1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода

Название проекта, содействовавшего документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

Sustainable Soil Management Programme, Nepal (SSMP)

Название организации (-ий), содействовавших документированию/оценке Подхода (если применимо)

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

1.3 Условия, регламентирующие использование собранных ВОКАТ данных

Составитель и ответственный/-ые специалист(-ы) согласны с условиями, регламентирующими использование собранных ВОКАТ данных:

Да

1.4 Ссылка (-и) на Анкету (-ы) по Технологиям УЗП

2.1 Краткое описание Подхода

Participatory and collaborative learning through the farmer field school approach

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

There are different ways of carrying out agricultural extension. Farmer field schools represent a participatory approach that directly reaches farmers and addresses their day-to-day problems. The concept of farmer field schools builds on the belief that farmers are the main source of knowledge and experience in carrying out farm operations, in contrast to conventional top-down approaches that place most value on scientists' findings. The term 'farmer field schools' came from the Indonesian expression 'sekolah lapangan' which means 'field school'. It is a group based learning approach, which brings together concepts and method of agro-ecology, experiential education, and community development. The first field schools were established in 1989 in central Java when 50 plant protection officers tested and developed field training methods as part of an integrated pest management (IPM) training of trainers course. Two hundred field schools were established in that season involving 5,000 farmers. The following season, in 1990, an additional 45,000 farmers joined field schools run by 450 crop protection officers.
The same approach is being used in Nepal's integrated pest management programme. Several consultation meetings and workshops were held at national level to put the integrated nutrient management concept into practice. These meetings led to farmer field schools being recognised as an appropriate approach for putting this concept into practice. The approach was piloted in 2000 and 2001 and fully initiated in 2002 when 32 farmer field schools were run with support from SSMP. As far as SSMP knows, farmer field schools on integrated plant nutrient systems have been run since SSMP's involvement. The Government of Nepal's National Fertiliser Policy now recognises integrated plant nutrient systems as a concept to improve the efficient use of different nutrient inputs, and farmer field schools as an appropriate technology and extension approach for soil and plant nutrient management in Nepal. So far some 226 farmer field schools have been run in Nepal on integrated plant nutrient systems reaching more than 5,000 households.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

Transfer of technology to farmers on soil and plant nutrition management. Empowerment of farmers. Production of healthy crops without negative environmental effects.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of effective and efficient ways of transferring technologies to farmers. Conventional approach of technology transfer, where farmers are believed to have poor knowledge and skills. Farmers are always perceived as a recipient of technology and knowledge

2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его

3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли

3.2 Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ на разных стадиях реализации Подхода

	Участие местных землепользователей/ местных сообществ	Перечислите участников и опишите их вовлеченность
инициирование/ мотивация	интерактивное	Participatory approach: group discussions involving all local stakeholders
планирование	интерактивное	Orientation workshop involving all stakeholders - farmers participation is crucial
выполнение	интерактивное	Farmers are the key actors with trained staff of collaborating institutions (CI) facilitating the process
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	Farmers evaluate and monitor jointly on a regular basis
Research	самоорганизация	Farmer-led experimentation based on local needs and context

3.3 Схема реализации (если имеется)

3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП

Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:

• исключительно специалисты по УЗП

Поясните:

In Nepal under the SSMP, farmer field schools have only been implemented to 'teach' integrated plant nutrient systems, there is no choice of technology.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). The curriculum for the farmer field school was developed by SSMP and the Government's Soil Management Directorate

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

Укажите, кто проходил обучение:

• землепользователи
• местный персонал/консультанты

Тип обучения:

• обмен опытом между фермерами
• опытные участки
• общие собрания
• курсы

Рассматриваемые темы:

A training of trainers course is provided to selected staff from the collaborating institutions who have been involved substantially in agriculture development and farming practices activities. Seven days basic training on integrated plant nutrient systems and farmer field schools is provided. There is provision for a sharing forum at district level based on the demand of staff involved in conduc

4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка

В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?

• да, существенно

Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:

• местные

Укажите тип поддержки:

• финансовая
• повышение компетенций/ обучение

Подробнее:

Local level organisations are involved in carrying out the farmer field schools. Local institutions are supported financially and technically by SSMP. The major aim of this approach is to build local

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: status
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through measurements; indicators: nitrate, nitrogen, pH, organic matter, P and K, yield measurements
technical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: cash income
economic / production aspects were regular monitored through observations

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Укажите темы исследований:

• технология

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

It is difficult to compare results if many treatments are applied at the same time in a plot. Therefore, it is always advised that component trials are run for different treatments. Such trials make for easier understanding of the different treatments and enable farmers to see the effects of particular treatments.

5.1 Годовой бюджет мероприятий по УЗП в рамках Подхода

Комментарий (например, основные источники финансирования/ ключевые доноры):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (participants): 20.0%; other (development project): 80.0%

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.3 Долгосрочная устойчивость мероприятий в рамках Подхода

Могут ли землепользователи самостоятельно (без внешней поддержки) продолжать применение того, что было реализовано в рамках Подхода?

• да

Если да, опишите как:

Capacity remains at the local level so that farmers are able to run farmer field schools themselves.

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
Farmers are the source of knowledge; farmers adopt technologies based on their context (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involve farmers in a more participatory way)
Participatory approach
Farmers decide the pace of implementation and what should be done
The schools stress the importance of using local resources to reduce dependency on external resources
Increased effi ciency and effectiveness of local resources use

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Farmer field schools need time and their costs are higher than other similar approaches
Non-technical staff are often involved in carrying out farmer field schools	Ensure capacity building and regular sharing forums

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Paudel, C.L.; Regmi, B.D.; Schulz, S. (2005) 'Participatory Innovation Development - Experiences of the Sustainable Soil Management Programme in Nepal

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

SSMP (2003) Introduction to Integrated Plant Nutrient Systems (in Nepali). Kathmandu: Sustainable Soil Management Programme

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

SSMP

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

In Kolff, A.; van Veldhuizen, L.; Wettasinha, C. (eds) Farmer Centred Innovation Development ???? Experiences and Challenges from South Asia, pp. 109-126. Bern: Intercooperation

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

SSMP