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)

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

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

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The PFI approach seeks to build on technical initiatives - innovation in the local context - developed by farmers themselves in dry/marginal areas where the conventional approach of transfer of technology from research to extension agents and then on to farmers has so often failed.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The objective of PFI is to stimulate technical innovation, in the field of land management, by farmers. The approach basically comprises indentifying, validating and documenting local innovations/initiatives. Simple monitoring and evaluation systems are set up amongst those innovative farmers who are willing to co-operate. Through contact with researchers, extra value is added to these techniques where possible.

Methods: Farmer innovators are brought together to share Ideas. Finally, best-bet technologies, in other words thos that are considered to be good enough to be sharedd, are disseminated through farmer-to-farmer extension. This takes two forms. First, farmers are brought to visit the innovators in their farms. Secondly, farmer innovators are used as teachers/trainers to visit groups of farmers - including FAO's farmer field schools in some cases. Only in this second form of extension is an allowance payable to the innovator. A ten-step field activity methodology has been developed.

Role of stakeholders: At programme level, there is capacity building of in-line extension and research staff, who are the main outside actors in the programme. In each of the countries the approach has been implemented through a government ministry and with NGOs in the field. The principle, and practice, is not to create seperate project enclaves, but to work through existing personnel, sharing buildings and vehicles that are already operational in the area. A programme development process methodological framework shows how the ultimate goal of institutionalisation can be achieved. PFI's first phase, completed in 2000, was financed by the Government of The Netherlands, through UNDP, and was active in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

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

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (better land husbandry practices (eg animal husbandry/ crop selection))

Improve rural livelihoods through an increase in the rate of diffusion and appropriate SLM/water harvesting technologies, promotion of farmer-farmer exchange, capacity building of farmers and supporting organisations, promotion of policy dialogue

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Poor supply of relevant recommendations from research for small-scale farmers in marginal areas, poor delivery of SLM technologies to farmers, lack of motivation of research and extension staff, isolation of promising innovative SLM ideas which address low crop yields, land degradation and poverty, lack of exchange of innovative 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	passive	public meetings, interviews/questionnaires, workshops/seminars, rapid/participatory rural appraisal
planning	interactive	rapid/participatory rural appraisal, interviews/questionnaires, workshops/seminars, public meetings,
implementation	interactive	Mainly: responsibility for minor steps; partly: responsibility for major steps
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Mainly: public meetings, measurements/observations; partly: workshop/seminars;
Research	interactive	Mainly: public meetings, measurements/observations; partly: workshop/seminars;

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:

land user driven (bottom-up). farmers developed the technologies; field staff selected them

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. land user driven (bottom-up).

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

• SWC specialists, extensionists/trainer

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings
• courses

Subjects covered:

1. Training in presentation skills for farmer innovators 2. Facilitation of field days where innovators/ extension staff could present jointly (so farmers trained thereby)

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: 'Farmer Innovation Approach'; Key elements: Identify Fis, Form networks of FIs groups which meet, Bring farmers to see 'best-bet' innovations; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system, non-governmental agency 2) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system, non-governmental agency; Extension staff: mainly government employees

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored

technical aspects were regular monitored
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored

economic / production aspects were regular monitored

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: e.g. Better integration with government services/ system for technical backstopping and extension

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

research was slow to begin activities in this phase but supposed to be a key pillar in this farmer/ research/ extension linkage

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Dutch Government): 60.0%; government (national): 20.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 20.0%

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

There may be some groups of farmers who will continue to meet and exchange ideas but this approach basically depends on a continuation (long term) of the farmer/ extension/ research interaction

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Gives them confidence
Offers them new and viable ideas from their peers

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Builds on local ideas (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: institutionalise the approach!)
Revitalises the extension service
Is attractive at all levels

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Research reluctant to respond to farmers' agenda	effort to convince researchers of benefits of joint research with farmers.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Depends on individual flexibility and commitment, does not follow the conventional institutional chain of command	training in skills and methodologies.
Sometimes confers too much prestige on a particular group of favoured farmers	rotate farmers who are the focus of attention.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Promoting Farmer Innovation (1999) Critchley et alVideo (same name)

Available from where? Costs?

RELMA, Nairobiditto