REG members and researchers and extension staff were visiting demonstration sites of improved Teff varieties (Gizaw Desta)

Farmer-Research-Extension Group (FREG) (Ethiopia)

Yearsoader temeramari buden (Amharic)

Description

Farmer-Research-Extension Group (FREG) is a grass root level platform aims to bridge gaps on agricultural technology transfer between research and extension linkage and provide a platform of 20-30 members from research, extension and farmer for their joint learning and active participatory role in agricultural technology evaluation and dessimination.

Aims / objectives: FREG aims to facilitate the selection and transfer of agricultural technologies to end users through active participation and coordinated efforts of research-extension and farmer together. The objectives of FREG are: 1) evaluating and selecting improved agricultural technologies through participatory processes at field level, 2) demonstrating improved agricultural technologies to FREG members and other non-member land users in the villages, 3) facilitating farmer to farmer knowledge and technology exchange for faster and wider dissemination and adoption

Methods: In FREG, research takes initiation to facilitate the formation. The group is expected to identify and prioritize problems of their locality on its own and research and extension organizations could take facilitation to form or organize groups based on specific objectives. If the intention is to provide a range of technological options to fit needs and interests of farmers, it can be best developed with participation and through knowledge sharing among stakeholders (research, extension and farmer). Thus, group formation is based on individual and group interests. Those farmers who have similar interests are organized into a group based on proximity including both male and women farmers. Next, the group establish norms, share responsibility, design activity plan, and implement activities. The group meets regularly to evaluate performance of technologies at different stages. During each meeting, it is critical to visit on-farm activities of individual members and assess the relative performance. They develop their own criteria to rank and select the best technologies. Finally, they participate in field days and decide the best technologies for scale up to wider areas.

Stages of implementation: 1. Conduct awareness meeting of farmers about the available technologies for demonstration and scale up and their merits compared to the existing technologies in the hands of farmers.
2. Based on the awareness creation, collect the demands and interests of farmers in which of the technology options they want to involve. Organize into groups according to common interests.
3. Prepare and conduct training about the characteristics of available technologies, procedures of on-farm implementation and evaluation, farmer to farmer technology transfer, and work norms
4. FREG members develop their working norms, decide on the period of meetings, and develop plan of activities
5. Implement on-farm activities and evaluate the performance of planned activities on regular basis
6. Evaluate and rank the technology options based on their own criteria in order to select the best technologies
7. Organize field days to demonstrate and exchange the results of technology options to other non-member farmers and stakeholders. The technologies selected through FREG participatory evaluation procedures need to be supported with research evidences by ARARI.
8. Finally, each member farmer who is involved in on-farm technology evaluation took the responsibility to transfer the selected technology to at least 3-5 other farmers in his locality in order to facilitate quick dissemination, scaling up.

Role of stakeholders: Farmer: The farmers who have common interest on a given technology is responsible to lead the participatory technology selection
Development agents/extension: they should play facilitation and motivation role and help to encourage farmers to become member of FREG. They also follow up whether the FREG accomplish the planned activities and attend regular meetings
Research: research is involved in demonstration of technologies, in the initiation and establishment of FREG and plays a role of facilitation and technology supply. Research need to organize field days and advice other stakeholders to participate in the process
Project/WLRC: Provide material and technical support for the FREG and participate in the meetings and field days
Other stakeholders: The involved actors in the area should actively participate as a FREG member and during field days.

Location

Location: Bahir Dar Zuria, Dembecha, Mecha, Yilmna Densa, Dessie Zuria, Basona Worana, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Initiation date: 2005

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
FREG members, community, extension and research staff were visiting treated gullies in the learning watersheds (Gizaw Desta (WLRC))
FREG members and researchers and extension staff were visiting demonstration sites of improved Teff varieties (Gizaw Desta (WLRC))

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on other activities than SLM (Participatory technology evaluation and selection, awareness creation, training, field visits, field days)

The main objective of FREG is to facilitate the participation and involvement of farmers, researchers and extension agents together in technology evaluation, selection and dessimination.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The main problems targeted to address by implementing FREG approach are: low dissemination and adoption of agricultural and natural resource management technologies; linkage gap between research, who generate technologies, and extension who transfer and disseminate technologies; and low participation and involvement of farmers in technology development and selection processes.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Low capacity of farmers to afford and use improved technologies Treatment through the SLM Approach: The approach allows options of in-kind exchange, transfer and dissemination of technologies from farmer to farmer without incurring much cost to them
  • Institutional setting: Inadequate linkage between research and extension that lead to low supply and transfer of technologies Treatment through the SLM Approach: The FREG is the best link at grass root level where the demand (extension-farmer) and supply (research) can effectively interface
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation Since FREG approach is implemented on individual farm plots, entitlement of individual land use right is essential to invest on new agricultural technologies. At same time, water use right has contributed a lot to implement technologies working under irrigated and water harvesting systems. For example, if farmers are not allowed to dig shallow wells and divert streams it was not able to demonstrate and implement home garden in all watersheds and chickpea varieties at Debre Yacob
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Lack of information about availability of technologies and inadequate participation of farmers in technology evaluation and selection processes that partly result in low adoption of existing technologies. Treatment through the SLM Approach: The FREG approach provides choice of technologies for farmers and extension agents and take part in the evaluation and selection of technologies that fit to the system for wider adoption

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Individual land users who have common interest on specific technology Land users are active members and take the leading responsibility of the process
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Agricultural specialists and development agents
researchers Researchers has the role to facilitate and provide technologies
local government The development agent together with kebele adminstration, District Agriculture Office Cooperative Agents for implementation and supervision
national government (planners, decision-makers) They were involved in the monitoring and evaluation stage
Lead agency
In FREG, both men and women can be members. Women play a great role in selecting technologies specially technologies related to food processing aspects
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Land users has no involvement in the initiation of the approach. Land users are part of the process after the planning phase.
planning
At planning stage of the approach, land users' are needed to express their interests and needs of technology options, and their interest to form a group. Land users participate by expressing their technology needs once information about available technology options is provided by the researchers and development agents.
implementation
Land users are expected beeing actively involved in every stage of the implementation and take the leading responsibility to all activities such as site selection, seed bed preparation, planting, cultivation, harvesting and reporting the productivity.
monitoring/ evaluation
Land users are responsible to regularly evaluate the technologies and select the best for promotion and further scale up activities
Research
In the FREG approach, participatory technology evaluation and selection is the key element. Thus the land users are allowed to evaluate and select best and suitable ones among several options
Flow chart

The district office of agriculture and research centers within ARARI are the supervisory bodies for the implementation of the FREG approach. The main implementer are the member farmers in the group, the researcher and development agent at kebele level. Depending on the availability and interest, NGOs/ Projects and cooperative agents are involved in the implementation of the process.

Author: Gizaw Desta (WLRC, P.O.Box 8707, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia)
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • Other development agents are involved in cooperatives and other agr. development actions
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Awareness creation and characteristics of the technology, merits of new technologies compared to locally available and adapted technologies, procedures of implementing the technology evaluation and selection, the participation and involvement of FREG members at each stage of the implementation are contents of the training for FREG members before they start implementation.

Development agents and some experts from the district as well as project/NGO offices are contributing to the trainings about the implementation procedures and monitoring and evaluation activities.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory Demonstration and Training Extension System (PADETES); Key elements: Training and awareness creation of farmers in FTCs , Provision of package of technologies, demonstrations in the Farmer Training Centers (FTC) and experience sharing visits, On job training; The method gives high emphasis to training and to some extent practical demonstrations supported with experience
sharing visits but less emphasis to advisory of farmers on spot



Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The government service at Kebele level is adequate to ensure the implementation of FREG approach through active involvement of the development agents.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Moderate support with awareness creation, training, and supply of some equipments. The local institutions like FREG and Farmer Training Centers (FTCs) are supported by training, and training and demonstration aid facilities
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were ad hoc monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: growth performance of varieties or breeds, occurrence of disease and pests bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: amount of inputs applied and labor, production and productivity of comparative technologies by WLRC and ARARI socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Change in attitude of technology use, collective action within the group, productivity and economic benefits, exchange of knowledge and technology, transfer and dissemination rate measured jointly by WLRC and ARARI area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Type of technology, number of users per technology, area covered by the technology area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Type of technology and number of users per technology by WLRC There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: After the monitoring and evaluation, the number of users increase, high demand and request for additional technologies, improved management of the technology were observed. There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: It sometimes occurs where there are more superior new technologies. For example, Faba Bean varieties were changed by superior one called Wolki variety.
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Research play role of initiation of the approach, facilitate the processes, take part in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation, advisory services, supply of the technologies demanded by FREG members, and evaluate the costs and benefits of the demonstrated technologies. The research centers in 2.3.1.1 (i.e., five research centers within the Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute, ARARI) are fully responsible to conduct demonstrations, pr-extension dissemination of technologies and socio-economic research activities through the FREG

Research was carried out on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Research centers (5 research centers within the Amhara Region Agricultural Reserch Institute, ARARI) provide capacity building through training and field visits, and supply of inputs (improved varieties) land allocation, fertilizer, labor): 15.0%; local community / land user(s) (land users contribute fertilizer, labor and allocate land for implementation): 85.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
partly financed
fully financed
agricultural: seeds

fruits, tree seedlings, breeds

Labour by land users was

Credit

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

The approach helps to improve sustainable land management indirectly. Farmers who practiced improved technologies increase their productivity per unit area and are thereby capable to purchase more inputs and apply improved sustainable land management technologies. Those who earn high income can afford to invest on sustainable land management.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Youth groups who are organized to provide services to farmers by operating and threshing teff and finger millet using introduced threshers gain some benefits. Women FREG households involved in sheep, poultry and energy saving stove production activities got benefit and improved their situation

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future. The land ownership or land use rights is highly associated with increase in population and then lead to land fragmentation. This implies the need for policy actions on land use rights.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

The approach and/or technology transfer and utilization is gradually expanded to other villages and adjacent watersheds through farmer to farmer technology transfer and share of experiences during field days.

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
  • well-being and livelihoods improvement
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

The technologies remain for long in the hands of FREG member farmers. They continue to produce the technology and disseminate in the area through farmer to farmer dissemination system. FREG members acquire capacity to access new technologies from research, extension and input supply seed agencies using the established linkage mechanism. Finally, these ensure sustainability of the approach that aim the transfer and adoption of technologies by farmers

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Increase the supply of new technologies. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Strengthen and expand FREG approach, and the role of research and seed enterprises.)
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Improves communication and information exchange thereby improving social relations. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Can be used as an entry point for social learning a process by which stakeholders in a group learn how to innovate and adopt in response to changing social and environmental conditions.)
  • Increase productivity and efficiency, and empowers farmers economically. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Provide variety of technology options every year based on their needs and interests.)
  • It gives an opportunity for the research system to scale up/out shelved technologies and increase the visibility of the research outputs. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Encourage research programmes of the research system to use the FREG approach for any technology dissemination and outreach services.)
  • Strengthen the linkage between research and extension at grass root level. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Empower the FREG to influence the research agenda and extension system so as to fit to their interests and needs.)
  • Increase the attitude and technical knowledge of land users where to access technologies, and about the merits of improved technologies and their management techniques, and ways of evaluation and selection of technology options. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Establish system of equal involvement of members, strong leadership, and supervision system in order to support continuously and empower the FREG.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Low price of grain as a whole including the improved crop varieties like maize Undertake market promotion and market linkage activities, and create food menus for home consumption .
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • There is loss of land races by introducing new crop varieties. Practice systematic conservation of land races and indigenous species.
  • Land users do not maintain the quality of the technology for longer periods. Develop capacity of land users in maintaining and handling of quality technologies.
  • Lack of access to market for new and improved technologies. Complement the FREG approach with value chain systems.

References

Compiler
  • Gizaw Desta Gessesse
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: Mei 26, 2014
Last update: Julie 24, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International