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)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)

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

HEKS (Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz) (HEKS (Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirchen Schweiz)) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

12/10/2016

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

This approach consists of disseminating improved agricultural techniques to increase the agricultural production. Producers are trained to demonstrate the techniques, and demonstration events are organised to make other producers aware of the use of these improved techniques.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

This is a project to train producers and to make them aware of agro-ecological intensification, and to implement demonstration plots with the following agricultural techniques:
- improved land clearing;
- the use of improved varieties of millet and cowpea;
- techniques of mono-cropping or strip cropping;
- integrated water management and soil fertility management with the Zaï technique (cultivation in pockets) with localized input of organic manure;
- the management of insect pests with biological control and the use of bio-pesticide made from Neem seed;
- post-harvest protection techniques without pesticides.

These existing techniques are implemented to contribute to the food security with yield increases of at least 50%. Animal feeding has been intensified by the establishment of 3 community production units and the selling of multi-nutritional fodder blocks. The approach used is participatory, because it initially consists of identifying the needs of the producers. It enables the involvement of all stakeholders (researchers-extension workers-producers), and then strengthening of the relations between them as well as their capacities through exchanges and training. This approach is also combined with Open Days, which are organised at regular intervals to present new and relevant technologies. The producers appreciate to be involved in solving their typical problems.

The implementation of the project has started with a kick-off meeting with the entire project team, the farmer organisations at the village level, the community leaders and the technical services. All the activities of the project were presented and propositions were made for the responsibilities of each of the partners:
- The team takes charge of the programming, the monitoring and the evaluation of the activities at the level of each of the villages. Each extension worker is charged with managing the activities at the level of 20 villages.
- The technical service for agriculture takes charge of supervising the agricultural activities, is involved in the selection of the producers, the technical training, and in the assistance and advice to producers in the application of the technologies and the assessment of the yields.
- The technical service for livestock farming has taken charge of technical advice and of the monitoring of the private production units of the Multi-Nutritional Fodder Blocks for livestock. It is involved in the awareness raising of the livestock farmers on animal feeding and the use of the fodder blocks.
- The farmer organisations in the villages are involved in the implementation of the activities by the establishment of a management committee.

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

- Increase the utilization rate of improved varieties adapted to the agricultural context of the intervention zone
- Establish demonstration units for promising agricultural technologies to increase the yields of millet and cowpea
- Strengthen the capacity of the producers to use techniques for the recovery of agricultural by-products in animal feeding
- Involve producers in the decision-making and the solving of problems that concern them.

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	The local land users were consulted by the project team in the initiation phase.
planning	interactive	A kick-off meeting gathered the entire project team, the farmer organisations at the level of the villages, the community officials and the technical services. The project activities were shared and the responsibilities of each of the partners were made explicit.
implementation	interactive	The producers provide the land and the organic manure. They collect the neem seed required for the local production of bio-pesticide, and will be charged with all the labour for the agricultural field operations.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	The project team, in collaboration with the producers has charged itself with the monitoring of the activities at the level of each of the villages. An external consultant was hired to evaluate the project.

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

In a meeting with the entire project team, the farmer organisations at the village level, the community officials and the technical services, all the project activities were discussed and approved.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• research findings

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

Subjects covered:

Training producers on the roadmap of technologies
Training on techniques for water management and soil fertility management
Training on pest management
Training on improved storage of harvests

Comments:

The demonstrations of new technologies involved 400 producers in total, of whom 40% women.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Advisory service is provided on request of land users, or during the diagnostic survey. The advisory service centers are supervised by the department of agriculture.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

The project team, consisting of researchers of the university of Maradi and of the National Agronomic Research Institute (INRAN/MARADI), works actively on the impact of the technology on the land users, as well as on the factors determining the adoption of the technology.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

HEKS/EPR

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

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

The project provided the seed of cowpea (IT90k372-1-2) and millet (HKP), small agricultural equipment such as row units, rope, bio-pesticides, parasitoid insects as well as demonstration material.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

Comments:

The producers provided the land, organic manure and all the labour for the agricultural field operations. They collected the neem seed required for the local production of bio-pesticide.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

Open days

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:

The producers have already initiated other producers into the use of the technologies. Dissemination is done from producer to producer, and in a participatory way.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Our involvement in the entire process
The demand comes from ourselves

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
A better relationship between all stakeholders
Strengthening of the capacities of all actors
The consideration of the real needs of the producers

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?
The meetings and the stakeholder engagement require resources	Financial assistance

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Approach subject to constraints (in terms of human and financial resources)	Mobilization of financial resources
Lack of accompanying measures for the demonstrations	Mobilization of financial resources
Challenges in terms of organisation (high cost and organisational capacity)	Mobilization of financial resources

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

FIDA (2001) : Vulgarisation agricole et appui à l’innovation paysanne en Afrique de l’ouest et centrale: bilan et perspectives pour le FIDA.

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.agencemicroprojets.org/wp-content/uploads/etudes29257/CFSI_Nourrirlesvilles_BD-31.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Documents of the West African Power Pool (WAPP) from Niger, Senegal, Ghana, Mali, Ivory Coast and Nigeria.

URL:

https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/DSIR%20pour%20l'Afrique%20d