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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) - Germany

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

HELVETAS (Swiss Intercooperation)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/09/2012

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A network of farmer resource persons (FRPs) is built up to provide advice and training according to the on-the-ground needs of farmers

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

This approach aims to promote a sustainable and inexpensive advisory support model for farming by training up a pool of expert farmers to spearhead the dissemination of agricultural innovations. This involves establishing local resources in places where public technical services are lacking or non-existent.
Farmer Apex Organisation (FaAO) identify local experts who possess relevant know-how and then develop their capacities for teaching and facilitation. A network of farmer resource persons (FRPs) is then gradually built up to provide advice and training according to the on-the-ground needs of farmers working in different areas such as farm management, rice growing, nurseries and transplanting, compost making, contour farming, combatting erosion, shea management, creating a ridge-furrow system, seed production, conserving produce, market gardening techniques, water management, fish farming, etc.
The apex organisations nominate their resource persons. With the support of technical partners, they then categorise FRPs according to their qualifications, expertise and communication skills. The support structure strengthens the capacities of FRPs according to their needs. These resource persons set themselves up as experts, offering their services to other farmers. PRPs benefit from group capacity building exercises in advocacy and facilitation, and their technical capacities are built according to individual needs and the requirements of the market. Once trained, FRPs can organise themselves (into economic interest groups, cooperatives, etc.) and then provide services as requested by farms, local authorities, apex organisations and support partners. Service provision is remunerated in several ways and in accordance with the means of the client: in kind, lump sum, fee-based payment, compensation, etc.

Role of stakeholders: The apex organisation identifies, categorises and mobilises the FRPs and participates in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the system. The support structure supports the process of identifying and categorising the FRPs for training. It organises thematic training and monitors and evaluates implementation. The territorial community promotes the scheme and mobilises FRPs. Technical services build the capacities of FRPs through the provision of training and advisory support.

Other important information: FRPs provide services to their FaAO members and others. In 2011, two groups of experts (UFROAT and Cèsiri) earned more than 7,000,000 CFA francs in service provision (training) takings. FRPs are employed by other organisations, such as the Rural Community Support Project (PACR), World Vision, LuxDev and the Agricultural Sectors Support Programme (PAFA).

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 system aims to install a local support system, building on existing competencies.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: low dissemination of already existing knowledge and expertise related to on-the-ground needs of farmers

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
planning	passive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive
Research	passive

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

Individuals selected as potential FRPs already have a wealth of talent and know-how. This practice aims to further add to this knowledge and expertise and ensure it is disseminated effectively. The system aims to install a local support system, building on existing competencies.

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: Training of local experts for teaching ; Key elements: A network of farmer resource persons (FRPs) is gradually built up to provide advice and training ; Farmer Apex Organisation (FaAO) identify local experts who possess relevant know-how and then develop their capacities for teaching and facilitation. A network of farmer resource persons (FRPs) is then gradually built up to provide advice and training according to the on-the-ground needs of farmers working in different areas. The system aims to install a local support system, building on existing competencies.
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

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

• local

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

technical aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
economic / production aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through measurements
management of Approach aspects were ad hoc monitored by project staff, land users through observations
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• ecology
• technology

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international non-government: 100.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

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

• paid in cash

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:

Once trained, FRPs can organise themselves (into economic interest groups, cooperatives, etc.) and then provide services as requested by farms, local authorities, apex organisations and support partners.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Development of local businesses’ capacities for processing and marketing
Mitigation of shortfall in agricultural extension and lack of decentralised technical services
The income offered by FRP service provision motivates expert farmers. Their services are appreciated by the client and are more readily understood. The availability of expertise is sustainable given that the FRPs are based in farming areas and continue to work as farmers. Sourcing an expert is quick and easy.
Individuals selected as potential FRPs already have a wealth of talent and know-how. This practice aims to further add to this knowledge and expertise and ensure it is disseminated effectively. The system aims to install a local support system, building on existing competencies.
Improved agricultural productivity
Availability of low-cost local experts (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: It is important to control the costs of FRP service provision – the fact that FRP support is inexpensive is one of the principal reasons for setting up such a system and for procuring FRP services. )
Consideration of local knowledge when resolving local problems (local advice) (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: FRPs must be accessible – high levels of demand from outside the locality can lead to FRPs being unavailable for local farmers.)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Manual of Good Practices in Small Scale Irrigation in the Sahel. Experiences from Mali. Published by GIZ in 2014

Available from where? Costs?

http://star-www.giz.de/starweb/giz/pub/servlet.starweb

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Intercooperation/Dori Expertise (2011): Rapport de capitalisation du dispositif de personnes ressources paysannes