Abordagens

Community Resource Persons (CRP) in agricultural extension [Quênia]

Mtu wa rasilimali za jamii/ Mkufunzi wa wakufunzi

approaches_6688 - Quênia

Completude: 94%

1. Informação geral

1.2 Detalhes do contato das pessoas capacitadas e instituições envolvidas na avaliação e documentação da abordagem

Pessoa(s) capacitada(s)

Especialista em GST:

Nyanja Churchill

+254 710 849370

churchillwn2@gmail.com

Kimaeti Farmers Community-Based Organization (CBO)

Bukembe East Ward, Kanduyi Sub-county, Bungoma County

Quênia

Especialista em GST:
Especialista em GST:
Nome do projeto que facilitou a documentação/avaliação da Abordagem (se relevante)
Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)
Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/avaliação da Abordagem (se relevante)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
Nome da(s) instituição(ões) que facilitou(ram) a documentação/avaliação da Abordagem (se relevante)
CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture) - Quênia

1.3 Condições em relação ao uso da informação documentada através de WOCAT

Quando os dados foram compilados (no campo)?

03/02/2023

O compilador e a(s) pessoa(s) capacitada(s) aceitam as condições relativas ao uso de dados documentados através do WOCAT:

Sim

1.4 Referência ao(s) questionário(s) sobre tecnologias da GST

2. Descrição da abordagem de GST

2.1 Descrição curta da abordagem

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 Descrição detalhada da abordagem

Descrição detalhada da abordagem:

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 da abordagem

2.5 País/região/locais onde a abordagem foi aplicada

País:

Quênia

Região/Estado/Província:

Bungoma County in Western Kenya

Especificação adicional de localização:

Bukembe East Ward, Kanduyi Sub-county, Bungoma County

2.6 Datas de início e término da abordagem

Indique o ano de início:

2021

Comentários:

Farmers are still learning from each other through the CRP approach.

2.7 Tipo de abordagem

  • Baseado em projeto/programa

2.8 Principais metas/objetivos da abordagem

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 Condição que propiciam ou inibem a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias aplicada(s) segundo a abordagem

Normas e valores sociais/culturais/religiosos
  • Propício

1. General acceptance by the community.
2. Ability to bring together of different socio-cultural and economic backgrounds on issues of common interest i.e., SLM, household food security, and economic empowerment which has enhanced communication, built social solidarity, and enhanced social cohesion among community members.

Disponibilidade/acesso a recursos e serviços financeiros
  • Inibitivo

CRPs work on voluntary basis; hence, may not be motivated to reach out to farmers in areas that are very far from their reach.

Quadro institucional
  • Propício

Availability and willingness of Kimaeti CBO to collaborate with GFA.

Colaboração/coordenção de atores
  • Propício

Linkages and partnerships among different organizations and institutions, including GIZ, GFA, Kimaeti CBO, etc. which expanded the outreach of the approach.

Quadro jurídico (posse de terra, direitos de uso da terra e da água)
  • Propício

Access to farming land where farmers implement SLM technologies.

Governança da terra (tomada de decisões, implementação e aplicação)
  • Inibitivo

Women and youth farmers are limited in their access, use, and control of land. Hence, they may not be able to implement certain SLM technologies even if they gained knowledge about them through CRPs who are fellow farmers e.g., agroforestry.

Conhecimento sobre GST, acesso a suporte técnico
  • Propício

SLM knowledge among technical staff in the collaborating institutions and documented references.

Carga de trabalho, disponibilidade de força de trabalho
  • Propício

CRPs from the communities who are willing to work with fellow farmers.

  • Inibitivo

Voluntary nature of the CRPs' support - CRPs are likely to sacrifice their own farmwork at the expense of the CRP work, something that may discourage them if they get poor harvest.

3. Participação e papel das partes interessadas envolvidas

3.1 Partes interessadas envolvidas na abordagem e seus papéis

  • Usuários de terra/comunidades locais

Farmers - men, women, and youth.

Targeted by the technologies, they learn from other farmers, and implement the technologies.

  • Organizações comunitárias

Kimaeti Farmers Community-Based Organization

Has recruited a team of trained SLM specialists who pass the SLM knowledge to the community resource persons in the community.

  • Especialistas em GST/ consultor agrícola

SLM specialists from GIZ ProSoil project, GFA, and Kimaeti Farmers Community-Based Organization.

SLM specialists from GIZ ProSoil project - supported in the technical design of the approach.
SLM specialists from GFA - ProSoil implementing partner, trains the Community-Based Organizations that implement the approach.

SLM specialists from Kimaeti Farmers Community-Based Organization - pass the SLM knowledge to the community resource persons in the community.

  • Governo local

Agricultural extension officers from the county government department of agriculture.

Work hand-in-hand with SLM specialists to pass the SLM knowledge to the farmers.

  • Organização internacional

GIZ

Proposal design and financial support to the implementation of the approach.

Caso várias partes interessadas foram envolvidas, indique a agência líder:

GIZ

3.2 Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais nas diferentes fases da abordagem
Envolvimento do usuários de terra/comunidades locais Especifique quem estava envolvido e descreva as atividades
Iniciação/motivação Passivo Farmers in the community, targeted by the SLM technologies, they implement the technologies.
Planejamento Participativo Community resource persons and other farmers in the community jointly agree on when to engage each other, especially time and venue for capacity building.
Implementação Participativo 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.
Monitoramento/avaliação Passivo 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 Nenhum

3.3 Fluxograma (se disponível)

Descrição:

The ProSoil Project (GIZ and GFA) provides financial resources for the training of CRPs. The CRPs are trained by SLM specialists from the County Department of Agriculture. The CRPs provide advisory services to farmers.

Autor:

William Akwanyi

3.4 Decisão sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias de GST

Especifique quem decidiu sobre a seleção de tecnologia/tecnologias a serem implementadas:
  • Principalmente usuários da terra, apoiados por especialistas em GST
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 em que base foram tomadas as decisões:
  • Avaliação de conhecimento bem documentado de GST (tomada de decisão baseada em evidências)
  • Experiência pessoal e opiniões (não documentado)

4. Suporte técnico, reforço das capacidades e gestão do conhecimento

4.1 Reforço das capacidades/formação

Foi oferecida formação aos usuários da terra/outras partes interessadas?

Sim

Especifique quem foi capacitado:
  • Usuários de terra
  • Equipe de campo/consultores
Caso seja relevante, especifique gênero, idade, status, etnia, etc.

CRPs from each village of about 25 farmers

Tipo de formação:
  • Em exercício
  • Agricultor para agricultor
  • Áreas de demonstração
Assuntos abordados:

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

Comentários:

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

4.2 Serviço de consultoria

Os usuários de terra têm acesso a um serviço de consultoria?

Sim

Especifique se foi oferecido serviço de consultoria:
  • nas áreas dos usuários da terra
  • Em centros permanentes
Descreva/comentários:

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 Fortalecimento da instituição (desenvolvimento organizacional)

As instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas através da abordagem?
  • Sim, significativamente
Especifique a que nível (níveis) as instituições foram fortalecidas ou estabelecidas:
  • Local
Descreva instituição, papéis e responsabilidades, membros, 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 o tipo de apoio:
  • Reforço das capacidades/formação
Dê mais detalhes:

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

4.4 Monitoramento e avaliação

Monitoramento e avaliação são partes da abordagem?

Sim

Comentários:

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

Caso afirmativo, esta documentação é destinada a ser utilizada para monitoramento e avaliação?

Não

Comentários:

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

4.5 Pesquisa

A pesquisa foi parte da abordagem?

Não

5. Financiamento e apoio material externo

5.1 Orçamento anual para o componente de GST da abordagem

Caso o orçamento exato seja desconhecido, indique a faixa:
  • 10.000-100.000
Comentários (p. ex. principais fontes de recursos/principais doadores):

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

5.2 Apoio financeiro/material concedido aos usuários da terra

Os usuários da terra receberam apoio financeiro/material para a implementação de tecnologia/tecnologias?

Não

5.3 Subsídios para entradas específicas (incluindo mão-de-obra)

  • Nenhum
 
Comentários:

No labour was provided by land users.

5.4 Crédito

Foi concedido crédito segundo a abordagem para atividades de GST?

Não

5.5 Outros incentivos ou instrumentos

Foram utilizados outros incentivos ou instrumentos para promover a implementação das tecnologias de GST?

Sim

Caso afirmativo, 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. Análise de impactos e declarações finais

6.1 Impactos da abordagem

A abordagem propiciou a tomada de decisão baseada em evidências?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

Farmers were motivated to implement the SLM technologies that they were trained on by the CRPs, especially having seen how the CRPs had benefited from the SLM practices.

A abordagem auxiliou os usuários da terra a implementar e manter as tecnologias de GST?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

The CRPs reached out to the land users/ farmers and taught them how to implement the SLM technologies.

A abordagem melhorou a coordenação e a implementação economicamente eficiente da GST?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

Farmers are not paying for the extension services that they receive from the CRPs.

A abordagem mobilizou/melhorou o acesso aos recursos financeiros para implementação da GST?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente
A abordagem aprimorou o conhecimento e as capacidades dos usuários da terra para implementar a GST?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

SLM knowledge received from the CRPs.

A abordagem construiu/fortaleceu instituições, colaboração entre partes interessadas?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

Collaboration of GFA and GIZ, GFA and Kimaeti Farmers CBO strengthened.

A abordagem concedeu autonomia aos grupos social e economicamente desfavorecidos?
  • Não
  • Sim, pouco
  • Sim, moderadamente
  • Sim, significativamente

Farmers with limited resources to invest in capacity building/ training received free SLM knowledge.

6.2 Principal motivação dos usuários da terra para implementar a GST

  • Produção aumentada

Farmers harvested more after implementing the SLM technologies than when they were not implementing the technologies.

  • Degradação do solo reduzida

Most promoted SLM practices reduced degradation of farmlands e.g., soil and water conservation measures.

  • Prestígio, pressão social/coesão social

Farmers of diverse social and economic statuses could meet for a common goal of learning about SLM.

  • melhoria dos conhecimentos e aptidões de GST

Farmers received training about SLM from the CRPs.

  • Atenuação de conflitos

CRPs are able to solve conflicts that arise within the groups

6.3 Atividades de sustentabilidade de abordagem

Os usuários da terra podem manter o que foi implementado através da abordagem (sem apoio externo)?
  • Sim
Caso afirmativo, descreva como:

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 Pontos fortes/vantagens da abordagem

Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do usuário da terra
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
Pontos fortes/vantagens/oportunidades na visão do compilador ou de outra pessoa capacitada
A cost-effective method of disseminating agricultural information.

6.5 Pontos fracos, desvantagens da tecnologia e formas de superá-los

Pontos fracos/desvantagens/riscos na visão do usuário da terra Como eles podem ser superados?
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. Referências e links

7.1 Métodos/fontes de informação

  • visitas de campo, pesquisas de campo

One field visit involving demonstration of how CRPs interact with farmers.

  • entrevistas com usuários de terras

Discussion with a CRP group

  • entrevistas com especialistas em GST

Interview with GFA and Kimaeti CBO SLM specialist and several follow-up calls.

7.3 Links para informação relevante que está disponível online

Título/ descrição:

Training Community Resource Persons and Panchayat members in Tamil Nadu

URL:

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

Módulos