herbicide matched with jab planters or ripper technologies. The issue of the profitability of
mulching should also be explored together with the communities and future programming
should investigate this key question.
 Much of this work can be done via literature review and as such should be very low cost.
 Opportunities for exchanges with other programs experimenting or with relevant
experience with these technologies should be sought out and financing via donor partners
should be explored.
 At end of project dialogues and celebration meetings with project participants, this on-
going research should be shared and community input, observations and initial feedback
should be gathered.
Person responsible: OTC Field Staff and Administrative Staff
When: April-June 2015
2. Strengthenexisting local structures (workwithlocal authorities) to
increase CA adoption
What: During the closure phase of the final 3 months of programming community and regional
secular authorities should be actively engaged in closure activities, including any celebrations,
official acts, and in the final reporting/feedback process. A written final impact report should
be submitted to district authorities and signed for. Authorities that should be engaged include:
 Traditional community leaders (village heads, chiefs, etc.)
 Local political leaders (councillors)
 AGRITEX workers
 District
Person responsible: OTC Field Staff

38. 38
When: May-June 2015
3. Strengthenthe Holistic Impact ofProgramming
Diminish Points of Friction
What: During final dialogue processes with community leaders and FfF promoters, areas of
negative friction caused by CA adoption within the family, the church and larger community
should be identified and specific measures for mitigation identified. A record of issues
identified and mitigation steps identified should be included in the final project report. Issues
should be explored at different levels, including:
 Family & spouse issues
 Neighbour & community issues
 Church & interfaith dialogue issues
Person responsible: OTC Field Staff
When: May-June 2015
Local churches should be encouraged and enabled to organize holistic training
What: During the final 3 months of programming local church organizations supporting FfF
programming should be enabled by the OTC network to identify community issues that would
benefit from a coordinated response, prioritize them, and identify an action plan to begin
working through a church based platform. While the local faith body should be enabled to
identify the issues most important in their community, issues that may be relevant could
include: continued promotion of CA, alternative sources of income, money management,
health, water access, sanitation, production challenges, family violence and education, among
many others.
Person responsible: OTC Field Staff
When: May-June 2015

39. 39
4. OTC-RoLshould not upscale programming until key challenges have
been addressed.
What: The promotion of FfF should not be carried out at the current scale (at 70 sites across all
provinces with 5,000 to 10,000 HH) until key issues have been resolved as concerns upscaling
challenges, specifically adoption on a larger scale in terms of Ha per farmer and efficiency in
production per MT produced. Resources should be dedicated to capacitating the technology
package to better respond to the farmers’ needs and visions. A proposal that seeks to reach this
end should be developed and resources sought to support implementation.
 Of the current 70 sites, between 10 and 20 sites should be chosen
 Sites should be chosen based on the positive attitude of local leadership and farmers
needed to support farmer research
 Sites should be chosen to reflect different climates (different agro-ecological regions)
 5 to 10 innovative farmers per site should be identified on a volunteer basis
 These same 5 to 10 farmers should form tight clusters (be located in close geographic
proximity to each other, with at least 3 farmers per ‘cluster’)
Person responsible: OTC Field Staff; proposal writer
When: May-June 2015
5. Monitoring and EvaluationSystems shouldbe refined
More relevant indicators should be used
What: Final reporting should report on more relevant indicators:
 The total amount of grain harvested under CA
 The total amount of grain contributed by CA per family member
 The total amount of land protected by mulch
 The degree of mulch thickness
 Total compost produced
 The total amount of land prepared with minimum tillage
Person responsible: OTC Field Staff
When: May-June 2015
The barriers to an effective mobile phone platform should be identified
What: OTC staff should identify the issues preventing a more effective implementation of the
mobile phone monitoring platform. Discussions should be held with the community members
tasked with gathering the information as well as internally with OTC field and administrative

40. 40
staff to identify gaps between capacity and expectations. As a result of this dialogue
recommendations should be made as concerns replicating the methodology: improving it,
abandoning it, and identifying the limitations and parameters for success.
Person responsible: OTC Field and Administration Staff in consultation with Tearfund M&E
specialist
When: May-June 2015
Participant Registration should be accurately updated twice a year, at planting and
after harvest.
What: The participants recognized at the community level should be reflected in the final
report. Each site should be provided with the official list and provide feedback with all needed
corrections/updates.
Person responsible: OTC Field and Administration Staff
When: May-June 2015
Additional monitoring and evaluation capacity needs to be gained by OTC
What: Field and Administration staff should be provided with support in refining the tools to be
used for the end of project monitoring and evaluation to ensure that they cover all of the
approved project indicators as well as any up-dated indicators adopted by the project. For
example, if the project adopts ‘number of kg of grain produced per HH member’ as an impact
indicator, before gathering data in the field the tool should be reviewed to ensure that it will
capture the relevant data. The outcomes from the proposal that currently have no identified
indicators should be reviewed and a decision made as to their relevance and the value of
identifying indicators for each.
 The rationale for adopting any new indicators should be shared with donor partners
Person responsible: OTC Field and Administration Staff in consultation with donors
When: April-June 2015
6. Project capacity building design shouldbe field based
What: Future programming should plan and implement leader training (pastors, trainers) at the
regional level rather than at the national level. A new model that enables this should be be
explored, including the hosting of such trainings/events on a rotational basis among sites
(joining 3 to 5 sites in a functional ‘circuit’ for training/support purposes) or strategic sites at the

41. 41
district level may be some of the models to be considered. This model should be discussed with
the leadership as part of the end of project evaluation dialogue for local input.
Person responsible: OTC Field and Administration Staff
When: May-June 2015

42. 42
ANNEX 2: Evaluation Team
 CalebNdazi-Ncube (OTCStaff Member)–CalebisanOTC Monitoringand Evaluation
Officer,fluentinNdebele,Shona,andseveralotherlocal languages. Iscurrentlyproviding
technical andmonitoringsupporttoOTCprogramming.
 Chris Woodring(External Consultant)–International Agriculture DevelopmentConsultant
specializinginrural communitydevelopment monitoringandevaluation.
 GersonMachevo (TearfundMozambique staff)–ProjectsCoordinator,Tearfund
Mozambique
 JosephChitopo(External Consultant)–JosephisaFfFtrainer,farmer,fluentinShonaand
conversantinNdebele
 KennethLudaka (TearfundZambiaPartnerstaff member)–Kennethholdsadiplomain
general agriculture andworksasan agriculture officerforthe EvangelicalFellowshipof
Zambiaworkingwiththe farmingcommunitiesinpromotingconservationAgriculture. He
has beenapioneerof thisprocess.
 Dr. KenFlower(External Consultant)—Kenisalecturerin agronomyand farmingsystems
withthe Universityof WesternAustralia. He isa specialistinsustainable farmingsystems.
Main researchareasinclude soil waterrelations,cropagronomy,cropresidue retentionand
improvingsoil organiccarbonlevelsinno-till systems.
 Nicole Senderayi (External Consultant)-specialistinmonitoringandevaluation,fluentin
Shonaand conversantinNdebele
 Simon Simbeya(OTCStaff Member)–OTC MonitoringandEvaluationOfficer, fluentin
Shonaand Ndebele. Iscurrentlyprovidingtechnical andmonitoringsupporttoOTC
programming.

43. 43
ANNEX 3: Map of OTC Sites
OTC Farmer Sites across Zimbabwe 2014

44. 44
ANNEX 4: Map of SelectedOTC Sites
ANNEX 5: SelectedOTC Sites Characterizations
Group
Name/
Locatio
n
Ye
ar
Sta
rte
d
# of
Farm
ers
in
Grou
p
2010
/201
1
# of
Farm
ers
in
Grou
p
2011
/201
2
# of
Farm
ers
in
Grou
p
2012
/201
3
# of
Farm
ers
in
Grou
p
2013
/201
4
Chan
ge in
Parti
cipa
nt #
per
grou
p:
Rural/
Urban
Agr
o-
ecol
ogic
al
Regi
on
Ave
rag
e
Ara
ble
Lan
d
hol
din
g
per
far
me
r
Type of land
holding
(communal,
A1, A2, etc.)
(NB2)
Dakamela
Honde
Silobela
Nkayi
Ratanyana
Bezha
Masvingo
Ngundu
Bonda
Nkayi/Zinyangeni
Gutu
LonelyMine

45. 45
Manicaland
5 Bonda
20
10 301 166 172 180 60% Rural 2
0.6
4 Communal
6 Honde
20
10 159 87 89 97 61% Rural 2
0.0
4 Communal
Masvingo
27
Masving
o
20
10 163 80 155 150 92%
Urban
and
Rural
3 or
4
0.5
3
Old
Resettlement
& Communal
28 Ngundu
20
12 n/a n/a 130 145
112
% Rural 4
0.3
1 Communal
32 Gutu
20
10 280 40 26 65 23% Rural
3 or
4
0.0
5 Communal
Mat North
37 Nkayi
20
10 165 163 168 188
114
% Rural 4
0.1
9 Communal
38
Dakamel
a
20
10 108 107 110 117
108
% Rural 4
0.3
6 Communal
40
Lonely
Mine
20
10 39 8 20 38 97% Rural 4
0.6
2
A1 & Old
Resettlement
44
Nkayi/Zi
nyangeni
20
12 n/a n/a 0 38 DNA Rural 4
0.2
8 Communal
Mat South
49 Bezha
20
10 72 83 81 184
256
% Rural 4
0.1
6 Communal
57
Ratanya
na
20
13 n/a n/a 40 25 63% Rural 5
0.1
6
Old
Resettlement
Midlands
59 Silobela
20
10 302 101 129 130 43% Rural
3 or
4 1.1 Communal
Key Selection Criteria:
Year Started: Group Size Change in Group Size:
Year
201
0 9
75
%
Aver
age: 113 Increase 4
33
%
Year
201
2 2
17
% >100 7 Decrease 8
67
%

46. 46
Year
201
3 1 8%
50-
100 2 Increase > 50% 1 8%
<50 3
Decrease >
50% 2
17
%
2013 Total
Participation: %
Groups
Selected %
Agroecological
Region
Bulawayo
15
8 4% 0% AER 2 2
17
%
Harare
28
9 7% 0%
AER 3
or 4 3
25
%
Manicaland
60
7 14% 2 17% AER 4 6
50
%
Mashonaland
Central
57
6 13% 0% AER 5 1 8%
Mashonaland East
21
6 5% 0%
Mashonaland West
30
5 7% 0%
Masvingo
63
6 14% 3 25%
Matabeleland
North
11
01 25% 4 33%
Matabeleland
South
32
5 7% 2 17%
Midlands
23
2 5% 1 8%
Total:
44
45

47. 47
ANNEX 6: Sample Community Mapping

48. 48
ANNEX 7: Key Informants
1. Alan Norton, River of Life Staff member
2. Janelle, Penny, and Abraham World Vision national office staff members
3. Karsto Kwazira, FAO National Office, Project Officer
4. Sehliselo Nkomo, Village Head, Nkayi District
5. Stanley Zondo, AGRITEX officer Umzingwani District
6. Million Togara, AGRITEX officer Bubi District
7. Dumisu Mathutu- Ex AGRITEX officer and Ex Christian Care staff member Nkayi District
8. Mandazenkosi Tshuma- Councillor, Ward 16, Dakamela
9. Brian Oldreive, Foundations for Farming
10. Craig Deall, Foundations for Farming

49. 49
ANNEX 8 Documents reviewed.
A. OTC Project documents-Planning
o OTC Budget yr 5 June’13 Micah
 Updated Budget for 2013-2014
o OTC Comp M and E- Proposal –Final Rvsd 20 March’14[1]
 Complementary Monitoring and Evaluation Proposal for 2014
o OTC Proposal Years 4-6 (General)
 Updated Narrative Proposal from May 2012
o OTC Proposal Years 4-6 rev’d 11 June’13-final
 Updated Narrative Proposal from June 2013
o Complementary OTC Report Sept 2013
 2012 Proposal for Complimentary Monitoring and Evaluation programme
B. Project documents-Reporting
o Cell Phone M&E Summary of Impact
 February 2014 report on cell phone platform use
o Cell Phone Report –January 2014
 Report on data gathered from August 2013 through January 2014
o Complementary M & E Objectives Report Sept 2014
 Monitoring report for October 2013 through September 2014
o Evaluation Targeted Communities Map 6-1-2015
 Zimbabwe map showing the location of evaluation target sites
o Operation Trumpet Calll – Cell Phone Data Report_FINAL Sept 1 2014
 April – July 2014 Report of Cell Phone Data
o OTC evaluation sites region
 Zimbabwe rainfall map showing the OTC sites and the location of
evaluation target sites
o OTC Evaluation Sites
 Zimbabwe provincial map showing the OTC sites and the location of
evaluation target sites
o OTC HEA-Impact Report 2014_FINAL Sept 1 2014

50. 50
 July 2014 report on household economic assessment and project impact
o OTC Monitoring Score sheet for Cell app
 Field Visit monitoring tool
o OTC Post-harvest report_FINAL Sept 2014
 2013-2014 growing season post-harvest report from July 2014
o OTC results for Eddie
 Graphic comparative summary of OTC yields by province and year
o OTC Yr 5 Annual Narrative report TearUK with edits 02Dec14 bn (2)_OTC (3)
 Year 5 Annual report to Tearfund UK from September 1, 2014
o Tearfund OTC only Financial report Yr5 rev’d 8Sep14
 2013-2014 OTC financial report
Other Resource Materials-see Bibliography in ANNEX 15

51. 51
ANNEX 9: InterviewGuides-FGDs, Farm Visits,Stakeholder Interviews
FGD GUIDE QUESTIONS:
OTC Trained--OTC Spontaneous Adopters--Other trained CA---Conventional
Farmers
(Circle one)
FGD Facilitators_________________________________ Date_____/0_/2015
Community/District______________________/___________________________
1. General Information
Respondent: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Male/Female
How many people eatfrom the
same potin your home?
What areyour family’s main
livelihoods? Which is the most
important (circle)? (probe
poultry, remittances, etc.)
How much land does your
family hold?
How many headofcattle/goats
and sheep) do you have? / / / / / /
2. Has the lifeof your family changed because of adoptingFfF and CA? If so, how?
3. How has the adoption of FfF impacted women, men, boys, and girls differently?
 Women?
 Men?
 Girls?
 Boys?

52. 52
4. What arethe main challenges in adoptingFfF and CA? (Identify importanceas ‘high’, ‘medium’, or ‘low’)
5. What has made FfF and CA adoption possibleor easier? (Identify importanceas ‘high’, ‘medium’, or ‘low’)
6. How has workingthrough the local church impacted the project? Have there been benefits to this strategy?
Does I t causechalleges?
7. Do you have any suggestions for improvingthe FfF programme? (Identify value attached toeachsuggestionas ‘high’,
‘medium’, or ‘low’)

53. 53
FARM VISIT GUIDE: OTC Adopter
Visit Facilitators___________________________________ Date_____/__ /2015
Community/District_______________________/___________________________
Homestead
Representative/s____________________________________Male/Female_________
1. General Information
How many people eatfrom the samepotin
your home?
What areyour family’s main livelihoods?Which
is the most important (circle)? (probepoultry,
remittances, etc.)
How much land does your family hold?
How many headofcattle/goats andsheep) do
you have? /
2. CA Adoption
How did you learn about CA? (probefor various
different sources ofknowledge)(Circle most
valuable source)
How much land doyou haveunderCAthis
season? How muchdidyou havelast season?
/
 How do you prepare your CA
plantings? (hoe-ripper-ox drawn ripper-
planter-tractor pulled planter-other ?)
Who does the w ork? (man-women-girl-
boy) man-women-girl-boy
 How long did it take to prepare land this
year? (in terms of person days) (holing
out/ripping, mulching, manure/fert
application, planting)
 What date did you first plant on this
year?
 When is the ideal planting date, based
on the rains? /What do you use for fertilizer? (manure-
compost-AN-Urea-Compound D-anthill soil-
humus-etc)
Do you use herbicide to controlw eeds every
year? (not spot spraying)
Do you w eed manually? If so:
 How many times a year do you w eed?
/
How long does it take per w eeding (in
person days)
Who does the w eeding? (man-women-girl-
boy)
man-women-girl-boy

54. 54
Did you keep your field w eed free over the
w inter?
OBSERVATION: How well
are weeds controlled in the
plot?
Very well—well—poorly---not at all
OBSERVATION: How do
the crops look? (on a scale
of 1-5)
1---2---3---4---5
OBSERVATION: Is there a
rotation in evidence?
IDENTIFY ROTATION IF
ANY. (IDENTIFY CURRENT CROPS
AND 2013/2014 CROPS)
OBSERVATION: Is the CA
plot mulched? If so, how
much of the plot is
mulched?
(0---1/4----1/2----3/4----all)
OBSERVATION: How thick
is the mulch?
(In cm)_____________
OBSERVATION: How much
maize does the family have
in stock now? (specify in
50-90-100 kg bags)
What crops did you plant on your CA plot
last season?
What land size w as planted to each crop?
How much did you harvest fromyour CA
plot last season? (per crop; identify bag
w eight)
How did you get your seed?
(purchase-saved-gift-donation)
Did you use hybrid seed?
How much seed did you use? (in the case of
replanting, the amount fromlast planting)
What did you do w ith your stover fromlast
season’s crop?
What is the soil type (sand, loam, clay)
3. Conventional tillage
How much land do you have under
conventionalplantings this season? How
much did you have last season?
/

55. 55
How do you prepare your conventional
plantings? (hoe- ox draw n plow-tractor
plow ed-other ?)
Who does the w ork? (man-women-girl-boy)
man-women-girl-boy
How long did it take to prepare land this
year? (in terms of person days) (plowing,
planting, applying manure/fertility)
What do you use for fertilizer on your
conventionalplantings? (manure-compost-
AN-Urea-Lime-Compound D-anthill soil-
humus-etc.)
Do you use herbicide to controlw eeds?
Do you w eed your conventionalplantings
manually? If so:
 How many times a season do you
w eed? /
How long does it take (in person days)
Who does the w eeding? (man-women-girl-
boy)
man-women-girl-boy
Did you keep your conventionalfield w eed
free over the w inter?
OBSERVATION: How well
are weeds controlled in the
plot?
Very well—well—poorly---not at all
OBSERVATION: How do
the crops look? (on a scale
of 1-5)
1---2---3---4---5
OBSERVATION: Is there a
rotation in evidence?
IDENTIFY ROTATION IF
ANY. (IDENTIFY CURRENT CROPS
AND 2013/2014 CROPS)
What are your main crops under
conventionalplanting
Are they sole cropped or intercropped?
How much did you harvest fromyour
conventionalplots last season? (per crop)
Do you plant the same crops in the same
place every year?
How did you get your seed?
(purchase-saved-gift-donation)
Did you use hybrid seed?
How much seed did you use? (in the case of
replanting, the amount fromlast planting)

56. 56
What did you do w ith your stover fromlast
season’s conventionalcrop?
What is your soiltype (sand, loam, clay)
OBSERVATION: How much
GRAIN does the family
have in stock now?
(specify in 50-90-100 kg
bags)
INFORMAL INTERVIEW WITH FAMILY
MEMBERS:
 HOW HAS CA ADOPTION IMPACTED
THE FAMILY OF THOSE WHO HAVE
ADOPTED?

57. 57
FARM VISIT GUIDE: Conventional Farmer
Visit Facilitators___________________________________ Date_____/__ /2015
Community/District_______________________/___________________________
Homestead
Representative/s____________________________________Male/Female_________
4. General Information
How many people eatfrom the samepotin
your home?
What areyour family’s main livelihoods?Which
is the most important (circle)? (probepoultry,
remittances, etc.)
How much land does your family hold?
How many headofcattle/goats andsheep) do
you have? /
5. Conventional tillage
How much land do you have under
conventional plantings this season? How
much did you have last season?
/
How do you prepare your conventional
plantings? (hoe- ox draw n plow-tractor
plow ed-other ?)
Who does the w ork? (man-women-girl-boy)
man-women-girl-boy
How long did it take to prepare land this
year? (in terms of person days) (plowing,
planting, applying manure/fertility)
What do you use for fertilizer on your
conventionalplantings? (manure-compost-
AN-Urea-Lime-Compound D-anthill soil-
humus-etc.)
Do you use herbicide to controlw eeds?
Do you w eed your conventionalplantings
manually? If so:
 How many times a season do you
w eed? /
How long does it take (in person days)
Who does the w eeding? (man-women-girl-
boy)
man-women-girl-boy
Did you keep your conventionalfield w eed
free over the w inter?
OBSERVATION: How well
are weeds controlled in the
plot?
Very well—well—poorly---not at all

58. 58
OBSERVATION: How do
the crops look? (on a scale
of 1-5)
1---2---3---4---5
OBSERVATION: Is there a
rotation in evidence?
IDENTIFY ROTATION IF
ANY. (IDENTIFY CURRENT CROPS
AND 2013/2014 CROPS)
What are your main crops under
conventionalplanting
Are they sole cropped or intercropped?
How much did you harvest fromyour
conventional plots last season? (per crop)
Do you plant the same crops in the same
place every year?
How did you get your seed?
(purchase-saved-gift-donation)
Did you use hybrid seed?
How much seed did you use? (in the case of
replanting, the amount fromlast planting)
What did you do w ith your stover fromlast
season’s conventionalcrop?
What is your soiltype (sand, loam, clay)
OBSERVATION: How much
GRAIN does the family
have in stock now? (specify in
50-90-100 kgbags)
INFORMAL INTERVIEW WITH FAMILY
MEMBERS:
 HOW HAS CA ADOPTION IMPACTED
THE FAMILY OF THOSE WHO HAVE
ADOPTED?
GUIDE QUESTIONS-Key Informant
Facilitator/s________________________________ Date_______/________ /2015
Name & Post of Key Informant_____________________/______________________
1. What main impacthas the adoption of FfF-CA had in the lifeof the families and communities thathave
adopted them? (especially in terms of food security and/or hunger copingmechanisms)

59. 59
2. What arethe main challenges in adoptingFfF-CA?
3. What impacthave you observed on community relations dueto FfF-CA? Have you observed any positive
impacts? Negative impacts?
4. What were the most important factors thatgive success in promotingFfF-CA?
5. What arekey factors that improve the adoption of FfF-CA that are not related to Operation Trumpet Call
activities?
6. How do you perceive the impact of the church as an agent of change in the communities? Have you
observed particular benefits or challenges with this approach?
7. What concrete suggestions do you have for improvingprogrammingin FfF-CA?

60. 60
ANNEX 10: Pfumvudza and Actual Sample Cost Analysis
Pfumvudza SEED-FERT COST per pack: $50 Estimated Days Labour per Ha:
Cost per Ha (16 packs) $800 172.2
Realistic Maize sale price: $265
Estimated Income per days labour:
Agroecological Region 3 Average Yield: 6 MT
Total Sale per HA: $1,590
Income after Seed Fert Cost: $790 $4.59
Agroecological Region 4 Average Yield: 3 MT
Total Sale per HA: $795
Income after Seed Fert Cost: ($5) ($0.03)
Agroecological Region 4 Average Yield: 2 MT
Total Sale per HA: $530
Income after Seed Fert Cost: ($270) ($1.57)
CA Profitability Based on Pfumvudza costs
& estimated yields

61. 61
0 SEED-FERT COST per pack: $0 Estimated Days Labour per Ha:
Cost per Ha (16 packs) $0 172.2
Realistic Maize sale price: $265
Estimated Income per days labour:
OTC Average Yield (2014 as per Eval.:) 1.447 MT
Total Sale per HA: $383
Income after Seed Fert Cost: $383 $2.23
OTC Average Yield (2014 as per OTC Reporting:)2.472 MT
Total Sale per HA: $948
Income after Seed Fert Cost: $946 $3.57
CA Profitability Based on 0 costs & actual
estimated yields

62. 62
7. The design used for this evaluationis recommendedfor replication
for other projects after incorporating a number ofkey adjustments
What: This evaluation design is recommended for use in evaluating similar Tearfund supported
food security projects in Zimbabwe and other countries.
Person responsible: To be determined (Tearfund)
When: As needed; to be determined by Tearfund