Farmers group meeting on joint planning exercise for the implementation of ISFM+/Agro ecology projects. (Abiyot Kebede)

Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) (Ethiopia)

FREG

Description

A Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) engages about 50 or more farmers in a kebele (lower administrative unit), with three sub groups of 17-20 each who live in a homogenous landscape. It is a local institution established for joint learning, piloting, and evaluating soil improvement technologies across the intervention regions.

Farmers Research and Extension Groups (FREGs) are the approach used to test and spread Integrated Soil and Fertility Management (ISFM+)/Agroecology project best practices in Ethiopia. These technologies include livestock urine collection and use, cover crops, intercropping, vermicompost, acid soil treatment by liming, green manures, crop residue management, and bioslurry. A FREG employs a participatory approach, whereby joint investigation and learning is implemented. Farmers' group members use participatory planning and peer learning from one another. The approach is gender inclusive: one-third of the members in a FREG are women. There is also a mix of social categories. FREGs are populated by proactive model farmers who adopt and demonstrate technologies for scaling up. After the first year, the best-performing model farmer serves as an ambassador for knowledge and skills transfer to the indirect beneficiaries.
Collective investigation, learning, adoption, and then promotion of proven technologies are the key features of the approach. Member of the FREG jointly identify soil fertility/acidity-related issues, participate in training and demonstrate the technologies. The ISFM+/ Agroecology projects equip the target groups with implementation skills and knowledge. Site and participant selection are made with participation of woreda and kebele representative partners and the target farmers. Then soil-related issues are jointly identified with the support of laboratory analysis by the Regional Research Institute. This demonstrates that the intervention is implemented by the public research and development actors with technical, financial and/or inputs supply from the projects. The approach tends to mobilize the communities living in similar agroecology and farming systems who are subjected to the same SLM-related issues.
Identifying proactive model farmers and establishing demonstration plots for different technologies and crop types are the basis of collective learning. The demonstration is employed as an experimental and learning plot by showcasing and inspiring farmer groups and indirect beneficiaries in the area. Organizing field days and exchange visits further enables the demonstration of technologies for scaling out. Experience shows that where ISFM+ technologies have been piloted, farmers have built up new agroecology technologies such as cover cropping, intercropping and woodlots development over and above those previously adopted. Target farmers have piloted at least three or more technologies/practices on their plots. The woreda office of agriculture through the assigned project focal person gives closer follow-up for the proper implementation of the technologies. Provision of technical support and advisory service via the development agents (DAs) are among many other services.

Location

Location: Sodo Zuria district, Kuto-Sarfela kebele, Southern Nations, Nationalities and People Region (SNNPR), Ethiopia

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 37.69077, 6.90482

Initiation date: 2022

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
Refreshment moment during the expert interviews with SLM experts and regional advisor on the implementation approach of the cover crops. (Gerba Leta)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
To promote participatory implementation and peer-to-peer learning by increasing its scope from plot based to landscape scale. The approach capacitates the farmers' group and stimulates the scaling of the approach at a larger scale.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Increasing soil degradation, growing infrequent moisture stress, and farmers' willingness to manage their land can be considered enabling factors.
  • Institutional setting: The establishment of FREG at local level promotes the implementation of the technology. The involvement of public research and development actors support to implement evidence based and problem solving practices.
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Woreda focal person, development agents, and farmers' group are supporting participatory planning, implementation, and evaluation. The involvement of different actors promotes collaboration and collective action.
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The availability of a legal framework builds farmers' confidence to invest in their land.
  • Policies: Support the SLM initiative via the green legacy.
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: It facilitates effective implementation of technologies/approaches.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Giving priority to food crops due to shortage of farmland, climbing traits of the companion/cover crop that may cause harvesting inconvenience if not managed very well.
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Shortage of labor and costs are hindering appropriate implementation.

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 Members of farmers group Participate in participatory planning, implementation, and evaluation of the intervention.
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Woreda Natural Resource Management experts or project focal person and development agents. Facilitate farmers' group meetings during participatory planning, implementation, and participatory evaluation of the activities. Also, provide technical support to the implementers at the various stages of project implementation.
local government Kebele administration Assist in technology scaling up/out via mobilizing the community to learn and adopt from the pilot activities.
national government (planners, decision-makers) Ministry of Agriculture Establish an agreement with the project and support it in steering the institutionalization of proven technologies for scaling out via policy support.
international organization GIZ Provide financial, technical and material support to the partner organizations and the end users of the project intervention via the public line offices.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Farmers' group involved in participatory planning, experience exchange visit, and evaluation of the activities. Agricultural experts, development agents, and project staff oversee the implementation of activities and provide technical support/advisory services.
planning
Target farmers and development agents involved in problem identification/assessment and planning.
implementation
Farmers who are members of the FREG are involved in implementing the technology with technical support from the woreda focal person and the DAs.
monitoring/ evaluation
Flow chart

Agroecology/ISFM+ implementation flow chart that ran from the Ministry of Agriculture to the local level institution, the FREG. The role of stakeholders at different levels are briefly described in the flow chart.

Author: Gerba Leta
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
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

The concepts of agroecology, integrated soil fertility management and overall benefits of cover cropping and related crops such as Desmodium.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
The advisory service is face-to-face on demonstration plots at various crop stages including for split application of Urea fertilizer, disease/pest management time, harvesting, and post-harvesting.
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.
FREG has three model farmers leading the group. They mobilize their followers, demonstrate technologies, and steer collective action. Farmers' groups along with agricultural experts and project staff support the selection of technologies and replacement of the existing ones if the need emerges.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
  • Facilitation/mobilization
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
Participatory monitoring and evaluation are part of the FREG approach. Essentially, beginning and end-season evaluation is the approach employed in the implementation of new technologies.
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Research is part of the introduced technologies. Problem identification is the entryway to introducing a new technology/practice. Regional Agricultural Research Institute involves in the assessment and identification of problems, evaluation, and issuance of appropriate recommendations that make the intervention evidence-based.

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.
The budget is generally allocated to support woreda's operational cost and to supply necessary inputs for the implementation of ISFM+ and the Agroecology projects.
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
Other incentives or instruments

For best-performing farmers, incentives such as solar panels, energy-saving cooking stoves, wheelbarrows, etc., are offered to further motivate the farmers and enable them to properly implement the technology and become a very good advocator for scaling the beneficial practices.

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?

Land users are decision makers on selection of technologies.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?

Through piloting and learning from the technologies.

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?

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

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?

Did the Approach improve access to markets?

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?

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
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

The positive outcome of applying the FREG is considered as a payoff for participating farmers as it gave them the energy to sustain the adopted practices. The outputs of integrating technologies, collective learning, and action allow to see significant yield increment per unit of land, improved soil fertility and soil health, etc.

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Increases farmers understanding of SLM and enables to improve soil fertility and soil health.
  • Allows direct and indirect beneficiaries to adopt beneficial agricultural practices.
  • Promote peer learning to apply technologies that nurture soil fertility and increase crop production and productivity, supply feed to the livestock, manage pests...
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Ensure stakeholders' participation and allows the development of a sense of ownership of the technology.
  • Promote knowledge sharing for scaling out of the technologies.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • The farmers' group meeting is not so strong and there are absentees or dropouts because of the overlaps with other regular and casual meetings, and private chores. Strengthening appropriate participation in planning, implementation, collective learning and action process.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Lower level of farmers' commitment and non-zealous to bring change with positive impacts. Need regular follow-up and continuous awareness creation exercises.
  • Take the project intervention for granted Mainstreaming further land-related issues and the necessity of adopting ISFM and agroecology practices to ensure the sustainability of the management intervention.

References

Compiler
  • GERBA LETA
Editors
  • Julia Doldt
  • Kidist Yilma
  • Noel Templer
  • Tabitha Nekesa
  • Ahmadou Gaye
  • Siagbé Golli
Reviewer
  • William Critchley
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • Sally Bunning
Date of documentation: Jan. 29, 2023
Last update: April 18, 2024
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Agricultural extension approach: evidence from an Integrated Soil Fertility Management project in Ethiopia. Leta, G., Schulz, S., Alemu, G. 2020. DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2020331: https://www.researchgate.net (Free online)
  • Evaluation of Farmer Research Extension Group as Extension Approach: The experience of Sida-Amhara Rural Development Program in Kalu District of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Abebe, E. 2008.: https://depot.wur.nl/1129
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International