1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 155, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'CDE Centre for Development and Environment (CDE Centre for Development and Environment) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

25/06/2014

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Model farms were introduced by a NGO in order to spread knowledge about SLM (compost, System of Rice Intensification SRI, and other technologies) in the project area.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: Model farms were introduced to Kampong Chhnang Province in order to spread knowledge about SLM Technologies.

Methods: The Approach focuses on various areas of farming, and the model farms are clustered into 4 groups:

1. Compost and System of Rice Intensification focus on rice productivity and soil improvement.
2. SLT (Seasonal Long Training) – growing techniques for different crops, seedling germination, care taking, harvesting, etc.
3. INTEREST – focus on different crops which are mixed, crop rotation (rice-watermelon-corn, e.g.), mulching, cover cropping.
4. Cow raising model farmers – focus on fodder production, vaccination, supplementary feed for the cows, stable construction.
In this case study, the model farmer applies the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and compost (cluster 1).

Stages of implementation: Becoming a model farmer consists of different steps. First, different land users who dispose of the required inputs (certain amount of land, labour availability, motivation for innovation) are invited to a training organized by a local NGO. After the training, the model farmers are chosen amongst the participating land users. These newly elected model farmers get further training from the NGO. While implementing the selected Technologies (in this case SRI and compost), the model farmers are subsidized and monitored by the NGO.

Role of stakeholders: The role of the stakeholders is both active and passive. While they are invited to the initial training provided by the local NGO (passive), the land users decide - once they're selected as model farmers - by themselves which Technologies they want to apply on their fields (active).

Other important information: The benefits of this Approach are manifold. Firstly, it helps spreading knowledge about sustainable land management in the project area. In the case of Cambodia this is especially important since much of the agricultural knowledge was lost during the Khmer Rouge regime (1975-1979). Furthermore, the soils in the project area are sandy and show a low fertility. Therefore for example compost making can have a positive long term impact on both the natural and the human wellbeing. Secondly, model farmers can have a positive impact on local institutions. It is for example possible for the farmers to give a report to local authorities where they state what the villagers need most. Furthermore, model farmers can become members of NGOs or local authorities, or monitor other farmers in their activities.
The main disadvantage of the Approach is the problem of sustainability. Model farmers are in close cooperation with the local NGO, and if the NGO stops the coaching, it is not ensured that the implemented Technologies will continue. This is illustrated by many abandoned compost houses in the area. Also, the interviewed model famer expressed that since she became a model farmer, there is more work to do. This can be detrimental in an environment where a high migration rate decreases the available labour force. Last but not least the decision about which Technologies are to be applied on the given model farms are mainly taken by the SLM specialists working for the local NGO. If land users were more involved in the decision-making process, this might have a positive long term impact on the farmers motivation to continue applying the chosen Technologies independently (sustainability).

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

On one hand, land users learn about new technologies (e.g. compost, SRI) which have a positive impact on the yields, the soil fertility and in consequence on the income. On the other hand, model farmers are enabled to show these technologies to other land users (knowledge sharing) so these technologies can be spread in the area. One way to share the knowledge are farmer field days where other land users visit the model farms.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Lack of technical knowledge, low agricultural production, low soil fertility.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	passive	The land user attended a workshop organized by SOFDEC/LAREC where he was selected as model farmer. This workshop took place more than 10 years ago.
planning	interactive	Farmer plans implementation of compost and SRI
implementation	external support	Money from SOFDEC for compost, 15 USD (in-kind contribution by farmer, e.g. labour, some material (wooden pole) and own money to buy cement, iron roof). Training for compost and SRI. SRI field day.
monitoring/ evaluation	passive	Coaching by SOFDEC
Research	none	Research is carried out by LAREC and the results, such as new rice varieties, and brought to the model farmer by SOFDEC.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• courses

Subjects covered:

compost making and on the different steps necessary to implement SRI. The training included both theoretical seminars and on-the-job training.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Advisory service; Key elements: The Provincial Department of Agriculture delivers some trainings to the farmers in collaboration with SOFDEC , SLM specialists from SOFDEC can get data from the Provincial Department of Agriculture

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; The involvement of the Provincial Department of Agriculture is supplementary to SOFDEC’s work. Therefore, the land conservation activities could also continue without this advisory service.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

• decision making

Give further details:

It is possible that model farmers are enabled to influence local institutions through different ways. One possibility is that model farmers can give a report to the village chief and he can give the data to the commune chief. This is a way how the model farmer might influence the decision making within the village. Also, a model farmer can prepare a proposal to the commune chief where he states what the land users need the most (e.g. seeds).
The model farmers can also become facilitators for training other land users on new SLM technologies. Furthermore, the model farmers might be approached by other NGOs or projects to deliver trainings for them, or they might become members of local institutions such as the community council, or join a NGO. It is also possible for model farmers to take part in competitions organized either by NGOs (such as the Excellent Farmer Award) or the Provincial Department of Agriculture.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through observations; indicators: Training about how to do the Technology (for SRI and compost only once). Changes in the Technology, challenges for applying the Technology.
Economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Yields. SRI: Tillers per plant on 1 m2.
Management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: SOFDEC trains the farmers how they can monitor other farmers.
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Some Technologies, such as SRI, have been changed considerably since they have first been implemented. However, these changes were not done because of the monitoring, but because of other factors (lack of labour availability, feasibility, etc.).

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research is carried out by the Local Agriculture Research and Extension Centre LAREC. LAREC focus their research on different rice varieties (drought resistant, short breeding), and other plants which could be grown in the area (e.g. mung bean, pumpkin, water melon, stylo grass, etc.). The research is influenced by the demands of land users in the target area.

Research was carried out on station

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: national non-government (SOFDEC, provides money for compost house and training.): 30.0%; local community / land user(s) (In-kind/money contribution by farmer for compost only): 70.0%

Both model farmers and regular farmers are supported within this project, with total costs of around 20,000$. However, not all of the supported farmers are model farmers. In total, there are 64 model farmers within this project, and we calculated expenditures of about 350 US$ per model farmer.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

• construction

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

Comments:

The land users get also 15 USD for compost making

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

The land user of this case study is not subsidized any more, but she still continues with the technologies. However, the continuation of the activities depends largely on the personal motivation and the available resources (labour force). Some land users do not continue with compost once they are not monitored anymore.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is good that model farmer are selected in the village since other farmers can learn from them. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Model farmers have to lobby with village leader, commune authority and with the NGO to link them with other organisations and Governmental Agencies. )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
SLM Technology can be tested in-situ. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More innovative technologies could be tested in collaboration with farmers. )
Community sense between the farms is strengthened. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Community councils could be created. )
Model farmers are like a bridge between the NGO and other farmers. Projects from NGOs can be carried out more effectively. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Create a proper mechanism between the model farmers, the village and commune authorities, and the NGO in order to ensure the sustainability of the model farmer approach beyond the NGOs involvement. )
Other farmers can learn SLM technologies without being directly trained by the NGO (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue with the Approach and seek support from village authorities. )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
The NGO and external people/farmers put workload on model farmers.	Provide compensation to model farmer, show him the benefits of these new Technologies, enable him to participate in local decision making processes.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Some Technologies are abandoned once there is no more support from the NGO.	Include long-term monitoring. Also, this monitoring can be carried out by the model farmers or other farmers in the village.
The suggested Technologies require more work and are sometimes counter-intuitive to the model farmers (e.g. SRI).	Provide compensation to model farmer, show him the benefits of these new Technologies, enable him to participate in local decision-making processes.
The approach is not really participatory since the specialist decide which technologies should be implemented.	First consult the farmers about their needs. Also, include the farmers in case they know about innovative Technologies.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

SOFDEC

URL:

www.sofdec.org