Farmer-led experimentation [Непал]
- Создание:
- Обновить:
- Составитель: Richard Allen
- Редактор: –
- Рецензент: Laura Ebneter
Krishak ko aguwai ma garine parikshan (Nepali)
approaches_2559 - Непал
Просмотреть разделы
Развернуть все Свернуть все1. Общая информация
1.2 Контактные данные специалистов и организаций, участвующих в описании и оценке Подхода
Специалист по УЗП:
Soil Management Directorate
+977 1 5520314
Department of Agriculture
Harihar Bhawan, Lalitpur
Непал
Специалист по УЗП:
Team Leader Sustainable Sustainable Soil Management Programme (SSMP)
+977 1 5543591
ssmp@helvetas.org.np
Sustainable Soil Management Programme (SSMP)
GPO Box 688, Kathmandu
Непал
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
Improved cattleshed for urine collection [Непал]
Collection of cattle urine in improved cattle sheds for use as liquid manure and organic pesticide
- Составитель: Richard Allen
Improved compost preparation [Непал]
Improved compost preparation using a range of biomass and waste to produce high value fertiliser
- Составитель: Richard Allen
Legume integration [Непал]
Integration of leguminous crops as intercrops on terrace risers or as relay crops
- Составитель: Richard Allen
Organic pest management [Непал]
Promotion of botanical pesticides for organic pest management and liquid manure
- Составитель: Richard Allen
2. Описание Подхода УЗП
2.1 Краткое описание Подхода
Participatory technology testing and adaptation through farmer-led experiments
2.2 Подробное описание Подхода
Подробное описание Подхода:
Farmer-led experimentation is a type of action research initiated and carried out by farmers in their own fields. This approach enables farmers to identify technological options suited to local agroecological and socioeconomic conditions. The farmer-led experimentation process is taken up within existing farmer groups. This approach is closely related to the 'participatory innovation development' and the 'participatory technology development' approaches as discussed in Kolff et al. (2005). Simple experiments are usually replicated in five to ten farmers' fields per group. Generally, the whole of each experimental plot from each field is harvested and the yield recorded. Field implementation, group visits, and observations are carried out by the farmers themselves. The processing of results is done in groups together with the support staff from the facilitating organisation. These farmers are very likely to adopt tested technologies that are shown to be better for meeting their needs. The results are also used by support staff and shared with other organisations, and provide input for dissemination through farmer-to-farmer diffusion.
Farmers play a leading role in all steps of the process, starting from problem identification to planning, implementation, and evaluation of the experiments. This ensures that farmers are the driving force in the research process and not mere recipients of research findings that have been generated elsewhere. The detailed implementation plan is discussed within the groups and individual and collective responsibilities are assigned. The experimental site, individual implementing farmers, group visits, and results-sharing meetings are decided on by group consensus. Some observations are recorded by the implementing farmers. Promising innovations are then identified based on the collective evaluation of the tested treatments. Technical and other facilitation support is provided by organisations active in the area.
2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход
2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход
Страна:
Непал
Административная единица (Район/Область):
Midhills
Map
×2.7 Тип Подхода
- в рамках проекта/ программы
2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода
Local farmers collectively solving problems by identifying and using the most appropriate local solutions. Local farmers designing, testing and disseminating alternative technologies adapted to local conditions. Strengthening joint learning by farmers and development actors.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The common issues concerning farmers in growing crops include pests and diseases, yield decline, inappropriate crop varieties, and the introduction of new varieties. Rather than technicians providing farmers with ready-made solutions to their problems (that may or may not work), farmer-led experimentation allows farmers to carry out their own trials to try and solve specific problems.
2.9 Условия содействующие применению Технологии/ Технологий в рамках Подхода или затрудняющие его
Наличие/ доступность финансовых ресурсов и услуг
- затрудняют
Lack of money for technical support
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Collaborative approach amongst farmers from the same settlements
Институциональные условия
- затрудняют
Dysfunctional government extension system
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Reliance on local human resources and farmer to farmer collaboration
Осведомленность в области УЗП, доступность технической поддержки
- затрудняют
Problems related to agricultural production and soil fertility
Treatment through the SLM Approach: esting and adaptation of technologies to local conditions using local human and natural resources
3. Участие и распределение ролей заинтересованных сторон
3.1 Заинтересованные стороны, участвующие в реализации Подхода и их роли
- местные землепользователи/ местные сообщества
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 discussions and exercises, field visits, farm maps, farming and labour calendar, Activities: Identification of topics for experiment based on needs and priority, Identification of technological options (indigenous and external), Farmers developing simple and appropriate experiments, De |
планирование | нет | |
выполнение | интерактивное | follow-up visits, discussions, Activities: Farmers implement according to the design for comparison with a control (= existing practice), Farmers note relevant observations on recording sheet. Farmers note other important observations based on their needs and interests, Technical support and discuss |
мониторинг/ оценка | интерактивное | field visit to experimental site by other farmers, participatory discussion and evaluation Activities: Experimenting farmers and other farmers jointly discuss and evaluate based on direct observations of the trial and from the record sheet, Discussion on the lessons learned and identifying possible |
Research | нет |
3.4 Принятие решений по выбору Технологии/ Технологий УЗП
Укажите, кто принимал решение по выбору применяемой Технологии/ Технологий:
- исключительно землепользователи (по собственной инициативе)
Поясните:
Made collectively by farmers in group facilitated by organisation working with them.
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Made by farmers in group
4. Техническая поддержка, повышение компетенций и управление знаниями
4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение
Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?
Да
Укажите, кто проходил обучение:
- землепользователи
4.3 Институциональная (организационная) поддержка
В ходе реализации Подхода были ли организованы новые институциональные структуры или поддержаны уже существующие?
- да, умеренно
Укажите уровень, на котором структуры были укреплены или вновь созданы:
- местные
Подробнее:
Technical support provided by project
4.4 Мониторинг и оценка
Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?
Да
Комментарии:
bio-physical aspects were monitored by land users through observations
technical aspects were monitored by land users through observations
economic / production aspects were monitored by land users through observations
area treated aspects were monitored by land users through observations
land users involved aspects were monitored by land users through observations
management of Approach aspects were monitored by land users through observations
There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: The adoption of certain technologies has occurred as a result of farmer-led experimentation. For example, a farmer-led trial of two varieties of groundnut (local and B4), in Ghadgaon, Surkhet, led to farmers starting to grow the B4 variety in an area where previously only local varieties had been growing
5. Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка
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 community / land user(s) (local resources, labour, land): 50.0%; other (Dev. project(inputs, external resources)): 50.0%
5.2 Финансирование и внешняя материальная поддержка, предоставляемая землепользователям
Предоставлялась ли землепользователям финансовая/ материальная поддержка для применения Технологии /Технологий?
Да
Если да, укажите тип(-ы) поддержки, кто ее предоставил и условия предоставления:
Provided by the project for testing purposes
5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)
Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:
- добровольный
6. Анализ влияния и заключительные положения
6.1 Влияние Подхода
Сумел ли Подход помочь землепользователям внедрить и поддерживать технологии УЗП?
- Нет
- Да, немного
- Да, умеренно
- Да, существенно
Great impacts on soil fertility and yields have been reported after the adoption of sustainable soil management tested through farmer-led experimentation.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- Нет
- Да, немного
- Да, умеренно
- Да, существенно
Several farmers in the project area have started to do farmer-led experiments on their own, including on intercropping different vegetables and spices, and on urine application through drip irrigation
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:
Some farmers are implementing the approach on their own initiative. This is possible because of the low costs and limited technical requirements of the approach. Farmers exposed to the approach will be able to apply the approach again to problems that arise in their fields without the need to consult outside agencies.
6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода
Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов |
---|
The approach serves both as a local test for suitability and adaptation potential as well as for demonstrating an already tested technology. |
Once farmers are exposed to the approach, they can apply it on their own initiative. This is possible because of the low costs and technical requirements of the approach. |
Experiments are conducted on the basis of farmers' priorities and according to local conditions. This means that farmers develop ownership of the experiments and the derived results. |
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? |
---|---|
Experiments are not carried out in a scientifically rigorous way and therefore only have limited scientific value for evaluating technologies. | if scientific proof is required, farmer-led experiments should be closely supported by technicians (per se not a farmer-led experiment anymore!) |
Documentation of the activities and results for wider sharing is often poor and inadequate | clear guidelines are needed for documentation with clear instructions on what, when, and how to record important information. This is necessary so that the results can be more widely used. |
In some cases a lack of research equipment for better documentation and observation inhibits better understanding. |
7. Справочные материалы и ссылки
7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации
- выезды на места, полевые обследования
- опросы землепользователей
7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы
Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:
SSMP (2001) Implementation Guideline on Farmer Led Experimentation (in Nepali). Kathmandu: Sustainable Soil Management Programme
Где опубликовано? Стоимость?
SSMP
Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:
Paudel, C.L.; Regmi, B.D.; Schulz, S. (2005) - Participatory Innovation Development - Experiences of the Sustainable Soil Management Programme
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:
Где опубликовано? Стоимость?
SSMP
Ссылки и модули
Развернуть все Свернуть всеСсылки
Improved cattleshed for urine collection [Непал]
Collection of cattle urine in improved cattle sheds for use as liquid manure and organic pesticide
- Составитель: Richard Allen
Improved compost preparation [Непал]
Improved compost preparation using a range of biomass and waste to produce high value fertiliser
- Составитель: Richard Allen
Legume integration [Непал]
Integration of leguminous crops as intercrops on terrace risers or as relay crops
- Составитель: Richard Allen
Organic pest management [Непал]
Promotion of botanical pesticides for organic pest management and liquid manure
- Составитель: Richard Allen
Модули
Нет модулей