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

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

Department of Agriculture, Soil Management Directorate, Hariharbhawan Lalitpur (doasoil) - Непал

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

Wider diffusion of sustainable soil management technologies through a demand responsive farmer-to-farmer diffusion approach

2.2 Подробное описание Подхода

Подробное описание Подхода:

The Sustainable Soil Management Programme (SSMP) is spreading knowledge about sustainable soil management technologies through farmer organisations and government and non-government partners. These collaborating institutions are working closely with lead farmers in training and technology testing. These farmers in turn work in close collaboration with their local groups. Although this approach is successfully diffusing new technologies from lead to group farmers, and on to nearby farmers, it remains a big challenge to diffuse the technologies further to the wider community.
To increase the spread of the technologies, SSMP pilot tested farmer-to-farmer (FtF) diffusion in eight midhills districts in 2002, later expanding to an additional five districts. Firstly, district based FtF extension committees were formed. Their major function is to select and train experienced lead farmers (ELF); to identify demand farmer groups; to facilitate contact and agreements between ELFs and demand farmer groups; to assess these agreements; to approve and channel funds to accepted proposals, and to monitor and evaluate the services provided. The demand farmer groups both propose the training events and select which of the currently 500 ELFs they want to lead their training. Demand farmer groups may be any group of farmers. Their proposals need to be recommended by a ‘demand actor’ such as a non-government or government organisation, a local authority, or a development project. Once a demand proposal is approved, the FtF extension committee provides funds to the demand group to pay the ELF and the other costs of the training.
Experienced lead farmers play a pivotal role in this process. They are generally progressive farmers with long farming experience who have good leadership and communication skills, are motivated to bring about change, and are interested in serving disadvantaged groups. They are trained on sustainable soil management technologies to enable them to provide training and follow-up to farmers groups outside the areas of collaborating institutions and to disseminate technologies which have proven to be appropriate and successful under local conditions.

2.3 Фотографии, иллюстрирующие Подход

2.5 Страна/ регион/ место, где применялся Подход

2.7 Тип Подхода

• в рамках проекта/ программы

2.8 Каковы цели/ задачи Подхода

The aims are to provide agricultural extension services with a particular focus on sustainable soil management, to build up an extension system that is functional outside of central government structures, to achieve sustainable learning from local farmer to local farmer and to deliver cost effective service.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The Nepal government's agricultural extension system was widely dysfunctional during the recent conflict (1996-2006). Many agricultural service centres were disbanded and were therefore unable to provide essential services to local farmers. Many farmers, especially in the remoter areas, had nowhere to turn for technical help with their agronomic problems, often resulting in lower yields and less income.

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	пассивное	Demand creation by demand actors and experienced lead farmers; in rare cases demand is created by demand farmer groups
планирование	интерактивное	Preparation of demand proposals and submission to committee, Proposal assessment by committee Selection of experienced lead farmer Fund disbursement to demand farmer group
выполнение	интерактивное	Experienced lead farmer provides training in appropriate season on basic knowledge required. The training is field based on the land of members of the demand farmer group. The experienced lead farmer visits the demand farmer group two to three times after the training to provide follow-up and supp
мониторинг/ оценка	интерактивное	The demand farmer group pay the experienced lead farmer once they are satisfied with the services provided (= direct monitoring by clients); training report by experienced lead farmers to farmer-to-farmer committees including proposing potential new ELFs from amongst trainees; end of training mo
Research	нет

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 землепользователи (по собственной инициативе)

Поясните:

Made collectively by the demand farmer group and refined with assistance from experienced lead farmers. The main interest of demand farmer groups has been in farmyard manure management, legume integration, and vegetable production.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Proposed by demand farmer groups with assistance from experienced lead farmers and endorsed by farmer-to-farmer committees

4.1 Повышение компетенций/ обучение

Проводилось ли обучение землепользователей/ других заинтересованных лиц?

Да

• government organisations, non-government organisations

Рассматриваемые темы:

Training on the farmer-to-farmer approach was provided to different demand actors including non-government and government organisations, by resource persons closely involved in designing the approach.

4.2 Консультационные услуги

Есть ли у землепользователей возможность получать консультации?

Да

Укажите, где именно оказываются консультационные услуги:

• на полях землепользователей

Описание/ комментарий:

The approach has been accepted by the government's Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives as part of its Agricultural Extension Policy (2007). Phase 3 of the Sustainable Soil Management Programme (2008 to 2010) will further support the institutionalisation of the approach at the operational level.

4.4 Мониторинг и оценка

Являются ли мониторинг и оценка частью Подхода?

Да

Комментарии:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: sustainability of the promoted technology
technical aspects were regular monitored through observations; indicators: client satisfaction after the training
socio-cultural aspects were monitored through observations; indicators: sustainability of the promoted technology
economic / production aspects were monitored through observations; indicators: sustainability of the promoted technology
land users involved were monitored through measurements; indicators: regular recording of attendance during meetings/trainings/follow-up
management of Approach aspects were monitored through measurements; indicators: expenses, demand assessment
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Regular monitoring and impact assessments have led to the continuous adaptation of the approach and its norms.

4.5 Научные исследования

Были ли научные исследования частью Подхода?

Да

Напишите подробнее и назовите тех, кто выполнял исследования:

Not applicable

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) (labour, training costs): 50.0%; other (development projects (seeds, trainer)): 50.0%

5.3 Субсидии на отдельные затраты (включая оплату труда)

• сельскохозяйственные

Если труд землепользователя был существенным вкладом, укажите, был ли этот вклад:

• добровольный

Комментарии:

New seed and non-local inputs for demonstration purpose are provided for one season

6.1 Влияние Подхода

6.4 Сильные стороны/ преимущества Подхода

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению землепользователей
Technologies adopted through farmer-to-farmer diffusion are likely to be more stable and sustainable because experienced leader farmers will only disseminate successful technologies
This approach may carry messages and content on subjects other than sustainable soil management (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: institutionalise the approach as a general grass roots-based extension approach)

Сильные стороны/ преимущества/ возможности по мнению составителя или других ключевых специалистов
More cost-effective for wider dissemination in comparison with other extension systems
Especially effective in heterogeneous environments amongst non-literate farm communities
Builds on farmers' field experience and communicates the technology through farmers' own words/terminology rather than through more technical extension messages from scientists
The service providers are directly accountable to the farmer clients, in contrast to using government and NGO extension workers who are only accountable to their institutions
Both the service provider and the demand groups are local farmers; this programme therefore directly benef ts only the local farming community

6.5 Слабые стороны/ недостатки Подхода и пути их преодоления

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению землепользователей	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Financial support for the programme at present comes from a development project and will end when the project ends	efforts need to be made to institutionalise the approach and seek out local sources of funding
Farmers' interest is mainly on technologies that are profi table in the short term and less on long term sustainable soil management	expand the farmer-to-farmer diffusion process to other topics and subjects as a part of agricultural extension

Слабые стороны/ недостатки/ риски по мнению составителя или ответственных специалистов	Возможные пути их преодоления/снижения?
Very small project agreements; wide scattered geographic area coverage; many proposals and difficulties in fi nancial management and monitoring	operational guidelines need to be reviewed
The success of the programme depends mainly on the abilities and knowledge of the experienced leader farmers	need to put more focus on selecting appropriate candidate ELFs and better training them and more extensively exposing them to new technologies
The facilitation from demand actors for this process is important; but they are reluctant to do this since the institutions do not fi nancially benefit from the process
Experienced leader farmers are reluctant to do paper work like fi lling in agreement proposal forms, maintaining a diary and preparing lesson plans
Difficulties in identifying demand groups according to the expertise of experienced lead farmers	increase awareness of the approach in rural areas through a comprehensive dissemination strategy using all media

7.1 Методы сбора/источники информации

7.2 Ссылки на опубликованные материалы

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

In Kolff, A.; van Veldhuizen, L.; Wettasinha, C. (eds) Farmer Centred Innovation Development - Experiences and Challenges from South Asia,

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

Название, автор, год публикации, ISBN:

Paudel, C.L.; Kafl e, B. R.; Bajracharya, B. (2007) Training Manual on Farmer-To-Farmer Diffusion Process for Sustainable Soil Management Practices in Nepal

Где опубликовано? Стоимость?

SSMP