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

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

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

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

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

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

Quand les données ont-elles été compilées (sur le terrain)?

16/01/2023

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

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 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

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 Photos de l'approche

2.4 Vidéos de l'Approche

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

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

2.7 Type d'Approche

• fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

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 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	interactive	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.
planification	interactive	Target farmers and development agents involved in problem identification/assessment and planning.
mise en œuvre	interactive	Farmers who are members of the FREG are involved in implementing the technology with technical support from the woreda focal person and the DAs.
suivi/ évaluation	interactive

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:

• tous les acteurs concernés dans le cadre d'une approche participative

Expliquez:

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

Spécifiez sur quelle base ont été prises les décisions:

• l'évaluation de connaissances bien documentées en matière de GDT (prises de décision fondées sur des preuves tangibles)?
• les résultats de recherches?

4.1 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

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

Oui

Spécifiez qui a été formé:

• exploitants des terres
• personnels/ conseillers de terrain

Si pertinent, spécifiez le genre, l'âge, le statut, l'ethnie, 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.

Formats de la formation:

• sur le tas
• entre agriculteurs (d'exploitants à exploitants)
• zones de démonstration
• réunions publiques

Thèmes abordés:

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

Commentaires:

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 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?
• dans des centres permanents

Décrivez/ commentez:

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 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?

• oui, modérément

Spécifiez à quel(s) niveau(x), ces institutions ont été renforcées ou mises en place:

• local

Décrivez l'institution, ses rôles et responsabilités, ses membres, 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 Suivi et évaluation

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

Oui

Commentaires:

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 oui, ce document est-il destiné à être utilisé pour le suivi et l'évaluation?

Oui

4.5 Recherche

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

Oui

Spécifiez les thèmes:

• technologie

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

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 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:

• 2 000-10 000

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

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 Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils reçu un soutien financier/ matériel pour la mise en œuvre de la Technologie/ des Technologies?

Non

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

• aucun

5.4 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

5.5 Autres incitations ou instruments

D'autres incitations ou instruments ont-ils été utilisés pour promouvoir la mise en œuvre des Technologies de GDT?

Oui

Si oui, spécifiez:

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 Impacts de l'Approche

6.2 Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?

• oui

Si oui, décrivez de quelle manière:

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 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

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

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 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?
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.

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

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, 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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

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

Titre, auteur, année, 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.

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

https://depot.wur.nl/1129

7.3 Liens vers les informations pertinentes disponibles en ligne

Titre/ description:

Farmer research and extension

URL:

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

Titre/ description:

Basics of cover cropping

URL:

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