Impacts of CIMMYT's International Training Linked to Long-Term Trials in Conservation Agriculture: 1996-2006

7/31/2019 Impacts of CIMMYT's International Training Linked to Long-Term Trials in Conservation Agriculture: 1996-2006

1/40


2/40


3/40

i

Impacts of CIMMYTs international

training linked to long-term trials in

conservation agriculture: 19962006

Jirina Svitkov, Petr Kosina, Roberto La Rovere

Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 Mexico, D.F. MEXICO; www.cimmyt.org


4/40

ii

The International Maize and Wh eat Improvement Cen ter, know n by its Span ish acronym, CIMMYT

(ww w.cimm yt.org), is an in ternational, not-for-profit research and training organization. With partners

in over 100 countries, the center ap plies science to increase food security, improve the p rodu ctivity

and profitability of maize and wh eat farming systems, and su stain natural resources in th e d eveloping

world. The centers outputs and services include imp roved m aize and w heat varieties and cropp ing

systems, the conservation of maize and wh eat genetic resources, and cap acity building. CIMMYT

belongs to and is fund ed by the Consultative Group on Interna tional Agricultura l Research (CGIAR)

(www.cgiar.org) and also receives support from national governments, foundations, developmentbanks, and other pu blic and private agencies.

Intern ational Maize and Wheat Im provement Center (CIMMYT) 2009. All rights reserved. The

designations employed in the presentation of materials in this publication do not imply the expression

of any opinion w hatsoever on th e part of CIMMYT or its contributory organ izations concerning the

legal status of an y coun try, territory, city, or area, or of its auth orities, or concerning the d elimitation of

its frontiers or bou nd aries. CIMMYT encourages fair use of this material. Proper citation is requested .

Correct citation: Svitakova , J., Kosina, P., and La Rovere, R. 2009. Impacts of CIMMYTs FormalInternational Training Activities Linked to Long-Term Trials in the Field of Conservation Agriculture:1996-2006. Mexico, DF.: CIMMYT.

AGROVOC Descriptors: Edu cation; Training cou rses; International cooperation;

Research institu tions; Natu ral resources; Resource conservation;

Agricultural d evelopm ent

AGRIS Category Codes: C10 Education

P01 Nature Conservation and Land Resources

Dew ey D ecimal Classification: 333.73

ISBN: 978-970-648-168-9

Printed in Mexico


5/40

iii

Contents

Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... iii

Index of tables .................................................................................................................................................iv

Index offigures ................................................................................................................................................iv

Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................................................v

Acronyms and abbreviations ........................................................................................................................vi

Foreword and introduction ......................................................................................................................... vii

1. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................1

I. Trainee su rvey .........................................................................................................................................1

II. Research lead er su rvey .........................................................................................................................2

2. Results: Trainees perspective ....................................................................................................................3

I. Characteristics of sur vey respon den ts.................................................................................................3

II. Percep tion of the course .......................................................................................................................4

Sum mary an d conclusions pa rt II. .................................................................................................5

III. Netw orking, com mu nication , and collaborat ion after the course ................................................5

Summary and conclusions part III. ...............................................................................................7

IV. Imp acts of tr aining on professional career an d per sonal grow th .................................................7

Sum mary and conclusions p ar t IV. ................................................................................................8

V. Impacts on trainees organization and research from trainees point of view .............................9

Sum mary and conclusions par t V. ............................................................................................... 11

VI. Spillover impacts of the CA tr ain ing at CIMMYT ........................................................................11

Summary and conclusions part VI. .............................................................................................12

3. Research leaders perspective ..................................................................................................................14

I. Gen era l infor mation .............................................................................................................................14

II. CA tra inin g cou rse eva luation...........................................................................................................14

III. Impacts of CA training courses at CIMMYT .................................................................................16

Conclusions: Lessons learned and recommendations ..............................................................................18

Appendixes ......................................................................................................................................................19


6/40

iv

Index o tables

Table 1. Survey response rate by training event. ..........................................................................................2

Table 2. Occupation of resp ondents. ..............................................................................................................3

Table 3. Respon den ts by emp loying in stitutions at the time of training and currently. .........................4

Table 4. Typ e of w ork of respondents ............................................................................................................4

Table 5. Attitud es, behaviors, an d skills adopted , as reported by tr ainees. .............................................7

Table 6. Number of su pervised people before CIMMYT training an d currently. ....................................8

Table 7. Contribution of CIMMYT training to improve local or regional farming practices. ..............13

Table 8. Attitudes, behavior and skills adopted , as reported by lead ers. ...............................................16

Index o fgures

Figure 1. Division of p articipants by coun try. ............................................................... in side front cover

Figure 2: Division of resp ond ents by coun try. ............................................................... in side front cover

Figure 3: Division of research lead er respondents by cou ntr y. .................................... inside back cover

Figure 4. Regions represented by respondents. ...........................................................................................3

Figure 5. Age of respond ents at the time of att end ing a cou rse. ...............................................................3

Figure 6. Percen tage of time sp ent in d ifferent w ork env ironm ents. .......................................................4

Figure 7. Alternative training providers, as reported by survey respondents. .......................................5

Figure 8. Constraints in t rainees organizations to u se wh at learned du ring the courses. ...................5

Figure 9. Frequency of post-training interaction w ith course instructors an d fellow tr ainees. ............6

Figure 10. Percentage of respond ents u sing d ifferent sources of inform ation . .......................................6

Figure 11. Typ e of wor k of subord inates before CIMMYT train ing an d currently. ................................8

Figure 12. Promotion and salary increase after the CIMMYT training. ...................................................8

Figure 13. To w hom w as fur ther train ing p rovid ed by th e tra inees. ......................................................12

Figure 14. Contribution of CIMMYT training to im prove local or regional farming practices. .........12

Figure 15. Constraints to u se wh at trainees learned by trainees, as repor ted by leaders. ..................14Figure 16. Sources of training an d professional developm ent for the staff in organizations. .............14

Figure 17. Altern ative train ing provid ers, as reported by leaders. .........................................................15

Figure 18. Beneficiaries of training prov ided by cou rse participants, as rep orted by leaders. . ..........17


7/40

v

Acknowledgments

The authors express their appreciation to Mythili Prabhu, World Food Prize

intern, who p repared the d atabase of trainees. The au thors wou ld like to

than k CIMMYT cropp ing systems sp ecialist, Bram Govaerts, who read the

questionnaires and critiqued d rafts of the pu blication. We acknowledge the

editing of CIMMYT corp ora te communications, Laura Yates, Allison Gillies,

and Mike Listman, and the design an d layou t assistance of CIMMYT designers

Miguel Mellado E. and Eliot Snchez P.

We owe a tremend ous amou nt of gratitud e to the many course participants

and research leaders wh o kindly completed ou r questionnaire and respond ed

to its many qu estions. We are grateful for their time an d effort in p roviding u s

with thoughtful answers and information. We would like to express specialappreciation to:

Edu ardo Agu irre Alvarez, Ziaullamin Amin, Ahmad Zia Aria, Tekalign Mamo

Assefa, Madan Raj Bhatta, H akim Boulal, Cemal eki, Ahmad Dezfoli,

Sheikheld in Abdelgad ir El-Awad , Oussama El Gharras, Alaeldin M. Elhassan,

Zheng Fei, Carlos Angel Gonlez Loeza, Songu l Gursoy, Iqbal H assan, M. Ilias

Hossain, Md . Israil Hossain, Imran Moh amm adali Jum shu dov, Yuksel Kabacki,

M A Khaleque, Hasan Kilic, Ashok Kumar, Sharm a Ramesh Kumar, Francisco

And res Margiotta, Miguel Alberto Mndez, Khlifa MHed hbi, Boutfirass

Mohamed , Md. Islam Udd in Mollah, Ramdhan Nasraui, Amos Robert Ngw ira,

Egamberd iev Oybek, Vitaliy Pojarskiy, Md. Anisur Rahman , Hafiz Mu jeeb

ur Rehman , Irakli Rekhviashvili, Hu go Walter Roig, Erdinc Savasli, Nu rullo

Sharipov, K. P. Singh , Samar Singh , Sati Shankar Singh, A.S.M. Hasim Morshed

Talukd er, Yong lu Tang, Janmejai Tripathi, Zubeyir Turk, Hu mberto Leonel

Vallejo Delgado, Ignacio Vidales Fernndez, Ma-Wanjie, Rauan Zhapayev, and

Ma Zhongming.


8/40

vi

Acronyms and abbreviations

AAAID Arab Authority for Agricultural Investment and Development

ADB Asian Developm ent Bank

ACIAR Australian Centre for Internationa l Agricultura l Research

ARIA Research Institute of Afghanistan

BARI Banglad esh Agriculture Research Institute

CA Conserva tion Agriculture

CGIAR Consu ltative Group for International Agricultura l Research

CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improv emen t Center

CIRAD Centre de coopr ation internationale en recherche agronom ique pou r le dvelopemen t.

FAO Food and Agriculture Organ ization

FNRI Food and Nutr ition Research InstituteGO Governmental Organizations

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Technische Zusam menarbeit

IARC International Agriculture Research Centers

ICARDA International Center for Agricultura l Research in the Dry Areas

IA Impact Assessment

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Developm ent

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

INIFAP Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrcolas y Pecuar ias

INTA Instituto Nacional de Tecnologa Agrcola (Argentina)

IRRI Intern ational Rice Research Institu te

IWMI International Water Managemen t Institute

IWWIP International Winter Wheat Improv emen t Program

NARS Na tional Agricultura l Research System

NGO Non-governmental organization

NZAID New Zealands International Aid and Development Agency

OEA Organ izacin de los Estados Amer icanos

USAID United States Agency for Internationa l Developm ent

TIKA Turk ish International Cooper ation and Developmen t Agency

WRC Wheat Research Centre


9/40

vii

Foreword and introduction

Conserva tion agriculture (CA) combines the principles of a) reduced tillage systems that

feature minim al soil distu rbance; b) retention of adequ ate levels of crop residu es and cover on

the soil surface, to protect the soil from w ater/ wind erosion, w ater run-off and evaporation,

improve wa ter prod uctivity and en hance soil prop erties; and c) economically viable,

diversified crop rotations to help m itigate weed , disease, and pest p roblems. These principles

are app licable to a wide range of crop p roduction systems und er low-yielding, d ry rainfed

and high-yielding irrigated cond itions. CIMMYT has offered courses on CA for many year s

that link a m ultidisciplinary app roach to sustainable crop man agement w ith the experience of

agronom ists leading p rojects in Asia, Africa, and Latin Am erica.

This report sum mar izes the strengths, weaknesses, outcom es, and impacts of the CIMMYT

CA course titled Bed p lanting an d zero till conservation agr icultu re technologies for irrigated

and rainfed w heat and maize produ ction systems. During th e 10-year span covered by this

stud y, the course was h eld 16 times un der th e leadership of CIMMYT agronomist Dr. Ken

Sayre. Information p resented in this study was gath ered from two surveys; one d esigned for

past cou rse participants (scientists attend ing four-to-five-week training courses in CIMMYT

facilities in Mexico). The other sur vey w as prep ared for their imm ediate research leaders and

supervisors in the area of agronomy/ conservation agriculture.


10/40

viii

Summary o fndings

This study focused on the training of scientists who work in public, private, or non-governmental

sectors in the areas of agronom y and sustainab le managem ent of natura l resources. Of the 82

trainees w ho p articipated in CIMMYT CA training courses betw een 1996 and 2006, 80 were

men an d 2 women. Course participants w ere usually selected by NARS leaders and through

CIMMYT regional offices in cooperation w ith NA RS leaders. Not all trainees were reached by the

survey du e to change of their contact details. Out of 67 distributed su rveys to reachable cour se

par ticipan ts, we received 42 respon ses (63% response rate) and for surveys to research leaders

out of d istributed 41 surveys we received 19 responses (46% response rate).

Cour se participants came to CIMMYT to strengthen their skills and kn owled ge and were actively

involved in the CIMMYTs ongoing cropp ing systems man agemen t activities at the experimen tal

stations near Mexico City or at Ciud ad Obregn. A main goa l of the course was that par ticipan tsreturn to their institutions and incorporate their new skills and know ledge into their w ork,

become more open-minded, in terms of the multidisciplinary aspects of CA, and extend new

technologies to farm ers.

Formal training activities linked to long-term trials in the field of conserva tion agriculture (CA)

are, according to 45% of course pa rticipan ts and 37% of research leaders, ava ilable only th rough

CIMMYT. The level of training was mostly eva luated as very satisfactory, with pa rticipan ts

stating that th ey used th e supp ort materials distributed du ring the course in their work. The

biggest constraint to ap plying CA information in the hom e institutions of pa rticipants was a lack

of suitable CA machinery and equip men t; research leaders instead repor ted a lack offinancial

resources as the main constraint.

The course helped in creating a scientific network; almost half the respondents are communicating

with th eir instru ctors and fellow tra inees at least twice a year. More than half the responden ts

and 74% of their correspond ing organ izations are currently collaborating with CIMMYT. Almost

all respon den ts evaluated their level of confiden ce to perform th eir job as higher after the

CIMMYT cour se and w ere able to describe tangibly how their m ethod ologies and skills improved .

Responses show that there is a perceptible increase in motivation to do more hands-on work in the

field or in the laboratory after attend ing the course and to increase sup ervisory responsibilities.

Almost half the respond ents were promoted , with CIMMYT training believed to be a contributing

factor in achieving these prom otions.

All responden ts considered the course relevant. Both trainees and research leaders state that

participation in the course helped them to conduct new and diverse research. Generally, the

training w as considered a good investmen t for the trainees organizations. Research leaders

report improved staff morale, increased interest in hands-on work, more communication with

international scientists, and increased know ledge and skills on CA an d sustainable man agement

of natura l resources.

Dissemination of the know ledge presented in the course has been d ocumented both within

and outside of the pa rticipan ts institutions. The ma in recipients of this knowledge have been

thousand s of farmers and hun dreds of extension w orkers and researchers. In th is way, the

CIMMYT training helped th e trainees organization imp rove agricultural pr actices and sp read

them on a m ass scale to local farmers.


11/40

1

IV. Impacts of training on professional career

and personal development. Informa tion on

the skills and attitud es acquired by p articipants

including: confiden ce in job performance, desire

and confidence to do han ds-on laboratory or

field work; how th e training furthered p ersonal

careers.

V. Impacts of training on trainees organization

and research. Informa tion on the relevance and

utility of CIMMYT CA training for the tr ainees

organizations and institutions. These questions

were focused on changes in p erception and

on the w ay research is conducted in the

respondents organization and were intended

to detect outcomes and direct impacts resulting

from CA courses.

VI. Spi llover impacts of the CA trainin g at

CIMMYT. Information to m easure the broader

outcom es and d irect impacts of the CA training

courses taken at CIMMYT; participan ts were

asked if they provided any training to others

in their organization based on the know ledge

and skills they d eveloped at CIMMYT, and if so,

to whom the training was targeted and how it

impacted the trainees region.

Some qu estions allowed respondents to m ake

mu ltiple choices for the answers considered

app ropriate, while other questions encouraged

them to wr ite dow n ad ditional relevant

information or comments.

The data sets cover a 10-year period, from 1996 to

2006. Sixteen training courses in the area of CA

and sustainable managem ent of natural resources

were condu cted in Mexico during this period.

Cour se activities were carried ou t in the center s

Mexican research stations at El Batn, Toluca

(May Jun e) or near Ciud ad O bregn, Mexico

(Novem ber December). In total there w ere 82

course participants from 23 different countries

(Figure 1, inside front cover). Figure 2 (inside front

cover) presents the geograph ical distribution of the

course respond ents.

1. Methodology

The present stud y assessed the p erceptions on

the CA courses given by CIMMYT as reported by

trainees wh o participated in the CA courses and by

research leaders in th eir organizations. Research

leaders and course participants wh o responded to

our survey are further referred to as respond ents

in this repor t. The following tw o sections d escribe

the methodology that was employed.

I. Trainee survey

In order to evaluate the strengths and weaknessesand the extent of impact that CIMMYTs formal

CA training p rogram had on the p rofessional

development of participants an d on strengthening

the research agenda at their organizations, an

extensive survey w as adm inistered to former

trainees.

The questionnaire consisted of37 questions

structured in 6 parts (reported in App endix A):

I. Characterization of s urvey respondents.

Information to verify existing d ata from

CIMMYTs database (year of courseparticipation, age, gender, and employer at th e

time of training) and to up date biographical

information (current occupation and employer,

work p osition and p roportion of time spent in

different activities).

II. Perception o f the course . Information on the

level of training received d uring the course, use

and quality of distributed training materials,

infrastructura l and socioeconom ic constraints

to the use of the acquired know ledge and

skills after course completion, suggestions for

improvement of the CA course, and perception

abou t possible alternative p roviders of similar

training.

III. Networking, communication, and

collaboration after the course. Informa tion on

the participation in scientific networking amon g

scientists after taking the course at CIMMYT.


12/40

2

Table 1 show s the nu mber of trainees along

with the response rate by course. The survey

was distribu ted to 67 (out of a total of 82) course

participants. Distribution w as dep endent on

accur ate contact data; the remaining 15 participantswere not reachable. Forty-two questionnaires were

filled in and returned; the overall response rate

was 63%. The questionnaire was m ade available

both online (http:// ww w.surveymonkey.com) and

by email. Participants from Span ishspeaking

countr ies received th eir questionnaires in Span ish;

all other questionnaires were in English.

II. Research leader survey

Immed iate super iors (research leaders) of the

course participants were asked to share their

perceptions of the imp act CIMMYTs training

had on their institutions, employees, and region

or countr y. The sur vey contained 18 questions

subdivided into 3groups (Appendix B):

I. General information. We asked th e

responden ts nam e, position title, and contactdetails and if s/ he was part of his/ her current

organization while attending the CA course

at CIMMYT. Other qu estions includ ed how

many people in the respondents institution are

involved in research activities related to CA or

sustainable m anagement of natural resources

and the main infrastructural and socio-

economic constraints to using what trainees

learned du ring the course.

II. CA training course evaluation . Questions

add ressed th e training and professional

development sources utilized by therespondents organization and the existence of

CA training courses besides those offered by

CIMMYT. Leaders were encouraged to suggest

improvemen ts for future CA courses. They w ere

asked if the training program at CIMMYT was

a good investment for their organization and

if the organ ization currently collaborates with

CIMMYT.

III. Impacts of CA training courses at

CIMMYT. These questions addressed

outcomes and direct impacts at the individu al,

institutional, and regional level in terms ofconducting research, improving agricultural

practices, sharing knowledge, and the perceived

changes in attitud es after the training p rogram.

The recipients of the research leader su rvey w ere

selected based on the 42 responden ts to the trainee

survey. Forty-one surveys were distribu ted (there

was insufficient contact information for one

research leader ). Of these, one leader responded

twice, referring to two different trainees. Nineteen

questionnaires were received (Figure 3, see inside

back cover); the respon se rate was 46%.

Table 1. Survey response rate by training event.

Number Gender Distributed Received

of Male/ question- question-

Year participants female naires naires

2006 (El Batn) 2 2/0 2 2

2005 (Obregn) 1 1/0 1 1

2005 (El Batn) 5 5/0 5 4

2004 (Obregn) 2 2/0 2 02004 (El Batn) 9 8/1 9 5

2003 (Obregn) 6 6/0 6 4

2003 (El Batn) 8 8/0 8 5

2002 (Obregn) 9 9/0 7 6

2002 (El Batn) 8 8/0 7 5

2001 (Obregn) 5 5/0 5 4

2001 (El Batn) 5 4/1 5 2

2000 (Obregn) 7 7/0 6 0

1999 (Obregn) 3 3/0 1 1

1999 (El Batn) 4 4/0 2 2

1998 (Obregn) 3 3/0 1 1

1996 (Obregn) 5 5/0 0 0

Total 82 80/2 67 42


13/40

3

2. Results: Trainees perspective

I. Characteristics of survey respondents

Figure 4 show s the distribution of the trainees

across the six areas of the w orld, using th e

classification system established by the World

Bank.1 The largest number of respondents w as

from South Asia (India, Nep al, Banglad esh, and

Pakistan). The survey w as answered by 41 men and

1 woman. Age of respond ents is shown in Figure 5.

Most respon den ts are agron omists (Table 2).2

Most respond ents workedboth at the time oftraining and at the time of survey responsefor

a n ational agr icultural research center (Table 3);

4 work for a un iversity or college and 3 for an

agricultural extension program. The rest worked

for NGOs, pr ivate institutions, non-research

government agencies, or other institutions.3

Participat ion in the CA course had no effect on

respondents changing emp loyers or their type of

job, but five respondents m ention as a secondary

effect of their participation in th e training course

Table 2. Occupation o respondents.

Type of work Number of responses Percent of total

Agronomy 31 74%Plant breeding 4 10%

Plant pathology 1 2%

Other 6 14%

Total 42 100%

1 Countries o respondents are: Aghanistan (2), Argentina (2), Azerbaijan (1), Bangladesh (6), Ethiopia (1), Georgia (1), China (3), India (5), Iran (1), Kazakhstan (1), Kyrgyz

Republic (1), Malawi (1), Mexico (3), Morocco (2), Nepal (1), Pakistan (2), Sudan (2), Tajikistan (1), Tunisia (1), Turkey (4), Uzbekistan (1).2 Six people indicated that their jobs involved work other than the categories provided in the survey. Responses included: agricultural engineering (specialization in CA, arming

system agronomist, soil scientist, seed specialist) and capacity building (technical assistance and capacity building o technicians and agronomists)3 One participant answered that he started working in another organization to have more support or his CA work and research.

that they improved their language skills, which

allows them to work internationally, communicate

with scientists, and cooperate with international

research centers.

When asked to select their position and type of

work in their organization, most respond ents

identified them selves as active researchers (52%,

Table 4). App roximately half of responden ts

slightly ad vanced in their profession since training

at CIMMYT. In term s of specific wor k activities, the

most important w ork environment for almost all

respondents w as farmers fields, where some spent

up to three-quarters of their time. The second most

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

27-30 31-34 35-38 39-42 43-46 47-50 51-54

Years

Figure 5. Age o respondents at the time o attending a course.

(Total o respondents = 42)

Nu

mberofrespondents

Figure 4. Regions represented by respondents.

(Total o respondents = 42)

East Asia & Pacifc 7%

Europe & Central

Asia 24%

Latin America &

Caribbean 12%Middle East &

North Arica 10%

Sub-Saharan

Arica 10%

South Asia

37%


14/40

4

selected p lace was experimen tal stations. Almost

all respon den ts spent at least some of their time in

the office and one-quarter of respond ents worked

par t of the time in the laboratory (Figu re 6).

II. Perception of the course

Most respond ents rated the training as relevant

to their level of knowledge, skill, and experience

at th e time of the course (37, or 88%). Almost all

responden ts (39, or 93%) stated that they used the

learning (sup port) materials d istributed d uring

the tra ining (books, pu blications, CDs, etc) in their

work. Respondents w ere asked for suggestions

to improve the course. Examp les of respon ses

are listed in the Box 1 below (similar responses

are aggregated ). The same format for reporting

significant participant observa tions is used

throughou t the d ocument, and focuses on selected

meaningful answers only.

Box 1 suggestions for improvement of CA

course:

Training should last longer (2-3 months), sothat trainees can fully understand all agronomicpractices under CA from planting to harvest.Along with a longer training period, the courseshould be organized at various locations, sothe success of CA methods can be compared indifferent places (mentioned by respondents fromMalawi, Uzbekistan, China, India, Bangladesh).Include CA approaches for different farming andproduction systems; e.g., how to adopt CA when

two crops in the system entirely differ in theirbiophysical requirements, promotion of traditionalmethods in farmers fields, etc. (mentioned byrespondent from Nepal).Visit the other stations of CIMMYT and exchangethe experiences between different countries(mentioned by respondent from China, Tunisia).Research-experimental applied programs shouldbe done more in touch with farmers. Farmersand people who directly transmit knowledgeand experiences from the course to farmersshould participate in the course (mentioned by

participants from Argentina, Mexico).

When asked abou t other providers who m ay offer

training similar to that p rovided by CIMMYT, the

most comm on response is that it is not offered

elsewhere (45%). How ever, abou t one-third o f

responden ts (33%) mentioned national research

25

20

15

10

5

0

76-100% 51-75% 26-50% 1-25%

Figure 6. Percentage o time spent in diferent work

environments.

Numberofresponses

Farmers felds

Experiment station

O ce

Laboratory

Table 4. Type o work o respondents.

Number of responses Percent of total

Active researcher 28 52%

Researcher / administrator 6 11%

Proessional trainer 6 11%Extension specialist 5 9%

Proessor 3 6%

Administration (e.g. director) 1 2%

Other 5 9%

Note: (more than one response was allowed).

Table 3. Respondents by employing institutions.

Workplace At time of training At time of response

National research center 26 62% 23 56%

University or college 4 10% 4 10%

Agricultural extension

program 3 7% 3 7%

NGO 2 5% 2 5%

Private company (or proft) 0 - 1 2%

Government agency that

does not do research 0 - 1 2%International agricultural

research center 0 - 1 2%

Other 7 16% 7 16%

Total 42 100% 42 100%


15/40

5

centers and 31% mentioned other international

agricultural research centers (IARC) as alternative

prov iders of CA training (Figure 7).

When asked about infrastructural or socioeconomicconstraints in their organizations to implement

the information gained du ring the CA courses,

most respondents (67%) said unsuitable and/

or un available CA machinery or equipment w as

a constraint (Figure 8). In ad dition, 51% report

limitations in finan cial resources and resources

for providing further training (classrooms,

pu blications, etc.), and a th ird recognize other

issues: lack of technical assistance, limited

laboratory space and research plots, environmental

constraints, insufficient access to farm ers fields to

app ly what learned in the course.

Summary and conclusions part IIOverall, respondents are very satisfied with the

level of training and supp ort materials provided

du ring the course, wh ich they h ave found generally

useful. Most wou ld like to extend the courses

length, as longer courses would be more practical

for field research and wou ld provide more time

to learn the commu nication skills necessary for

spreading an d teaching CA information to farmers.

When the trainees returned to their organizations

and began to app ly the knowledge gained du ring

the course, the most common constraints were

un availability of suitable CA m achinery, financialsupp ort, and resources to provide further training.

III. Networking, communication, and

collaboration after the course

Respond ents indicated that there w as more

commun ication among trainees and instructors

than am ong trainees themselves. During the years

after participating in th e CA cour se, almost half the

respondents (48%) said they communicated with

course instru ctors at least tw ice a year. Sixteen, or

38% of respond ents have at some point interacted

with their instructors since the course, but less than

Figure 7. Alternative training providers, as reported by survey

respondents.Note: more than one option was possible.

National research center

International agricultural

research center

Private company

University

Similar training is not

available elsewhere

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Suitable machinery/equipment

Financial resources

Resources or providing urther training

Environmental constraints

Technical assistance sta

Access to armers felds

Research plots

Laboratory space

Support rom superiors

Time to apply what was learned

Access to inormation

Conict with other cropping systems

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Number o respondents

Figure 8. Constraints in trainees organizations to using what was learned during the courses.

Note: more than one option was possible.

once a year, and 14% did

not commu nicate with

the instru ctors at all.


16/40

6

Similarly, 43% of the respond ents said they

communicated with their fellow trainees at

least twice a year ; about one-third (29%) less

than on ce a year, and 29% did not comm un icate

at all with other trainees (Figure 9). Selectedresponses on communication and collaboration

are given in Box 2.

When asked about how they obtained

information abou t current research and

advances in CA, almost all respond ents (88%)

reported the internet as the m ain source

of information (Figures 10). Other sources

were scientific pu blications, pa rticipation

in conferences and workshop s, and

commu nication with fellow scientists. More

than a half of respond ents (55%) are currentlycollaborating with CIMMYT. Examples of this

collaboration are listed in Box 3.

4 Dr. Ken Sayre is agronomist, based at CIMMYTMexico; he has been the leader o

the wheat program CA training courses rom the mid-1990s until 2007

25

20

15

10

5

0>2 per 2 per


17/40

7

Summ ary and conclusions part III.

Dynamic scientific networks are one of the

important p athways for d issemination of new

information and research findings and sharing

of knowledge am ong scientists. For one-third ofpar ticipan ts, the main sou rce of CA informa tion

is the internet; communication among trainees

and instructors is done p rimarily by email. Many

participants ind icated that they had contacted

other scientists and course participants and many

also mentioned personal comm unication an d

collaboration w ith Dr. Ken Sayre after the cou rse

to discuss specific CA problems and review th e

results of their research.

IV. Impacts of training on professionalcareer and personal growth

After CIMMYT training as comp ared to before

CIMMYT training, 64% respond ents evalu ated

their level of confiden ce to perform their job as

mu ch higher and 32% evaluated it as somewh at

higher. Not surprisingly, when asked about

attitud es and behavior/ action changes adopted as

a result of the training p rogram, many mentioned

the u se of new skills, usu ally related to better

und erstanding of zero tillage and bed planting,

and machinery for conservation agriculture. In

addition, 23 respon den ts indicated that CIMMYT

training motivated them a lot to increase their

hand s-on w ork and for others it gave them

some m otivation.

The results show that the nu mber of subordinates

of course p articipan ts generally increased after

their participation in CIMMYT training (Table

6). Before training most respond ents had limited

sup ervisory respon sibilities. For examp le,before training, 20% reported n ot having any

subordinates, and 20% sup ervised m ore than 10.

These num bers changed by the time of the survey:

only 7% continu ed w ithout any su bordinates

and 40% of respondents su pervised more than 10

subordinates (Table 6).

Table 5. Attitudes, behaviors, and skills adopted, as reported by trainees.

Adopted Changes Examples of newly adopted behaviors and use of skills, with country of respondent that cited the information

Knowledge sharing Demonstrating use o bed planting & zero tillage (Turkey, Morocco, Mexico).

Ability to provide better training to armers and scientists (Pakistan, Morocco).

Conservation agriculture demonstration trial on arm land (Uzbekistan).

Up-scaling crop residue management (Iran).

Presentations at some conerences about conservation agriculture and permanent bed planting systems (Morocco).

Behavior changes Working and communicating with armers honestly and sincerely about CA and armers problems (Bangladesh).

Spending more time doing hands-on, practical feld research (Malawi).

Considering new problem solving approaches and selecting priorities (China, Nepal, Azerbaijan).

Confdent when presenting the knowledge to armers (Pakistan, Malawi, Nepal, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Mexico, India).

Undertake research Improving experimental design and precision (Georgia, Argentina).

Establishing CA experimental trails in cotton/wheat and rice/wheat systems (Uzbekistan).

Closer personal involvement in research- taking the feld data personally without any technicians assistance

(India, Morocco, Malawi, Sudan).

Developed bed planting or cultivation o a winter wheat in irrigated conditions. Working on zero tillage technology or

cultivation o corn (Kazakhstan).

Conducting research in armers felds (Bangladesh).

Skills Developing machinery: bed planters, wheel tractor zero tillage drill, wheel tractor driven potato planter, two wheel tractor

driven bed planter (Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Bangladesh).

Results Bed planting already adopted on 1,500 ha in Kyrgyzstan.

Course encourages participants to ollow in their work (Argentina).

Ministry o Agriculture o Turkey now supports CA.


18/40

8

Box 4 Comments on why the training w as

help ful for the respondents personal career:

The course helped to reinforce the respondentsactions in bed planting and zero tillage inlocal conditions (mentioned by respondentsfrom Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco, Bangladesh,Kazakhstan, Mxico).The course helped to increase cooperation withscientists from various countries (mentioned byrespondents from India, China).Participants become even more involved in CA.Specific examples: 1) the first Moroccan Researcherintroducing CA in irrigated areas, 2) associationwith groups working on CA like RWC in India, 3)minimizing agricultural damages in Bangladesh,4) specializing on bed planting technology inTajikistan, 5) new research on winter wheat on bedin Kyrgyz Republic, 6) project of continuous bedplanting system for Tagem and Tubitak in Turkey,

7) ARIA started research on CA in Afghanistan).The authority of respondents has grown(mentioned by respondent from Georgia).The course shows another way of working(mentioned by respondent from Argentina).

Level of subord inates also chan ged after

par ticipation in CIMMYT training. Figure 11

shows th at participation contributed to the growth

of participants responsibilities by sup ervising

more scientific and ad ministrative staff and lesssup ervision of technical staff and field workers.

Before CIMMYT training, just 19% of participants

sup ervised scientists; currently 51% superv ise

scientists. Before the cou rse, 81% of trainees

sup ervised technical staff and field w orkers; in

survey results, only 66% supervised them.

Seventy-nine percent of respondents indicated

that the training w as very h elpful for their

career and for 21% it was som ewh at helpful.

Figure 12 show s that 45% of respond ents w ere

promoted and according to their perceptionCIMMYT training w as a contributing factor to

this. Twenty-four percent ind icated th at their

salary increased as a consequence of being trained

at CIMMYT. Box 4 and Box 5 summarize some of

the comments on w hy the training was h elpful for

their p ersonal career.

Table 6. Number o supervised people beore CIMMYTtraining and at the time o the survey.

At the time In the survey

of training none 1-5 6-10 >10

None 8 1 5 1 1

1-5 23 1 10 3 9

6-10 2 - - 1 1

>10 8 1 - 1 6

3 15 6 17

35

30

25

2015

10

5

0

Scientists Technical Administrative Others

sta sta

Figure 11. Type o work o subordinates beore CIMMYTtraining and at the time o the survey.

Beore CIMMYT training

In the survey

Promoted, CIMMYTtraining contributedPromoted, CIMMYT

training was not a actor

Not promoted

Salary increased, CIMMYTtraining was a actor

Salary increased, CIMMYTtraining was not a actor

Salary did not increase

0 4 8 12 16 20

Number of respondents

Figure 12. Promotions and salary increases ater CIMMYT

training.

Summ ary and conclusions part IV

The majority of responden ts increased th eir level

of job p erformance, responsibility, and confidence

as a resu lt of the training course at CIMMYT.

Generally, they supervised more people withhigher qualifications (scientists) than prior to

the CIMMYT training. The trainees felt more


19/40

9

relevance, 64% said that they u sed m ost skills

and kn owledge gained du ring the course and

33% reported u sing some. Box 6 summ arizes

examples of the skills that respondents used.

Eighty-eight percent of respondents stated thatthe CIMMYT cour se helped th eir organization to

condu ct research in new areas (Box 7). Seventy-

four percent of respond ents agreed that training

at CIMMYT helped th em to cond uct research

differently, while 4 trainees (10%) answered

negatively (Box 8).

Having sp ent several w eeks at CIMMYT, trainees

were asked w hether the training w as a good

investmen t for their organization. Eighty-

five percent responded positively, and 8%

negatively, explaining that th eir organizationwas not interested in using their new know ledge.

Examples of benefits are in Box 9.

Box 5 Other personal impacts, as described by respondents:

Recognition that the base of agronomic problems is the same anywhere. It is necessary to be interested inconservation of natural resources and quality of life of poor people. These things generate a different world,with less poverty (mentioned by respondent from Argentina).Positive outcomes and direct impacts on scientific knowledge, gained from CIMMYT experts (mentioned byrespondents from Afghanistan, India, Iran, and Kazakhstan).

Improving level of technical English (mentioned by respondents from China and Tajikistan).The training gave a broad vision of CA globally and confidence and expertise to become a recognizedscientist in the institution. The training improved the skill and knowledge of many researchers and enhancedtheir research quality. With the new knowledge, skills, and partnerships achieved during the course, theparticipants emerged with more credibility and authority (mentioned by respondents from Malawi, Nepal,Mexico).More information sharing with fellow scientists (mentioned by respondents from Bangladesh, India).Got the opportunity to work in IRRI as a Project Manager and in other international projects, like NZAID/CIMMYT, DFID ADB-IRRI (mentioned by respondent from Pakistan).

motivated and more able to do han ds-on work in

the field and in the laboratory. The training was

helpful for furthering careers and in man y cases

contributed to p romotions and salary increases.

Many respond ents pointed out that after theirpar ticipation in CIMMYTs CA training , they

were regarded as experts in the field of CA in their

respective countries.

V. Impacts on trainees organization

and research from trainees point of

view

When asked about the relevance of the CA

training an d its use in their everyday work, 79%

of respond ents said training w as very relevant,and 21% reported that it w as somewhat relevant.

As one w ould expect given the high ratings of

Box 6 Examples o f how respondents use new know ledge and skills l earned during the CA course:

Management of permanent bed planting systems in irrigated areas, type of sowing, residue managementand soil factors, zero tillage, small-scale farm mechanization and machinery (mentioned by respondents fromMorocco, China, India, Nepal, Tunisia, Mexico, Sudan).An improvement in investigation, calibration, how to prepare experimental design (trial layout), reportwriting and presentation, data collection, and time management (mentioned by respondents from Morocco,Mexico, Argentina, Malawi, Tunisia).


20/40

10

Box 7 Examples of new areas of research started after participation in CIMMYTs CA training:

Not only our organization but our country started a country-wide project on bed planting after the trainingat CIMMYT (mentioned by respondents from Turkey and Morocco).

The government has formed a Task Force on CA (mentioned by respondent from Malawi).Many zero tillage experiments were modified after CIMMYT training (mentioned by respondent fromIndia).Experiments and trials on permanent bed planting (mentioned by respondents from Morocco).Our university gave recommendation of bed planting in intercropping system of sugarcane with variouscrops for higher income (mentioned by respondents from India).Zero tillage and minimum tillage with a power tiller and other aspects of natural resource management arepriority areas of research in the national water policy (mentioned by respondent from Nepal).New research studies on development of the minimal and zero technology of cultivation of a winter wheat,corn, and soya (mentioned by respondent from Kazakhstan).

Box 8 Examples of new ways of conducting research after participation in CIMMYTs course:

Long-term trials, fertility experiments, zero tillage and crop establishment trials, fertilizer response, raisedbed planting, laser land leveling, crop residue management, experiment with straw management on station(mentioned by respondents from Turkey, Malawi, India, Pakistan, Morocco, Iran, Nepal, Ethiopia, Georgia,Bangladesh, Mexico).Zero tillage and bed planting research work on station and farmers field (mentioned by respondents fromBangladesh, Argentina).Trials on permanent raised beds in a rice-wheat system (mentioned by respondent from Pakistan).First-time testing of bed planters using different seed rates (GTZ Project) (mentioned by respondent fromTajikistan).

Research conducted on development of the minimal and zero tillage technology of cultivation of winter wheat,corn and soya (mentioned by respondent from Kazakhstan).Permanent bed planting in rice-wheat-mungbean cropping system (mentioned by respondent fromBangladesh).

Box 9 Examples o f benefits that CA course provided to participants countries:

It benefited also my country in giving new direction to research in bed planting and my organizationinitiated more projects on CA using skills from my training (mentioned by respondent from Pakistan).

Provided helpful information, new technology, and new ideas for CA experts (mentioned by respondents from Sudan, Mexico, China, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Iran, Malawi, India, Turkey).Course participants return to their home country with a base of CA knowledge, and are able tocampaign to their national research center or organization to adopt similar practices, resulting inincreased sustainability productivity and improved livelihoods (mentioned by respondents fromArgentina, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Nepal, India).Many CA projects were initiated and government policy was influenced (mentioned by respondent fromIndia).


21/40

11

Seventy-four percent of respondents knew

about other staff in their organization who had

attend ed som e previous CIMMYT training. The

average n um ber of participants in CIMMYTs

training activities is between four an d five peopleper in stitution. Only 12% from their respective

organizations attend ed a CIMMYT cour se.

Comments on impacts on trainees organization

are listed in Box 10.

Summary and conclus ions part V

The survey respond ents perceive the content of

the CA training as relevant to their work and they

use m ost of the skills and knowledge learned at

CIMMYT in th eir curren t job. These skills have

helped most of the participants organizations

conduct research in new areas and experimentwith different app roaches. The ma jority of

respondents agree that the several weeks spent

at CIMMYT participating in the CA cour se was a

good investment for their organization.

VI. Spillover impacts of the CA

training at CIMMYT

Fifty-eight percent of respond ents repor ted

sharing their newly gained CA knowledgewith in their institution and 34% gave training to

people ou tside their own institution. Information

was mainly disseminated to farmers (for 83%

of respon den ts). In add ition, 64% respon den ts

trained extension wor kers, 58% researches, and

50% wor ked with technical staff. Other p laces

wh ere information w as shared include: NGOs,

private agricultural machinery m anufacturers,

and seed comp anies (Figure 13). Examp les of

information dissemination are listed in Box 11).

Trainees were asked wh ether CIMMYTtraining h elped their organizations to imp rove

agricultural p ractices (increase the adop tion of

CA) locally or in their region. Fifty-two percent of

Box 10 Examples o f im pacts on trainees organizations:

CIMMYT contributed to strengthening the research qualities of our organization. Many wheat researchershave visited CIMMYT either as a trainee or a visiting scientist and all have improved their knowledge, skill,and efficiency to work more aggressively in the organization (mentioned by respondent from Nepal).Training helped in broadening the outlook and readjusting research priorities (mentioned by respondent from

India)IRRI was encouraged to work with rice under CA and people from NGOs come to learn to our organizationabout CA practices (mentioned by respondent from Bangladesh).BARI maintaining CA research work in farmers field at various places (mentioned by respondent fromBangladesh).As a result of six years work (2002-2008,) there are more than 5,000 ha with zero tillage in the cycle O-I andat least another 100 ha more in P-V. More that 10,000 ha used some parts of CA, like leaving the residues onthe field, rotations, vertical ploughing, and use of chemicals (mentioned by respondents from Mxico).

Box 11 Examples of further knowledge dissemination by participants of CA courses:

International training course on bed planting and reduced tillage in SE Anatolia for Asian Countries in2004 (mentioned by respondent from Turkey).Short-term CA training programs and field days for scientists, extension workers, and farmers (mentionedby respondents from Bangladesh, Mexico, Tajikistan, Georgia, Bangladesh, India, Morocco, Pakistan).Technical training on zero tillage, reduced tillage, CA technologies, stakeholders training workshop onRCTs and farm mechanization, power tiller operator training (mentioned by respondent from Nepal).Capacity building for technicians and farmers, in INIFAP and government (mentioned by respondent fromMexico).Presentation of the knowledge in a workshop, adaptation of small machinery in small-scale farming(mentioned by respondent from Argentina).


22/40

12

Farmers

Extension workers

Researchers

Technicians

Others

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 90%

Figure 13. To whom urther training was provided by thetrainees.

Figure 14. Contribution o CIMMYT training to improved localor regional arming practices.

Important

contribution52%

Not applicable 7%

Little or no

contribution 5%

respondents answered that it mad e an imp ortant

contribution and for 36% the course made some

contribution (Figure 14). Comm ents on imp acts

of CIMMYT training to imp rove the agricultu ral

pr actices are in Table 7.

Summary and conclus ions part VI

The outcomes and impacts of training from

CIMMYT were not limited to the tra inee or his/

her institution. Most course participants have

in fact been sharing their new know ledge an d

skills both inside and outside their organization.

They mostly trained th e trainers in their

own organ izations after taking the CIMMYT

course. These sp ill-over train ing activities

involved a d iverse group of audiences such as

farmers, extension workers, researchers, andtechnicians. Respond ents also perceived that after

par ticipating in CIMMYT training they have been

contributing to improving agricultural practices

(includ ing increasing adop tion of CA) both locally

and in the region.Some

contribution

36%


23/40

13

Table 7. Contribution of CIMMYT training to improve local or regional farming practices.

Country Contribution and country of origin of trainee commenting

Aghanistan We got new ideas; the trained staf applied the tools and knowledge and brought some change on method o cultivation as well as

method o ertilizer application.Bangladesh Locally bed planting system managed irrigation water application properly with minimum involvement o labor, minimum water loss

and uniorm distribution with less efort. Moreover, through demonstration in armers eld, one pass seeding operation by two wheel

tractor (power tiller) attract armers due to reduced cost and timely planting. Visitors rom other organizations/group armers observed

the diferences o new practices. Participation in district level technology air, CA demonstrated through poster, video display.

Wheat Research Center o Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute has adopted the utilization o machinery like bed ormer.

Ethiopia The overall impact o CIMMYT collaboration is big.

Georgia Farmer interest to new practices has grown signicantly, but adoption o CA was hampered by absence o appropriate machinery.

China More technicians and armers learning and practicing CA technology than beore.

We build a bed planter based on the CIMMYT model and give them to the armers to adopt the bed-planting system and now the area is

about 5,000 chinese mu. We also get money rom the local government to support the research bed-planting system.

India Developed a machine named Rotary disc drill which can seed into loose crop residues including sugarcane ratoons but it still needs

ne tuning as the ront powered discs o the machine wears out very ast.

Farmers adopted technology o zero tillage at large scale in Haryana and increased their prots margins.

Kazakhstan Our development on the minimal and zero technology o cultivation o agricultural crops instill in arms o Almaty area.

Malawi Farmers adopt some o the CA associated technologies but it is hope that in the near uture they will adopt CA as a complete technology.

Mexico It permitted to realize more efectively investigation. We reached about 5,000 ha o zero tillage elds, and about 10,000 ha using the

components o CA practices.

We have suitable machinery, the area o CA cultivation increased, the eld were leveled as requisite to reach a support rom national

government.

Morocco In the regional centre o Settat was CA since the beginning one o the most important research area and many scientists have

contributed to the development and building capacities in this area. The package o CA was ready by the time I attended CIMMYT and it

was an opportunity to share and discuss our experience with Dr Sayre and Wall.

Nepal Organization has given priority to research on resource conservation and several technologies have been recommended or the armers.The adoption o these technologies has increased steadily though availability o appropriate machineries locally appeared to be a major

bottleneck. Collaboration with other countries in South Asia has improved scientic exchange and a network has been established

through regional programs, thereore scientists, organizations and more o people o respected countries have been beneted.

Tunisia My organization adapted the technique o zero tillage and developed it in sowing on vegetable cover in the elds in diferent areas. This

work is carried out with the collaboration o the international organization (CIRAD, AAAID).

Turkey Second crop was planted with tillage but now some armers use no tillage or planting second crop o maize or cotton in Anatolia

Pakistan We were/are already conducting research in bed planting with ACIAR Australia, CIMMYT enhanced capabilities and helped the project,

organization and country.

Dissemination o zero tillage technology, bed planting and crop residue management practices.

Spain* My work on permanent bed planting system in Spain is the rst research work in Spain about this. Im transmitting my experience about

permanent bed planting to researchers in Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible - Cordoba in Spain.

* Participant rom Morocco.


24/40

14

Figure 16. Sources o training and proessional development

or the staf in organizations.


CIMMYT

National university

Other international

agricultural research center

Private company

Other

10% 30% 50% 70% 90%

3. Research leaders perspectives

II. CA training course evaluation

When asked w here most of their staff received

training, 16 responden ts chose national research

centers, 10 respon den ts answ ered CIMMYT, and 9

men tioned a n ational un iversity (Figu re 16). When

asked abou t alternative p roviders of training

comparable to that offered by CIMMYT, 42%

mentioned that some national research centers

prov ide similar information or training , while 32%

I. General information

In terms of leader respon den ts presence in

their organizations during the time of their

subordinates CA training at CIMMYT, 37% of

the leaders surveyed w ere supervisors of course

par ticipan ts, 49% were colleagues, and 16% were

new to the organization and had n ot held the

position reported in the survey, du ring the time of

CIMMYTs training. In 9 of the 19 organizations

surveyed, 1 to 5 researchers and supp ort staff

in the organization w ere involved in CA or

sustainable management of natural resources. Inthree of the organizations, more than 16 peop le

were involved in this type of research and p ractice.

In terms of infrastructu ral or socioeconom ic

constraints for the participants organizations

to use wh at the trainees learned d uring the CA

courses (Figure 15), 79% of the constraints reported

by research leader s comp rised financial resources,

68% a lack of access to m echanization, and 53%

a lack of techn ical assistance, staff, and resources

(classrooms, teaching/ extension ma terials, etc.) for

CA information dissemination.

Not a constraint Constraint

Financial resources

Suitable machinery/equipment

Resources or providing urther training

Technical assistance sta

Access to armers felds

Environmental constraints

Conict with other cropping systemsLaboratory space

Time to apply what was learned

Access to inormation

Support rom superiors

Research plots

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Number o respondents

Figure 15. Constraints to trainees use o what they learned, as reported by leaders.


25/40

15

mentioned other international agricultural research

centers. The statemen t that similar training was

not available elsewhere w as also common: 37% of

leaders w ho selected this answ er (Figure 17).

Seventy-four p ercent of research lead ers stated

that th eir organization collaborated w ith CIMMYT.

Examples:

Box 12 Examples o f collaboration w ith

CIMMYT:

In breeding (mentioned by respondents fromMorocco, Sudan, China, Afghanistan, Turkey).

Conducting training, helping with surveys,germplasm exchange, creating links to otherorganizations, and national project proposals(mentioned by respondent from Bangladesh).Our institute is a partner in IWWIP (mentionedby respondent from Turkey).Collaboration INTA CIMMYT (mentioned byrespondent from Argentina)Closely working with the Rice-Wheat Consortium(mentioned by respondents from Nepal).

Figure 17. Alternative training providers, as reported byleaders.


Similar kinds o

training are not available

Other international

agricultural research center

Private company

Other

0% 5% 15% 25% 35% 45%

Suggestions for imp rovemen t for the CA cour sesat

CIMMYT:

Box 13 Suggestions for improvement of CAcourses at CIMMYT:

CIMMYTs CA program should be more practicaland field oriented (mentioned by respondent fromBangladesh).More course offered, more participants, and longertraining period (mentioned by respondents fromChina and Turkey).CIMMYT should invite trainees to shareinformation about their own projects and supportthem. With more active collaboration and sharingof information with the participants, CIMMYT

could achieve more success and higher adoption ofsustainable agricultural methods (mentioned byrespondent from Argentina).

After having a mem ber of their staff spend several

weeks at CIMMYT, leader s were asked wh ether

the training p rogram w as a good investment for

their organization. For 83% of responden ts the

answer was positive. Examples cited of why the

training w as worth the investment are:

Box 14 Examples of w hy the CA training was

worth the investment of trainees institution:

Any training abroad is a chance to see othercountries experiences (mentioned by respondentfrom Sudan).Trainees improved their research ability and wereexposed to the most recent research activities(mentioned by respondent from China).Helped to improve the methodology used in ourwork, brought new knowledge and new experiencesto our organization (mentioned by respondents

from Argentina and Turkey).Our organization feels the motivation that comesback with the trainee (mentioned by respondentfrom Morocco).After someone receives training, they havebeen able to use their training in farmers fields(mentioned by respondent from Bangladesh).


26/40

16

III. Impacts of CA training courses at

CIMMYT

A high por tion of respon den ts (63-79%) believed

that their staff morale improved, as well as theinterest in hand s-on w ork in the field or labora tory,

in communicating with international scientists,

and in CA knowledge an d skills with sustainable

managem ent of natural resources in a broad sense.

Selected examp les of answers are given in Table 8.

For 90% of responden ts the course helped their

organization condu cting w ork in new areas

(Box 15).

Box 15 examples of new areas of researchconducted by trainees organizations as a result

of their training in CIMMYT:

Research on bed planting undertaken afterCIMMYT training (mentioned by respondent fromBangladesh).Long-term five year Tagem project and three yearTbitak project (mentioned by respondent fromTurkey).Reorganizing of the production system to be moresustainable in agronomic terms so that it couldsurvive the world energy crisis (mentioned byrespondent from Argentina).Many farmers are now adopting CA practices(mentioned by respondent from Nepal).More than 20 villages conducting this type ofresearch in new areas and 340 acres of landincluding 675 farmers work with at Rajshahi(mentioned by respondent from Bangladesh).

Fifthy-eight percent of responden ts stated that

training at CIMMYT helped their organizations to

condu ct research d ifferently, while 24% said it d id

not m ake a d ifference in this sense. Examp les are

listed in Box 16.

Box 16 Examples o f how trainees institutions

are conducting research di fferently as a result

of their participation in CIMMYT training:

After the training, researchers doing research onagronomic practices found new ways to conducttheir research, like crop rotation under reducedtillage system (mentioned by respondent fromBangladesh).Conducting CA in different areas and long-term

trials (mentioned by respondent from China).Use of new sowing methods, cultivation by lowirrigation, ploughing just once and use of suchprepared soil for many years, managing stubble-field, new machinery. Work starts to focus moreon sustainable agriculture practices (mentionedby respondent from Argentina).Long term trial in rice-wheat-mungbean systemwith straw management and Nitrogen levelswith conservation tillage systems (mentioned byrespondent from Bangladesh).

To evalu ate th e effective sp read of CA p ractices

from par ticipan ts to farm ers, research leaders

were asked if the CIMMYT CA training had

helped th eir organization to improve agricultural

practices. The most common response (90%)

is that the course did lead to agricultural

improvement (see Box 17).

Table 8. Attitudes, behavior and skills acquired, as reported by leaders.

Adopted changes Examples of newly-adopted behaviors and use of skills

Knowledge sharing Improved relation among proessionals and workers or sharing knowledge (mentioned by respondent rom Argentina).

Behavior changes Sta sel-confdence is improving (mentioned by respondent rom Turkey).

Undertake research Experimental plots laid out using simple methods (mentioned by respondent rom Sudan)

Data recording capability and timing o work improved (mentioned by respondent rom Bangladesh).

Better management o setting up feld experiments, supervising feld work, and making better decisions on time (mentioned

by respondent rom Tunisia).

Ability to organize e ciently research activities and to apply correct methodology (mentioned by respondent rom Argentina).

Results Developed a permanent bed system or our region (mentioned by respondent rom Turkey)


27/40

17

Box 17 Examples of how CIMMYT CA course

contributed to improvement of agricultural

practices i n participants institutions/countries:

Helped in the way of handling on-farm trials (mentioned by respondent from Morocco).Involve local farmers under reduced tillage practice.Farmers are buying and using machines for bettercrop establishment (mentioned by respondent fromBangladesh).Helped in securing money from local governmentand do demonstrations and research in west andsouth areas of Henan, with about 200 farmers(mentioned by respondent from China).Bed - planting already adopted on 1,500 ha(mentioned by respondent from Kyrgyzstan).Technical personnel were trained locally andnationally and demonstrations in farmers fieldsimproved (mentioned by respondent from Turkey).The contribution was important, because we areable to share the new practices with farmers, andhelp them to adjust the existing machinery for newpurposes of CA (mentioned by respondent fromArgentina).It has helped both ways, locally and nationally, CApractices are now widely accepted (mentioned byrespondents from Nepal and Bangladesh).

According to 53% of respond ents, participants ofCIMMYT CA courses prov ided further tr aining in

their own institution to colleagues and outside their

institution. Examples are sum mar ized in Box 18:

Box 18 Examples mentioned by respondent

from Turkey:

15-19 October 2007 bed planting and zero-tillagecourse National Eskiehir.International Course on Conservation AgricultureTechnologies for Rainfed Wheat ProductionSystems, CIMMYT-ICARDA, September

26-October 7, 2005.International Training Course on Bed and ReducedTill Planting Technologies, 2004, for central Asiancountries and Turkey researchers.Example mentioned by respondent from Argentina:Organized long-term, regular training for farmersExample mentioned by respondents from Turkeyand Nepal: Seminars for researchers and trainingfor support staff.

In terms of fur ther training given by th e trainees

after returning to their organization following the

course at CIMMYT, 14 leaders d escribed the typ e

of its beneficiaries (Figure 18).

An imp act on their organization is recognized by

47% of leaders (comments are given in Box 19).:

Box 19 Comments from respondents of

research leader survey, related to overall impact

of CA course on their institutions/countries:

CA has become a major concern in modernagriculture in the country (mentioned byrespondent from Nepal).Changing views on solving problems, way ofthinking (mentioned by respondents from Sudanand Turkey).Agricultural university build up linkage,ACIAR started collaborative research, groupsof farmers visit from other training institutes,conducting more fieldwork on CA and othersnational activities (mentioned by respondent fromBangladesh).

The offer of sustainable agricultural technologies could be extended (mentioned by respondent fromArgentina).

Figure 18. Beneciaries o training provided by courseparticipants, as reported by leaders.

Extension

workers: 765

Technicians: 319Students: 316

Researchers: 178

Farmers:

3,849


28/40

18

Conclusions: Lessons learned and recommendations

The worldw ide imp act of CIMMYTs CA

courses is limited by the demographic structure

of course p articipan ts. The average age of course

par ticipan ts at the time of training was 39; this

should be redu ced to imp act and influence a

new generation of agron omist scientists. It could

be useful to invite for collaboration m ore PhD

stud ents from un iversities and junior scientists

from national and international centers and

NGOs focused on agriculture in developing

countries.

Besides the scientific content of the trainingcourses, participants should also develop and

improve their commu nication and extension

skills so that the new know ledge can efficiently

be comm un icated to a broad aud ience in an

effort to achieve faster changes in farm ers

fields. (The comm un ication aspects have been

receiving increased attention during most recent

years when cou rses were offered.)

Dur ing the training courses, scientific

materials containing technical and p rofessional

information about CA that are designed for

course participants to u se in their research andfield p ractices are d istributed. To increase the

impact of distributed learning ma terials for

farmers, CIMMYT should create and d istribute

materials that are v ery easily und erstandable

and illustra tive, such as p ictorial guides, wh ich

can be d istributed to local farmers, as well as

build th e capacity of the course p articipan ts so

they are able to develop their own materials

in their home institutions. This would further

assist in know ledge dissemination am ong

national scientists and farm ers.

In many developing countries, the main field

workers in ru ral areas are wom en. Yet almost all

par ticipan ts in CIMMYTs course w ere men

and in the m ajority of coun tries CIMMYT works

with, there are deep social and cultural gend er-

based barriers in comm unication am ong m en

and wom en. To help overcome this gap, more

wom en should be invited to attend the courses,

or contact NGOs involved in agriculture and

working directly with communities, as these

organizations typ ically work closer with the

farmer than many national research centers.

Fundraising agronomy research p rograms of

most N ARS are often m arginalized and lack

resources not only for capacity building of

new cadres, but even for their ow n research.

CIMMYT with partners should continuou sly

search for funding to sup port another

generation of participants.

Again to increase the imp act, one op portun ity

is in p reparing a condensed version of the five-

week program , which would be d elivered in

countries to many more scientists, provided that

the technical and infrastructur al cond itions fordelivering the course in other areas are present.

As participants ind icated th at receiving a

diploma would increase the attractiveness of the

course for both p articipants and their donors,

CIMMYT should look into ways to increase the

value of the course by award ing a d ifferent type

of accreditation. One way of doing so could

be through linkages w ith some recognized

university.


29/40

19

Appendixes

I.Survey for participants of CIMMYT courses and visi ting scientists in

the area of conservation agricultureThis questionnaire asks your op inion abou t the impact of CIMMYT Capacity Building Prog ram in the

field of conservation agriculture that you have attended. Your v iews w ill help CIMMYT to get an accurate

picture of the strengths an d weaknesses of this training p rogram.

Thank you very m uch for your time!

I. GENERAL QUESTIONS

1. Please, provide your current contact details:Name: ...................................................................................................................................

Organization: .....................................................................................................................

Address: ..............................................................................................................................

Address2: ............................................................................................................................

City/Town: ..........................................................................................................................

ZIP/Postal code: .................................................................................................................

Country: ..............................................................................................................................

Email adress: ......................................................................................................................

Phone number: ...................................................................................................................

2. What is your gender? male female

3. What is your present age? years

4. What is your current area of specialization?

plant breeeding plant pathologyagronomy biotechnology economics other - Pleasespecify: ...............................................................................................................................................

5. What type o f organization (your employer) did you w ork for in the fo llow ing times?

At the time of training / s tay at CIMMYT

please specify other

Currently

please specify other

6. What was your position at the foll owing times:

At the time of training / stay at CIMMYTCurrently


30/40

20

7. What type of work do you do?

active researcher profesional trainerresearcher / adm inistration professorextension specialist administration (e.g. director)other please specify:8. In your present w ork activities, what percentage of your time is spent in the fo llow ing p laces?

(Please check one answ er for each place)

% time spent in 0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-100%

Office Laboratory Experiment station Farmers fields Other

9. What CIMMYT course have you participated in:

Name o f course (visiting scientists, skip this question): Zero tillage & bed plan tingYear: ..................................................................................................................................................

Place:.................................................................................................................................................

Course leader (s): ...........................................................................................................................

II. QUESTIONNAIRE

1.Considering your previous background and experience at the time of the training course, what

would you s ay that the level of training you received at CIMMYT wastoo elem entar y Why? ........................................................................................................satisfactorytoo difficult Why? ........................................................................................................2. Have you been using the learning (support) materials that were distributed during training in

your work?

yes, I used materials (books, pu blications, CD-Roms, )no, I didnt use the materials because they w ere not relevant to m eno, I didn t use the materials because I had n o possibilitynot ap plicable, no m aterials were distributed d uring th e training.


31/40

21

3. Are there any of fo llow ing i nfrastructural or socioeconomic constraints in your organization to use

what you learned at CIMMYT?

YES NO don t know not app licable

Financial resources Sup port from sup eriors Technical assistance staff Suitable machinery/ equipment Laboratory space Research plots Conflict with other crop systems Environmental constraints Access to in formation Time to apply w hat you have learned Access to farm ers fields to apply wh at

you have learned in th e CIMMYT training

Resources for providing further training (classrooms, pu blications)

* Oth er:

4. Looking back, is there something to i mprove in the CIMMYTs CA course?

no dont know

yes Expla in what: ..............................................................................................

5. Are you aware of an alternative providers where your organization cou ld go for similar kinds o f

training?(please check all the answers that are true for your organization.)Other Intern ational Agricultural Research Cen ter (IARC)National research center(s)

UniversityPrivate compan y (or compan ies)Now here: similar kind s of training are not available elsewh ere.Please provide specific example of the institution ticked above: ............................................................

6. Since the training program, how frequently have you communicated with any of the training

instructors?

not at allless than once time per yearmore than tw o times per yearExplain for wha t pu rpose or give examples of the comm un ication / collaboration: .........................

............................................................................................................................................................................

7. Since the training, how frequently have you communicated w ith your fellow trainees?

not at allless than once time per yearmore than tw o times per yearExplain for wha t pu rpose or give examples of the comm un ication / collaboration: .........................

............................................................................................................................................................................


32/40

22

8. How do you obtain new information about the current research ad advances in the area of

Conservation Agriculture? (Please check all answers that are true for you)scientific publications attending coursesinternet attending conferences or workshop scommu nication with fellow scientists (comm un ity of practice)oth er Please specify ......................................................................................................9. Are you currently collaborating with CIMMYT?

yes Explain how ...............................................................................................................no10. How would you rate your level of confidence to perform your job after CIMMYT training as

comp

Documents

Impacts of CIMMYT's International Training Linked to Long-Term Trials in Conservation Agriculture: 1996-2006