1.2 Detalles de contacto de las personas de referencia e instituciones involucradas en la evaluación y la documentación del Enfoque

Nombre del proyecto que facilitó la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque (si fuera relevante)

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

Nombre de la(s) institución(es) que facilitaron la documentación/ evaluación del Enfoque si fuera relevante)

CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture) - Kenia

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

¿Cuándo se compilaron los datos (en el campo)?

03/02/2023

El compilador y la/s persona(s) de referencia claves aceptan las condiciones acerca del uso de los datos documentados mediante WOCAT :

Sí

1.4 Referencia/s al/los Cuestionario(s) de Tecnologías MST

2.1 Breve descripción del Enfoque

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 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

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 Fotos del Enfoque

2.5 País/ región/ lugares donde el Enfoque fue aplicado

2.6 Fechas de inicio y conclusión del Enfoque

2.7 Tipo de Enfoque

• proyecto/ basado en un programa

2.8 Propósitos/ objetivos principales del Enfoque

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 Condiciones que facilitan o impiden la implementación de la/s Tecnología/s aplicadas bajo el Enfoque

3.1 Partes interesadas involucradas en el Enfoque y sus roles

3.2 Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales en las distintas fases del Enfoque

	Involucramiento de los usuarios locales de tierras/ comunidades locales	Especifique quién se involucró y describa las actividades
iniciación/ motivación	pasivo	Farmers in the community, targeted by the SLM technologies, they implement the technologies.
planificación	interactivo	Community resource persons and other farmers in the community jointly agree on when to engage each other, especially time and venue for capacity building.
implementación	interactivo	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.
monitoreo y evaluación	pasivo	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	ninguno

3.3 Flujograma (si estuviera disponible)

3.4 La toma de decisiones en la selección de Tecnología(s) MST

Especifique quién decidió la selección de las Tecnología/ Tecnologías a implementarse:

• principalmente usuarios de tierras con el apoyo de especialistas MST

Explique:

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.

Especifique las bases que sustentaron la toma de decisiones:

• la evaluación de conocimiento MST bien documentado (la toma de decisiones se basa en evidencia)
• la experiencia personal y opiniones (no documentadas)

4.1 Construcción de capacidades / capacitación

¿Se proporcionó la capacitación a usuarios de tierras/ otras partes interesadas?

Sí

Especifique quién fue capacitado:

• usuarios de tierras
• personal de campo/ consejeros

Si fuese relevante, también especifique género, edad, estatus, etnicidad, etc.

CRPs from each village of about 25 farmers

Forma de capacitación:

• en el contexto de trabajo
• de agricultor a agricultor
• áreas de demostración

Temas avanzados:

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

Comentarios:

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

4.2 Servicio de asesoría

¿Los usuarios de tierras tienen acceso a un servicio de asesoría?

Sí

Especifique si servicio proporcionado se realizó:

• en los campos de los usuarios de tierras
• en centros permanentes

Describa/ comentarios:

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 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• sí, mucho

Especifique el nivel o los niveles en los que se fortalecieron o establecieron las instituciones:

• local

Describa la institución, roles y responsabilidades, miembros, etc.

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

Especifique el tipo de apoyo:

• construcción de capacidades/ entrenamiento

Proporcione detalles adicionales:

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

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Comentarios:

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

Si respondió que sí, ¿la documentación se utilizará para monitoreo y evaluación?

No

Comentarios:

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

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

No

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

Si no se conoce el presupuesto anual preciso, indique el rango:

• 10,000-100,000

Comentarios (ej. fuentes principales de financiamiento/ donantes principales):

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

5.2 Apoyo financiero/material proporcionado a los usuarios de tierras

¿Los usuarios de tierras recibieron financiamiento/ apoyo material para implementar la Tecnología/ Tecnologías? :

No

5.3 Subsidios para insumos específicos (incluyendo mano de obra)

• ninguno

Comentarios:

No labour was provided by land users.

5.4 Crédito

¿Se proporcionó crédito bajo el Enfoque para actividades MST?

No

5.5 Otros incentivos o instrumentos

¿Se usaron otros incentivos o instrumentos para promover la implementación de Tecnologías MST?

Sí

Si fuera el caso, especifique :

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 Impactos del Enfoque

6.2 Motivación principal del usuario de la tierra para implementar MST

6.3 Sostenibilidad de las actividades del Enfoque

¿Pueden los usuarios de tierras sostener lo que se implementó mediante el Enfoque (sin apoyo externo)?

• sí

Si respondió que sí, describa cómo:

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 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
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

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
A cost-effective method of disseminating agricultural information.

6.5 Debilidades/ desventajas del Enfoque y formas de sobreponerse a ellos

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
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 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.3 Vínculos a la información relevante disponible en línea

Título/ descripción:

Training Community Resource Persons and Panchayat members in Tamil Nadu

URL:

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