1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) - Nepal

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Kathmandu University (KU) - Nepal

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development (LI-BIRD) - Nepal

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/03/2013

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Farmer to farmer dissemination of information on no-till methods for garlic cultivation technology

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Farmers can learn about alternative or newer methods by sharing their experiences with one another. In this approach, farmers shared information and knowledge on no-till garlic cultivation technology.

Methods: Since no-till methods are not widely known in the area, the approach aimed to increase awareness of the many features of the technique and its benefits. Through farmer-to-farmer dissemination, communities can learn about the various aspects of no-till for crop residue management, resource use, and how it can reduce labour costs. These discussions highlight the environmental and social benefits of no-till methods especially with respect to moisture retention, soil and water conservation, and climate change adaptation.
In 2009, Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research, and Development (LI-BIRD), piloted and validated no-till farming in Nepal as a measure for soil and water conservation through the Western Terai Landscape Complex Project (WTLCP) and the Promoting Local Innovation (PROLINNOVA) programme. The dissemination was multi-faceted and the farmers remained engaged throughout the discussions, which included both talks and group participation. Farmers’ groups, community-based organizations, biodiversity conservation groups, and development committees at the village level were given training and technical inputs. This community-level interaction encouraged farmers to discuss with one another as well as to head out to the field for demonstrations and observations. After no-till garlic cultivation was successfully piloted, it was widely adopted by farming communities and especially the indigenous Tharu communities of western Nepal.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (agricultural and livelihood related technology)

• To disseminate information and know-how on no-till methods
• To increase awareness among the farmers on the benefits of no-till methods and crop residue management
• To increase awareness of the environmental and social benefits of no-till methods and the role that it can play in adaptation to climate change

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: • Lack of awareness about low cost soil and water conservation technologies that address farmers' needs
• Initially there was weak institutional support for organizing discussion sessions

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	self-mobilization	Community meetings organized to discuss the new technology and how it could be implemented locally
planning	interactive	Interactive discussion groups and focal groups organized in the community
implementation	self-mobilization	Individual farmers implemented the technology on their land without external support. LI-BIRD provided in-kind and technical information and support.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	LI-BIRD monitored the implementation of the technology and helped to evaluate the outcome. They collected and analysed data in order to highlight the soil and water conservation aspects of the no-till method and disseminated this information.
Research	none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Land users and community mobilizers from the indigenous Tharu communities were given training on no-till method and crop residue management.

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Form of training:

• Participatory methods and approaches

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Capacity building training; Key elements: Capacity building took place through site visits and extension materials as well as through discussions and exchanges

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

• Technical support

Give further details:

LI-BIRD supported farmers groups, biodiversity conservation and development committees, and community-based organizations by providing hands-on training and technical support.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by technical staff from LI-BIRD jointly with representatives from biodiversity conservation and development committees, farmers groups, and community-based organizations

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by technical staff from LI-BIRD jointly with representatives from biodiversity conservation and development committees, farmers groups, and community-based organizations

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations

economic / production aspects were monitored by None through measurement

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Several changes were observed. People learned both through discussions and by taking a hands-on approach. An initial attempt to replicate the method ended in failure. However, through discussions and technical inputs, the farmers were eventually able to replicate the method and it is now well understood.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (Mostly by the land users; capacity building activities and field demonstration costs were borne by LI-BIRD.): 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Nee

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

This technology has a high probability of being sustainable because it is cost effective and requires minimal technical input (farmers can do it on their own); moreover, it helps with soil conservation.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Farmers can easily learn no-till techniques through community participation. The approach is sustainable because it is easy to implement and it appeals to farmers because they appreciate it as a way of reducing labour and increasing crop yields. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to give some minor technical support and encouragement.)
The approach focused on building capacity by using a hands-on approach similar to how farmers traditionally transfer know-how between themselves. Farmers can adapt and modify the technology as needed to deal with changing conditions in the environment. Financial inputs by external organizations are not needed. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to give some minor technical support and encouragement.)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Market linkages are poor and the scope to scale up is also small.	The establishment of stronger market linkages would motivate farmers to attempt commercial cultivation.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information