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:

Yes

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Participatory and collaborative learning through the farmer field school approach

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

There are different ways of carrying out agricultural extension. Farmer field schools represent a participatory approach that directly reaches farmers and addresses their day-to-day problems. The concept of farmer field schools builds on the belief that farmers are the main source of knowledge and experience in carrying out farm operations, in contrast to conventional top-down approaches that place most value on scientists' findings. The term 'farmer field schools' came from the Indonesian expression 'sekolah lapangan' which means 'field school'. It is a group based learning approach, which brings together concepts and method of agro-ecology, experiential education, and community development. The first field schools were established in 1989 in central Java when 50 plant protection officers tested and developed field training methods as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) training of trainers course. Two hundred field schools were established in that season involving 5,000 farmers. The following season, in 1990, an additional 45,000 farmers joined field schools run by 450 crop protection officers.
The same approach is being used in Nepal's integrated pest management programme. Several consultation meetings and workshops were held at national level to put the integrated nutrient management concept into practice. These meetings led to farmer field schools being recognised as an appropriate approach for putting this concept into practice. The approach was piloted in 2000 and 2001 and fully initiated in 2002 when 32 farmer field schools were run with support from SSMP. As far as SSMP knows, farmer field schools on integrated plant nutrient systems have been run since SSMP's involvement. The Government of Nepal's National Fertiliser Policy now recognises integrated plant nutrient systems as a concept to improve the efficient use of different nutrient inputs, and farmer field schools as an appropriate technology and extension approach for soil and plant nutrient management in Nepal. So far some 226 farmer field schools have been run in Nepal on integrated plant nutrient systems reaching more than 5,000 households.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Transfer of technology to farmers on soil and plant nutrition management. Empowerment of farmers. Production of healthy crops without negative environmental effects.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of effective and efficient ways of transferring technologies to farmers. Conventional approach of technology transfer, where farmers are believed to have poor knowledge and skills. Farmers are always perceived as a recipient of technology and knowledge

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 approach: group discussions involving all local stakeholders
planning	interactive	Orientation workshop involving all stakeholders - farmers participation is crucial
implementation	interactive	Farmers are the key actors with trained staff of collaborating institutions (CI) facilitating the process
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Farmers evaluate and monitor jointly on a regular basis
Research	self-mobilization	Farmer-led experimentation based on local needs and context

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:

• SLM specialists alone

Explain:

In Nepal under the SSMP, farmer field schools have only been implemented to 'teach' integrated plant nutrient systems, there is no choice of technology.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). The curriculum for the farmer field school was developed by SSMP and the Government's Soil Management Directorate

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

A training of trainers course is provided to selected staff from the collaborating institutions who have been involved substantially in agriculture development and farming practices activities. Seven days basic training on integrated plant nutrient systems and farmer field schools is provided. There is provision for a sharing forum at district level based on the demand of staff involved in conduc

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Local level organisations are involved in carrying out the farmer field schools. Local institutions are supported financially and technically by SSMP. The major aim of this approach is to build local

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: status
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: nitrate, nitrogen, pH, organic matter, P and K, yield measurements
technical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: cash income
economic / production aspects were regular monitored through observations

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

It is difficult to compare results if many treatments are applied at the same time in a plot. Therefore, it is always advised that component trials are run for different treatments. Such trials make for easier understanding of the different treatments and enable farmers to see the effects of particular treatments.

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 government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (participants): 20.0%; other (development project): 80.0%

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:

Capacity remains at the local level so that farmers are able to run farmer field schools themselves.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Farmers are the source of knowledge; farmers adopt technologies based on their context (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involve farmers in a more participatory way)
Participatory approach
Farmers decide the pace of implementation and what should be done
The schools stress the importance of using local resources to reduce dependency on external resources
Increased effi ciency and effectiveness of local resources use

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?
Farmer field schools need time and their costs are higher than other similar approaches
Non-technical staff are often involved in carrying out farmer field schools	Ensure capacity building and regular sharing forums

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

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

Title, author, year, ISBN:

SSMP (2003) Introduction to Integrated Plant Nutrient Systems (in Nepali). Kathmandu: Sustainable Soil Management Programme

Available from where? Costs?

SSMP

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: Intercooperation

Available from where? Costs?

SSMP