1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

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

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Références au(x) questionnaire(s) sur les Technologies de GDT

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

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

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

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 de l'approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

2.7 Type d'Approche

• fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

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 favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche

	Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales	Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
initiation/ motivation	passive	Demand creation by demand actors and experienced lead farmers; in rare cases demand is created by demand farmer groups
planification	interactive	Preparation of demand proposals and submission to committee, Proposal assessment by committee Selection of experienced lead farmer Fund disbursement to demand farmer group
mise en œuvre	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
suivi/ évaluation	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	aucun

3.3 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Indiquez qui a décidé de la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies à mettre en œuvre:

• les exploitants des terres seuls (auto-initiative)

Expliquez:

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 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

• government organisations, non-government organisations

Thèmes abordés:

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 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Oui

Spécifiez si le service de conseils est fourni:

• dans les champs des exploitants?

Décrivez/ commentez:

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 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

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 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Oui

Donnez plus de détails et indiquez qui a mené ces recherches:

Not applicable

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

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 Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques (incluant la main d'œuvre)

• intrants agricoles

Si la main d'œuvre fournie par les exploitants des terres était un intrant substantiel, elle était:

• volontaire

Commentaires:

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

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

6.4 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
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)

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

SSMP

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Paudel, C.L.; Regmi, B.D.; Schulz, S. (2005) - Participatory Innovation Development - Experiences of the Sustainable

Titre, auteur, année, 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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

SSMP