Introduction 1991 1998 1996 1998 2006 2007a Study Area 1 1997 Fig. 1 Location of the study area in the inter-Andean valleys of Bolivia  In three of the research villages, the “experimental villages” (Tomoroco, Kaynakas, and Sirichaca), the logical strategy was developed and tried out over a period of 4 years. The other two villages were “validation villages” (Talahuanca and Patallajta); in these villages the strategy was validated for 2 years. The villages were carefully selected, in order to obtain a representative sample of villages for the north-Chuquisaca region. Therefore, geographical, climatic, cultural, and socioeconomic characteristics are different among the villages. Rainfall varies from 350 mm/year (in Tomoroco) to 750 mm/year (in Kaynakas). Sirichaca has more flat lands for potato production, whereas the other villages have steeper and more erosion-prone slopes. SWC is a barely developed activity in this region. Since the colonial era, when farmers started using a combination of Spanish and traditional agricultural practices to maintain adequate production levels, practices have not changed much. As a consequence, once cultivable land began to be used more intensively, traditional conservation practices were no longer able to control erosion and maintain soil fertility. Most of the SWC practices currently found in the research villages are still based on traditional knowledge, but given their ineffectiveness in conserving soil and water, farmers have become increasingly sceptical about prospects for sustainable agriculture in their villages. Therefore, migration rates are high in most of the villages. Attempts of development agencies to promote improved SWC practices have not been successful, mainly because of failing intervention strategies and the lack of adequate extension tools. Research Methodology The SWC contests were conducted in the “experimental villages” in 2001, and in the “validation villages” in 2003. In each ‘‘experimental village’’ only one SWC contest, which focused on all physical SWC practices, was conducted; in the “validation villages” two SWC contests were conducted, focusing on two SWC practices each. During the SWC contests, the number of labor days invested per family was monitored for each SWC practice. Moreover, the rate of participation in the contests (i.e., percentage of families actively involved in SWC activities) was evaluated in each village. 2006 In the ex-post evaluation, the percentage of families actively involved in both maintenance and replications of SWC practices was assessed by means of a field survey. If at least one type of SWC practice was properly maintained, the family was considered to be actively involved in maintenance. If at least one SWC practice was replicated on other fields after the project’s withdrawal, the family was considered to be actively involved in replications. Similarly, the active usage of other (nonphysical) SWC practices was evaluated during the ex-post evaluation. Finally, in order to obtain data concerning the popularity of the executed SWC practices, quality of maintenance of these practices was evaluated within the same sample of families. For each family an average score was given for the quality of maintenance of each type of SWC practice, ranging from very bad (or abandoned) to very good. Based on these scores, and in order to be able to compare the villages, average scores for each village were calculated. The Need for More Effective Extension Tools 2001 2001 1998 1989 1998 2001 2000 2002 2005 2001 Implementing such an integrated and farmer-based extension approach is urgently needed in Bolivia; only then can a wide-scale impact be achieved. Although municipalities have considerable budgets for rural development, they do not have the human capacity to provide this service, and they regard extension as a state responsibility. Hence, there is a need for (1) profound changes at institutional level to give priority to extension, and (2) effective extension tools that can be used in a farmer-based extension approach. SWC contests are an example of such a tool. Using SWC Contests Within a Farmer-Based Extension Approach 1999 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2004 2005 2005 2002 in Bolivia the practices being judged in a contest are specifically defined, while in Peru the contests have a more general character (e.g., soil conservation) and practices are not specified; in Bolivia money is not involved (and prizes are in the form of goods), while in Peru farmers are responsible for contracting the trainers and cash prizes can be won. SWC Contests in the JGRC Project 2007b 2007a 2005 1982 In the next section we explain the SWC contests in more detail. In all the activities the project’s extension worker plays a crucial role. At the end of the section we also present the differences between the approach of the aforementioned two projects and the JGRC project. Activities Preceding the SWC Contests Preceding the SWC contests (i.e., during the laying of a solid foundation for sustainable development in a village), SWC activities start with a group of about 10 Conservation Leaders (CLs). CLs are chosen by the assembly, taking into account personal characteristics such as responsibility, honesty and willingness to innovate. They receive intensive training from the project’s extension worker, aiming at the generation of a progress-driven attitude and at conducting experiments on their fields. Experimentation focuses both on physical SWC practices (stone lines, diversion ditches, bench terraces, etc.) and agronomical soil management practices (more efficient manure use, composting, green manure, etc.). CLs are also stimulated to establish some test-sites for comparing with and without cases, with the objective of obtaining more visible results and making on-site comparisons. This might convince visiting farmers that the positive effects are indeed a result of the practices, and not of different physical conditions between their farm and the CLs’ farms. Apart from experimentation and providing demonstrations on their own farms, CLs also have many less tangible tasks such as mobilizing the villagers to become involved in development activities. They are thus both promoters and technicians. Finally, training of CLs in techniques for knowledge transfer is given before and during the farm visits. Once a solid foundation is laid in the village and CLs are sufficiently trained, the group decides when the first SWC contest will be held and which practices will be executed. In the dry season, practices like stone lines and gully control measures are considered and in the wet season practices that require digging such as diversion ditches and bench terraces. The village is informed in the assembly and by distributing information leaflets. During a period of at least a few weeks, families have the opportunity to decide whether to participate in the contest. CLs have an active role in motivating their neighbors, and in starting to organize groups based on vicinity. Eventually, each CL should lead a group of five to eight families. During these weeks of group formation, possible conflicts must be resolved, especially between neighbors. Given that effective group collaboration is crucial for a successful SWC contest, group formation should be given the required time. Execution and Evaluation of the SWC Contests A contest generally deals with two SWC practices. In a later stage a certain contest can be repeated and/or more integrated contests can be considered, combining different practices. The first contest is the most important one, because it serves as a selection tool for distinguishing the interested families (those with a progress-driven attitude) from the others. In this first contest a subsidy is given – as an incentive to all participants – for the purchase of a set of tools that are essential to conduct SWC practices. Each family pays 20% of the original cost. Families that start participating in a later stage have no access to the subsidized tools, and should themselves catch up with the already executed practices. Each SWC contest takes about one or two months. Twice a year a contest can be held; one in the dry season and the other one in the wet season. The criteria for evaluating the contests are clearly indicated before starting: (1) executed quantity, (2) quality of the work, (3) knowledge, and (4) group collaboration. Major emphasis is given to training and learning during the contests. An essential technique for conducting most of the SWC practices is the adequate handling of the A-frame, which is used for establishing the contour lines in a field. This is generally taught during the first contest. “ayni” 1994 “alayon” 2000 ayni Once a contest has finished, each CL measures the quantity of practices executed by his or her group. The verification of this quantity, as well as the evaluation of quality and knowledge, is done by means of cross-visits with other CLs. Quality criteria are harmonized between CLs before starting the evaluation. Knowledge is evaluated by asking some practical questions. For these three criteria (quantity, quality and knowledge) scores of 1 (bad) to 3 (good) can be obtained. This is written down on evaluation sheets. Based on observations, the extension worker evaluates the fourth criterion: group collaboration and cohesion. All criteria are given the same weight-factor in the final calculation. 1990 Activities Succeeding the SWC Contests Maintenance of the newly constructed practices is the first priority, and complementary vegetative and soil management practices are essential in order to achieve impact on soil productivity. Vegetative conservation practices (grasses, bushes, or trees) also strengthen most SWC practices and make them more sustainable. They require, however, controlled grazing and strict rules at village level that are respected by all villagers. Hence, only when such regulations are collectively agreed upon will vegetative practices be viable and will SWC practices work. 2007a ayni Differences with the MARENASS and SID Projects The emphasis on training in specific SWC practices during each contest instead of leaving more space for experimentation. The reason: the SWC contests are foremost an extension tool, i.e., they aim at providing farmers with basic practical knowledge of some simple SWC alternatives. After the contests farmers experiment with innovations and will adapt and improve the practices. The emphasis on laying a solid foundation for sustainable development before starting the SWC contests. The reason: only farmers with a progress-driven attitude will continue to experiment and innovate after the project’s withdrawal. ayni The subsidizing of tools to stimulate participation in the contests, but no (or insignificant) prizes for winning groups. The reason: not having the tools is often a major limitation for participating, but once farmers participate, they must become convinced by the result of their work and not by the prizes they can win. Results and Discussion 1 aynis Table 1 Average number of labour days invested per family for each SWC practice, during the SWC contests SWC practices Experimental villages Validation villages Tomoroco Kaynakas Sirichaca Talahuanca Patallajta Stone lines  8.1 5.6 4.5 5.2 5.4 Diversion ditches  0.8 0.8 1.2 2.8 2.8 Gully control 0.3 0.6 1.8 0.5 2.5 Bench terraces  2.1 2.7 – – – Earth bunds  – 0.1 1.6 0.2 1.1 Infiltration ditches  0.2 0.3 – – – Individual terraces – 0.5 1.4 – – Total  11.5 10.7 10.5 8.9 11.8 Source: M&E data in 2001 (experimental villages) and 2003 (validation villages) 2 Table 2 Percentage of families actively involved in SWC activities SWC activity Experimental villages Validation villages Tomoroco Kaynakas Sirichaca Talahuanca Patallajta Construction of SWC practices during the SWC contests 86 75 48 84  66 Maintenance of SWC practices two years after project withdrawal 91 69 – 84 53 Replications of SWC practices two years after project withdrawal 78 25  20 30 Source: M&E data in 2001 and 2003 (during the contests) and ex-post evaluation data in 2005 1991 2 3 2000 3 Table 3 Quality of maintenance of SWC practices two years after project withdrawal SWC practices Experimental villages Validation villages Tomoroco Kaynakas Talahuanca Patallajta Stone lines + +/− ++ +/− Diversion ditches +/− +/− + - Gully control +/− - +/− +/− Bench terraces + + n.a. n.a. Earth bunds n.a. n.a. – – ++ very good; + good; +/− moderate; - bad; – very bad (abandoned); n.a. not applicable (not executed) Source: Ex-post evaluation data in 2005 3 2007a 2 Hence, the SWC contests have achieved mixed results in the five villages. They were effective in three villages: Tomoroco, Kaynakas and Talahuanca. The most positive outcome is that in these villages (on average) more than 80% of the families are currently involved in one way or another in SWC activities, and this was achieved without using incentive schemes or cash prizes. Most villagers also consider the executed SWC practices useful, and more than half of the farmers plan to replicate more measures in the near future. The three villages have in common that they all have solid foundations for sustainable development, which were laid before the SWC contests were conducted (in the first Phase of the logical strategy). This has triggered a renewed interest in alternatives to improve living conditions, including better soil management. The most negative outcomes are that in two of these villages (Kaynakas and Talahuanca) replication rates are currently very low, and in all villages CLs are no longer active as trainers. It seems that the dynamics of the process came to a halt after the project’s withdrawal. Some farmers cautiously experiment and replicate SWC practices, but most of them only maintain existing practices and wait for tangible results before investing in new ones. Similarly, the CLs find themselves in a vacuum; they are rarely asked for advice, and there is no common objective to keep the CLs’ groups active. The catalyst of the process, the project, is no longer there. The CLs were expected to fulfill this motivating role after the project’s withdrawal, but this has not happened. 2007a 2002 4 2005 Table 4 Percentage of families using other SWC practices two years after project withdrawal SWC practices Experimental villages Validation villages Observations Tomoroco Kaynakas Talahuanca Patallajta Manure use 36 16 5 0 Improved traditional practice Green manure 20 0 10 0 New practice Crop rotations 60 28 30 15 Improved traditional practice Strip cropping 24 12 15 0 New practice Agroforestry 28 64 25 45 New practice Mixed cropping 68 48 70 65 Improved traditional practice Composting 40 20 – 10 New practice Source: Ex-post evaluation data in 2005 2001 1998 2005 2001 1989 2000 1997 2003 Conclusions 1991 2005 Two recommendations were given in this paper to make SWC contests more effective in an extension strategy. First, in addition to the contests described here, other SWC contests should be organized in which practices are not predefined; this will stimulate peoples’ creativity in developing adaptations of existing practices. Second, commitment is required from local institutions to support SWC contests as an extension tool; only then can Conservation Leaders continue their activities, and can a widespread impact be achieved. Given the responsibility of Bolivian municipalities for rural development, they must be the first to become actively involved in extension. However, steering and support with adequate strategies from departmental and state institutions is indispensable; this will motivate municipalities to take natural resources conservation and rural development more seriously. Without such support, any attempt to spread SWC practices via participatory extension methodologies – such as farmer contests – will likely fail; no matter how logical and well-designed the strategy may be.