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)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

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)?

03/02/2023

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

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 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

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 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

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 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	Farmers in the community, targeted by the SLM technologies, they implement the technologies.
planification	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.
mise en œuvre	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.
suivi/ évaluation	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	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:

• principalement les exploitants des terres soutenus par des spécialistes de la GDT

Expliquez:

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.

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)?
• expériences et opinions personnelles (non documentées)

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.

CRPs from each village of about 25 farmers

Formats de la formation:

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

Thèmes abordés:

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

Commentaires:

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

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:

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 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

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

• oui, beaucoup

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.

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

Précisez le type de soutien:

• renforcement des capacités/ formation

Donnez plus de détails:

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

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

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

Oui

Commentaires:

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

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

Non

Commentaires:

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

4.5 Recherche

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

Non

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

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

• 10 000-100 000

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

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

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

Commentaires:

No labour was provided by land users.

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:

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 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:

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 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

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

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
A cost-effective method of disseminating agricultural information.

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?
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 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.3 Liens vers les informations pertinentes disponibles en ligne

Titre/ description:

Training Community Resource Persons and Panchayat members in Tamil Nadu

URL:

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