| 1.
Partnerships |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Stakeholders of different disciplines
involved in process |
Awareness creation done by IADO
to different stakeholders
Different stakeholders are targetting farmers (same target)
Laws / regulations mention that's how its got to be
Discussion among stakeholders made things clearer (eg. as to the use of
funds and distribution of responsibilities) |
Competition between NGOs. Others
being jealous of IADO's name appearing too often |
- |
| Formal agreements with stakeholders |
Role distribution among stakeholders
defined
Staff may not be permanent, so need to have it in paper. Need to involve
institutions, not individuals |
Not signed with farmers. Farmers
were not organized, didn't have one voice. Thus, if involved, it was individually.
No common consensus |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 2.
Participation |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Existence of coordinating team |
To ensure things go right
The experience which the representatives had, and their interest
MoU's existence |
Interference of government; researchers
may be called to do something else, thus activities had to be put forward |
- |
| Interest of farmers |
Cost-effectiveness, they realized
they'd be using low cost ways for producing coffee (pesticides are expensive)
Coffee is a cash crop, the only one expectd to bring money to household
New varieties have shorter production cycles
Awareness raising by IADO |
Some farmers are not coffee growers
Some are lazy (!) |
- |
| Gender issues / participation
of women |
Awareness creation in gender,
they know thay are part of every activity in household
Both men and women work together
Women aware that coffee is a crop that benefits the whole family
Holistic intervention of extension services: IADO workshops include not
just coffee, but also rights, gender issues, HIV, etc. |
Coffee is a crop for the husband
(he gets the money)
Coffee is only for a certain group: married and older than 35. Young people
want faster crops, fast money
Young people come to meetings, but are not interested |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 3.
Acceptability |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Number of farmers requesting
seedlings |
Cost-effectiveness
Resistence to diseases
Information given out in many ways to District Executive for distribution
sharing. WDC, IADO Board, signborads, leaflets, farmers groups
Cheap price of seedlings |
Demand is higher than supply
(coffee growers are all interested)
Land is scarce, not enough space for everybody
(those who came wanted seeds for one acre, 540 seedlings) |
Demand from outside the target
area |
| Farmers giving plots for trial
establishment (accept the idea of trying out the varieties) |
Expectation of seeing the problem
solved
During trials, they were testing varieties for disease and production, and
afterwards the production is for them. "They got seedling free of charge".
All inputs were free of charge
Closely monitored by IADO. Two expt field/village.
People were very keen in getting good results, as many were coming to check |
- |
- |
| Quality of seedlings |
Cloning, you are sure it is exact
(contrary to seed from bean/fruit). No mixtures
Proven resistance to disease
Good training provided
A mixture of four varieties |
Quality not good if the whole
process is not followed thoroughly, eg. in mother field preparation, if
mother crop is not well treated, then seedling wont be good
Aseptic conditions for production, not easy, needs expertise
Improper nursery husbandry
|
Four varieties are now mixed.
If there is a problem in the future, it will be more difficult to go on |
| Availability of seedlings |
- |
Parental material was not much
Takes time
A new technology requires training
Backstoppers (TACRI) are very far away (more than 900 km) |
- |
| |
|
|
|
| 4.
Sustainability |
Indicators |
Positive aspects |
Negative
aspects |
Unknown
aspects |
| Support from TACRI and others |
One among TACRI objectives: its
obligation is to support coffee production
Coffee production brings foreign exchange
Grassroots demand driven (farmers asked for it)
Available budget for promoting coffee production at ministry level (may
be technical,not only financial) |
Donor dependent, especially for
IADO
Budget at Ministry is not much |
- |
| Existence of farmer groups |
Initiated by farmers themselves;
they want to own the process
Originated in previous IADO activities; already established
The responsibility is clear |
Those not growing coffee are not
members. Others dont like to be bounded by regulations
Always a need to strengthen their capacities
Not skilled in all skills. eg. being chairperson, etc. Need training |
- |
| Cost of production |
Low costs
No need for fungicides
Seedlings produced in the locality |
Not enoughproduction now to meet
demand |
- |
| Demand for coffee |
Local market is good |
Not stable.
Proce set at international levels. Influence of international markets |
- |
| Ownership; own income |
Farmers are trained to do multiplication,
so will go on even if these seedlings are not wanted any more
Possibility to make maney by selling |
Too much money?
Conflicts inside the family |
|
| |
|
|
|