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)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 876, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 876, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

03/02/2023

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

Community Resource Persons (CRP) form a farmer-to-farmer learning approach that bridges the gap in agricultural extension, increases farmers' access to agricultural information (SLM knowledge), and increases the adoption of SLM practices.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Community Resource Persons (CRPs) are farmers at the community-level who promote the adoption of SLM technologies by offering agricultural extension services. GIZ implements the ProSoil project in the Western Kenya counties of Kakamega, Siaya, and Bungoma through partners i.e., Welthungerhilfe (WHH) and Gesellschaft für Agrarprojekte in Übersee (GFA Consulting Group/ GFA). Further, these partners collaborate with other local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) in the implementation of the project. Farmer groups belonging to local communities characterized by men, women, and youth are recruited by field officers from the implementing partners and trained in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) practices. The training is done by technical staff from the County Department of Agriculture. The implementing partners facilitate the trainings. The trained farmers (CRPs) are issued with certificates of recognition signed by GIZ ProSoil project manager, the head of the implementing partner, and the County Director of Agriculture at the County Department of Agriculture. These CBOs and farmer groups work closely with agricultural extension officers from the county departments of agriculture to disseminate different agricultural technologies and SLM measures. The aim of CRPs is to bridge the gap in agricultural extension by overcoming the problem of low extension staff-to-farmer ratios. The objective is to sustain the adoption of various SLM measures promoted by the project among the beneficiaries and non-project farmers.

In Bukembe East Ward, Bungoma County, GFA collaborates with Kimaeti Farmers CBO to implement the Soil Protection and Rehabilitation of Degraded Soil for Food Security (ProSoil) project. Kimaeti Farmers CBO recruited agriculture field technicians who were then trained in SLM practices by GFA. The trained field technicians sensitize local communities in various operational areas about the project and recruit farmer groups: 25 farmers per group. Each field technician manages several groups per sub location and takes them through trainings and demonstrations on soil protection and rehabilitation technologies. Farmer groups are also trained on group organization development and management to enhance group cohesion. Each farmers group selects 3 CRPs who undergo specialized training to equip them with more skills and expertise to follow up, mentor and coach fellow farmers. These CRPs also monitor implementation of various technologies, gather farmer feedback, and even reach out to other farmers in the community not reached by the project. This extension service is usually done voluntarily. However, some farmers reward the CRPs for the advisory services in cash or kind. In some cases, CRPs who are specialised in some SLM technologies e.g., construction of structures for vermicomposting become co-trainers and may enter into contractual agreements with GIZ, GFA, or any other institution that wants their services. In this case, they are paid as agreed on the contracts.

Each CRP manages a cluster of 5–7 farmers. They also reach out to farmers within their respective communities according to consultatively agreed calendars/timeframes. Every available opportunity is used by CRPs to spread SLM knowledge, including meeting farmers at their farms; convening farmers at common locations within their communities where they talk to them about SLM; farmer field days organised by the implementing partners, or the county department of agriculture, etc. Hence, CRPs attract the attention of many farmers, including those who are direct beneficiaries of the ProSoil project and those who are not direct beneficiaries. CRPs are thus important in improving farmers' access to agricultural information at little or no cost since CRPs work on a voluntary basis.

The CRP approach has been successful in bringing together female and male, and youthful, middle-aged, and elderly farmers of different socio-cultural and economic backgrounds on issues of common interest i.e., SLM, household food security, and economic empowerment. This has enhanced communication, built social solidarity, and enhanced social cohesion among the farmers.

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

Aim: To bridge the gap in agricultural extension.

Objectives:
1. To improve farmers' access to agricultural information.
2. To sustain the adoption of new technologies trained to the project beneficiaries and non-project farmers.
3. To overcome the problem of low extension staff-to-farmer ratio through farmer-to-farmer learning.

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	Farmers in the community, targeted by the SLM technologies, they implement the technologies.
planning	interactive	Community resource persons and other farmers in the community jointly agree on when to engage each other, especially time and venue for capacity building.
implementation	interactive	Based on the status of the farmers, including land size, available capital, status of land degradation, etc. community resource persons and other farmers decide which SLM technologies are best for each farm.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	The planning for and conduct of monitoring and/ or evaluation is a role of GIZ and WHH. Farmers are mainly interviewed based on pre-determined questions.
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:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Decisions on what SLM technologies to implement were made mainly by farmers supported by SLM specialists from GIZ ProSoil project, GFA, and Kimaeti Farmers Community-Based Organization.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

CRPs from each village of about 25 farmers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

1. Conservation Agriculture
2. Agroforestry
3. Soil and Water Conservation measures
4. Integrated Soil Fertility and Pest Management (ISF&PM)
5. Push-pull
6. Good Agronomic Practices

Comments:

GFA trained/ trains Kimaeti Farmers CBO field technicians in SLM. The trained technicians then train the CRPs.

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:

CRPs advise farmers at their farms whenever they visit them. Meetings are held on needs basis between farmers and the CRPs where pieces of advice are given to farmers.

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Kimaeti Farmers CBOs and farmer groups at community level whose member farmers are capacity build and are able to learn from each other.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Kimaeti Farmers CBO technical officers have been trained in SLM practices.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

GIZ and GFA regularly follows up with farmers to check on the implementation of technologies promoted under this approach.

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

No

Comments:

This documentation in intended for keeping a record of SLM technologies and approaches.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

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):

Training costs for training 25 CRPs met by GIZ through GFA.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

Comments:

No labour was provided by land users.

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:

Value addition to promote marketability of farm produce e.g., mucuna. This encouraged farmers to grow mucuna as a green manure cover crop.

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:

Most of the SLM practices promoted under the approach have greatly improved the farms. Hence, a motivation to continue implementing even without donor support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Easy access to CRPs since they are members of the same communities with the target farmers.
Evidence-based learning from fellow farmers is a motivation for farmers to invest in SLM.
It could be a source of income for the CRPs; some earn an income by providing extension services to other farmers

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
A cost-effective method of disseminating agricultural information.

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?
CRPs may lack resources to reach out to farmers since they work on voluntary basis.	Formal recognition of CRPs by the government of Kenya. Government setting aside some funds to support the CRPs
Resistance from some farmers.	CRPs to be provided with some form of identification,

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Training Community Resource Persons and Panchayat members in Tamil Nadu

URL:

https://indo-germanbiodiversity.com/project-details-265.html