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)

Department of Agriculture, Soil Management Directorate, Hariharbhawan Lalitpur (doasoil) - Nepal

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

Wider diffusion of sustainable soil management technologies through a demand responsive farmer-to-farmer diffusion approach

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Sustainable Soil Management Programme (SSMP) is spreading knowledge about sustainable soil management technologies through farmer organisations and government and non-government partners. These collaborating institutions are working closely with lead farmers in training and technology testing. These farmers in turn work in close collaboration with their local groups. Although this approach is successfully diffusing new technologies from lead to group farmers, and on to nearby farmers, it remains a big challenge to diffuse the technologies further to the wider community.
To increase the spread of the technologies, SSMP pilot tested farmer-to-farmer (FtF) diffusion in eight midhills districts in 2002, later expanding to an additional five districts. Firstly, district based FtF extension committees were formed. Their major function is to select and train experienced lead farmers (ELF); to identify demand farmer groups; to facilitate contact and agreements between ELFs and demand farmer groups; to assess these agreements; to approve and channel funds to accepted proposals, and to monitor and evaluate the services provided. The demand farmer groups both propose the training events and select which of the currently 500 ELFs they want to lead their training. Demand farmer groups may be any group of farmers. Their proposals need to be recommended by a ‘demand actor’ such as a non-government or government organisation, a local authority, or a development project. Once a demand proposal is approved, the FtF extension committee provides funds to the demand group to pay the ELF and the other costs of the training.
Experienced lead farmers play a pivotal role in this process. They are generally progressive farmers with long farming experience who have good leadership and communication skills, are motivated to bring about change, and are interested in serving disadvantaged groups. They are trained on sustainable soil management technologies to enable them to provide training and follow-up to farmers groups outside the areas of collaborating institutions and to disseminate technologies which have proven to be appropriate and successful under local conditions.

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

The aims are to provide agricultural extension services with a particular focus on sustainable soil management, to build up an extension system that is functional outside of central government structures, to achieve sustainable learning from local farmer to local farmer and to deliver cost effective service.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The Nepal government's agricultural extension system was widely dysfunctional during the recent conflict (1996-2006). Many agricultural service centres were disbanded and were therefore unable to provide essential services to local farmers. Many farmers, especially in the remoter areas, had nowhere to turn for technical help with their agronomic problems, often resulting in lower yields and less income.

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	Demand creation by demand actors and experienced lead farmers; in rare cases demand is created by demand farmer groups
planning	interactive	Preparation of demand proposals and submission to committee, Proposal assessment by committee Selection of experienced lead farmer Fund disbursement to demand farmer group
implementation	interactive	Experienced lead farmer provides training in appropriate season on basic knowledge required. The training is field based on the land of members of the demand farmer group. The experienced lead farmer visits the demand farmer group two to three times after the training to provide follow-up and supp
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	The demand farmer group pay the experienced lead farmer once they are satisfied with the services provided (= direct monitoring by clients); training report by experienced lead farmers to farmer-to-farmer committees including proposing potential new ELFs from amongst trainees; end of training mo
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:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

Made collectively by the demand farmer group and refined with assistance from experienced lead farmers. The main interest of demand farmer groups has been in farmyard manure management, legume integration, and vegetable production.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Proposed by demand farmer groups with assistance from experienced lead farmers and endorsed by farmer-to-farmer committees

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

• government organisations, non-government organisations

Subjects covered:

Training on the farmer-to-farmer approach was provided to different demand actors including non-government and government organisations, by resource persons closely involved in designing the approach.

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:

The approach has been accepted by the government's Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives as part of its Agricultural Extension Policy (2007). Phase 3 of the Sustainable Soil Management Programme (2008 to 2010) will further support the institutionalisation of the approach at the operational level.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: sustainability of the promoted technology
technical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: client satisfaction after the training
socio-cultural aspects were monitored through observations; indicators: sustainability of the promoted technology
economic / production aspects were monitored through observations; indicators: sustainability of the promoted technology
land users involved were monitored through measurements; indicators: regular recording of attendance during meetings/trainings/follow-up
management of Approach aspects were monitored through measurements; indicators: expenses, demand assessment
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Regular monitoring and impact assessments have led to the continuous adaptation of the approach and its norms.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Not applicable

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) (labour, training costs): 50.0%; other (development projects (seeds, trainer)): 50.0%

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

New seed and non-local inputs for demonstration purpose are provided for one season

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Technologies adopted through farmer-to-farmer diffusion are likely to be more stable and sustainable because experienced leader farmers will only disseminate successful technologies
This approach may carry messages and content on subjects other than sustainable soil management (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: institutionalise the approach as a general grass roots-based extension approach)

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
More cost-effective for wider dissemination in comparison with other extension systems
Especially effective in heterogeneous environments amongst non-literate farm communities
Builds on farmers' field experience and communicates the technology through farmers' own words/terminology rather than through more technical extension messages from scientists
The service providers are directly accountable to the farmer clients, in contrast to using government and NGO extension workers who are only accountable to their institutions
Both the service provider and the demand groups are local farmers; this programme therefore directly benef ts only the local farming community

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?
Financial support for the programme at present comes from a development project and will end when the project ends	efforts need to be made to institutionalise the approach and seek out local sources of funding
Farmers' interest is mainly on technologies that are profi table in the short term and less on long term sustainable soil management	expand the farmer-to-farmer diffusion process to other topics and subjects as a part of agricultural extension

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Very small project agreements; wide scattered geographic area coverage; many proposals and difficulties in fi nancial management and monitoring	operational guidelines need to be reviewed
The success of the programme depends mainly on the abilities and knowledge of the experienced leader farmers	need to put more focus on selecting appropriate candidate ELFs and better training them and more extensively exposing them to new technologies
The facilitation from demand actors for this process is important; but they are reluctant to do this since the institutions do not fi nancially benefit from the process
Experienced leader farmers are reluctant to do paper work like fi lling in agreement proposal forms, maintaining a diary and preparing lesson plans
Difficulties in identifying demand groups according to the expertise of experienced lead farmers	increase awareness of the approach in rural areas through a comprehensive dissemination strategy using all media

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

In Kolff, A.; van Veldhuizen, L.; Wettasinha, C. (eds) Farmer Centred Innovation Development - Experiences and Challenges from South Asia,

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

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Paudel, C.L.; Kafl e, B. R.; Bajracharya, B. (2007) Training Manual on Farmer-To-Farmer Diffusion Process for Sustainable Soil Management Practices in Nepal

Available from where? Costs?

SSMP