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)

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenia

1.3 Condiciones referidas al uso de datos documentados mediante WOCAT

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

16/01/2023

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

A Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) engages about 50 or more farmers in a kebele (lower administrative unit), with three sub groups of 17-20 each who live in a homogenous landscape. It is a local institution established for joint learning, piloting, and evaluating soil improvement technologies across the intervention regions.

2.2 Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST

Descripción detallada del Enfoque MST:

Farmers Research and Extension Groups (FREGs) are the approach used to test and spread Integrated Soil and Fertility Management (ISFM+)/Agroecology project best practices in Ethiopia. These technologies include livestock urine collection and use, cover crops, intercropping, vermicompost, acid soil treatment by liming, green manures, crop residue management, and bioslurry. A FREG employs a participatory approach, whereby joint investigation and learning is implemented. Farmers' group members use participatory planning and peer learning from one another. The approach is gender inclusive: one-third of the members in a FREG are women. There is also a mix of social categories. FREGs are populated by proactive model farmers who adopt and demonstrate technologies for scaling up. After the first year, the best-performing model farmer serves as an ambassador for knowledge and skills transfer to the indirect beneficiaries.
Collective investigation, learning, adoption, and then promotion of proven technologies are the key features of the approach. Member of the FREG jointly identify soil fertility/acidity-related issues, participate in training and demonstrate the technologies. The ISFM+/ Agroecology projects equip the target groups with implementation skills and knowledge. Site and participant selection are made with participation of woreda and kebele representative partners and the target farmers. Then soil-related issues are jointly identified with the support of laboratory analysis by the Regional Research Institute. This demonstrates that the intervention is implemented by the public research and development actors with technical, financial and/or inputs supply from the projects. The approach tends to mobilize the communities living in similar agroecology and farming systems who are subjected to the same SLM-related issues.
Identifying proactive model farmers and establishing demonstration plots for different technologies and crop types are the basis of collective learning. The demonstration is employed as an experimental and learning plot by showcasing and inspiring farmer groups and indirect beneficiaries in the area. Organizing field days and exchange visits further enables the demonstration of technologies for scaling out. Experience shows that where ISFM+ technologies have been piloted, farmers have built up new agroecology technologies such as cover cropping, intercropping and woodlots development over and above those previously adopted. Target farmers have piloted at least three or more technologies/practices on their plots. The woreda office of agriculture through the assigned project focal person gives closer follow-up for the proper implementation of the technologies. Provision of technical support and advisory service via the development agents (DAs) are among many other services.

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

To promote participatory implementation and peer-to-peer learning by increasing its scope from plot based to landscape scale. The approach capacitates the farmers' group and stimulates the scaling of the approach at a larger scale.

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	interactivo	Farmers' group involved in participatory planning, experience exchange visit, and evaluation of the activities. Agricultural experts, development agents, and project staff oversee the implementation of activities and provide technical support/advisory services.
planificación	interactivo	Target farmers and development agents involved in problem identification/assessment and planning.
implementación	interactivo	Farmers who are members of the FREG are involved in implementing the technology with technical support from the woreda focal person and the DAs.
monitoreo y evaluación	interactivo

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:

• todos los actores relevantes, como parte de un enfoque participativo

Explique:

Land users, SLM experts, Development Agents (DAs), and project advisors play a substantial role in participatory decision-making on the selection of SLM Technologies.

Especifique las bases que sustentaron la toma de decisiones:

• la evaluación de conocimiento MST bien documentado (la toma de decisiones se basa en evidencia)
• hallazgos de investigaciones

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.

Women-headed households are a member of the three model farmers in the sub-group of FREG. In general, the approach involves women one-third of the group members.

Forma de capacitación:

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

Temas avanzados:

The concepts of agroecology, integrated soil fertility management and overall benefits of cover cropping and related crops such as Desmodium.

Comentarios:

The approach stimulates to conduct farmers group meeting at the beginning of the season as well as for end season evaluation of the pilot technologies.

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:

The advisory service is face-to-face on demonstration plots at various crop stages including for split application of Urea fertilizer, disease/pest management time, harvesting, and post-harvesting.

4.3 Fortalecimiento institucional (desarrollo institucional)

¿Se establecieron o fortalecieron instituciones mediante el Enfoque?

• sí, moderadamente

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

• local

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

FREG has three model farmers leading the group. They mobilize their followers, demonstrate technologies, and steer collective action. Farmers' groups along with agricultural experts and project staff support the selection of technologies and replacement of the existing ones if the need emerges.

• Facilitation/mobilization

4.4 Monitoreo y evaluación

¿El monitoreo y la evaluación forman parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Comentarios:

Participatory monitoring and evaluation are part of the FREG approach. Essentially, beginning and end-season evaluation is the approach employed in the implementation of new technologies.

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

Sí

4.5 Investigación

¿La investigación formó parte del Enfoque?

Sí

Especifique los temas:

• tecnología

Proporcione detalles adicionales e indique quién hizo la investigación:

Research is part of the introduced technologies. Problem identification is the entryway to introducing a new technology/practice. Regional Agricultural Research Institute involves in the assessment and identification of problems, evaluation, and issuance of appropriate recommendations that make the intervention evidence-based.

5.1 Presupuesto anual para el componente MST del Enfoque

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

• 2,000-10,000

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

The budget is generally allocated to support woreda's operational cost and to supply necessary inputs for the implementation of ISFM+ and the Agroecology projects.

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

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 :

For best-performing farmers, incentives such as solar panels, energy-saving cooking stoves, wheelbarrows, etc., are offered to further motivate the farmers and enable them to properly implement the technology and become a very good advocator for scaling the beneficial practices.

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:

The positive outcome of applying the FREG is considered as a payoff for participating farmers as it gave them the energy to sustain the adopted practices. The outputs of integrating technologies, collective learning, and action allow to see significant yield increment per unit of land, improved soil fertility and soil health, etc.

6.4 Fortalezas/ ventajas del Enfoque

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del usuario de la tierra
Increases farmers understanding of SLM and enables to improve soil fertility and soil health.
Allows direct and indirect beneficiaries to adopt beneficial agricultural practices.
Promote peer learning to apply technologies that nurture soil fertility and increase crop production and productivity, supply feed to the livestock, manage pests...

Fuerzas/ ventajas/ oportunidades desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave
Ensure stakeholders' participation and allows the development of a sense of ownership of the technology.
Promote knowledge sharing for scaling out of the technologies.

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?
The farmers' group meeting is not so strong and there are absentees or dropouts because of the overlaps with other regular and casual meetings, and private chores.	Strengthening appropriate participation in planning, implementation, collective learning and action process.

Debilidades/ desventajas/ riesgos desde la perspectiva del compilador o de otra persona de referencia clave	¿Cómo sobreponerse a ellas?
Lower level of farmers' commitment and non-zealous to bring change with positive impacts.	Need regular follow-up and continuous awareness creation exercises.
Take the project intervention for granted	Mainstreaming further land-related issues and the necessity of adopting ISFM and agroecology practices to ensure the sustainability of the management intervention.

7.1 Métodos/ fuentes de información

7.2 Referencias a publicaciones disponibles

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Agricultural extension approach: evidence from an Integrated Soil Fertility Management project in Ethiopia. Leta, G., Schulz, S., Alemu, G. 2020. DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2020331

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

https://www.researchgate.net (Free online)

Título, autor, año, ISBN:

Evaluation of Farmer Research Extension Group as Extension Approach: The experience of Sida-Amhara Rural Development Program in Kalu District of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Abebe, E. 2008.

¿Dónde se halla disponible? ¿Costo?

https://depot.wur.nl/1129

7.3 Vínculos a la información relevante disponible en línea

Título/ descripción:

Farmer research and extension

URL:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5055710_Farmer_research_and_extension

Título/ descripción:

Basics of cover cropping

URL:

https://organicgrowersschool.org/gardeners/library/basics-of-cover-cropping/