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

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

Sustainable Soil Management Programme, Nepal (SSMP)

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

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Participatory technology testing and adaptation through farmer-led experiments

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Farmer-led experimentation is a type of action research initiated and carried out by farmers in their own fields. This approach enables farmers to identify technological options suited to local agroecological and socioeconomic conditions. The farmer-led experimentation process is taken up within existing farmer groups. This approach is closely related to the 'participatory innovation development' and the 'participatory technology development' approaches as discussed in Kolff et al. (2005). Simple experiments are usually replicated in five to ten farmers' fields per group. Generally, the whole of each experimental plot from each field is harvested and the yield recorded. Field implementation, group visits, and observations are carried out by the farmers themselves. The processing of results is done in groups together with the support staff from the facilitating organisation. These farmers are very likely to adopt tested technologies that are shown to be better for meeting their needs. The results are also used by support staff and shared with other organisations, and provide input for dissemination through farmer-to-farmer diffusion.
Farmers play a leading role in all steps of the process, starting from problem identification to planning, implementation, and evaluation of the experiments. This ensures that farmers are the driving force in the research process and not mere recipients of research findings that have been generated elsewhere. The detailed implementation plan is discussed within the groups and individual and collective responsibilities are assigned. The experimental site, individual implementing farmers, group visits, and results-sharing meetings are decided on by group consensus. Some observations are recorded by the implementing farmers. Promising innovations are then identified based on the collective evaluation of the tested treatments. Technical and other facilitation support is provided by organisations active in the area.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Local farmers collectively solving problems by identifying and using the most appropriate local solutions. Local farmers designing, testing and disseminating alternative technologies adapted to local conditions. Strengthening joint learning by farmers and development actors.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The common issues concerning farmers in growing crops include pests and diseases, yield decline, inappropriate crop varieties, and the introduction of new varieties. Rather than technicians providing farmers with ready-made solutions to their problems (that may or may not work), farmer-led experimentation allows farmers to carry out their own trials to try and solve specific problems.

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	interactive	participatory discussions and exercises, field visits, farm maps, farming and labour calendar, Activities: Identification of topics for experiment based on needs and priority, Identification of technological options (indigenous and external), Farmers developing simple and appropriate experiments, De
planning	none
implementation	interactive	follow-up visits, discussions, Activities: Farmers implement according to the design for comparison with a control (= existing practice), Farmers note relevant observations on recording sheet. Farmers note other important observations based on their needs and interests, Technical support and discuss
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	field visit to experimental site by other farmers, participatory discussion and evaluation Activities: Experimenting farmers and other farmers jointly discuss and evaluate based on direct observations of the trial and from the record sheet, Discussion on the lessons learned and identifying possible
Research	none

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

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

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

Made collectively by farmers in group facilitated by organisation working with them.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Made by farmers in group

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

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

Give further details:

Technical support provided by project

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were monitored by land users through observations
technical aspects were monitored by land users through observations
economic / production aspects were monitored by land users through observations
area treated aspects were monitored by land users through observations
land users involved aspects were monitored by land users through observations
management of Approach aspects were monitored by land users through observations
There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The adoption of certain technologies has occurred as a result of farmer-led experimentation. For example, a farmer-led trial of two varieties of groundnut (local and B4), in Ghadgaon, Surkhet, led to farmers starting to grow the B4 variety in an area where previously only local varieties had been growing

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) (local resources, labour, land): 50.0%; other (Dev. project(inputs, external resources)): 50.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Provided by the project for testing purposes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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:

Some farmers are implementing the approach on their own initiative. This is possible because of the low costs and limited technical requirements of the approach. Farmers exposed to the approach will be able to apply the approach again to problems that arise in their fields without the need to consult outside agencies.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach serves both as a local test for suitability and adaptation potential as well as for demonstrating an already tested technology.
Once farmers are exposed to the approach, they can apply it on their own initiative. This is possible because of the low costs and technical requirements of the approach.
Experiments are conducted on the basis of farmers' priorities and according to local conditions. This means that farmers develop ownership of the experiments and the derived results.

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?
Experiments are not carried out in a scientifically rigorous way and therefore only have limited scientific value for evaluating technologies.	if scientific proof is required, farmer-led experiments should be closely supported by technicians (per se not a farmer-led experiment anymore!)
Documentation of the activities and results for wider sharing is often poor and inadequate	clear guidelines are needed for documentation with clear instructions on what, when, and how to record important information. This is necessary so that the results can be more widely used.
In some cases a lack of research equipment for better documentation and observation inhibits better understanding.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

SSMP (2001) Implementation Guideline on Farmer Led Experimentation (in Nepali). Kathmandu: Sustainable Soil Management Programme

Available from where? Costs?

SSMP

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Paudel, C.L.; Regmi, B.D.; Schulz, S. (2005) - Participatory Innovation Development - Experiences of the Sustainable Soil Management Programme

Title, author, year, ISBN:

..In Kolff, A.; van Veldhuizen, L.; Wettasinha, C. (eds) Farmer-centred Innovation Development - Experiences and Challenges from South Asia, pp. 109-126. Bern:

Available from where? Costs?

SSMP