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

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

Soil protection and rehabilitation for food security (ProSo(i)l)

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

Alliance Bioversity and International Center for Tropical Agriculture (Alliance Bioversity-CIAT) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

16/01/2023

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

A Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) engages about 50 or more farmers in a kebele (lower administrative unit), with three sub groups of 17-20 each who live in a homogenous landscape. It is a local institution established for joint learning, piloting, and evaluating soil improvement technologies across the intervention regions.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Farmers Research and Extension Groups (FREGs) are the approach used to test and spread Integrated Soil and Fertility Management (ISFM+)/Agroecology project best practices in Ethiopia. These technologies include livestock urine collection and use, cover crops, intercropping, vermicompost, acid soil treatment by liming, green manures, crop residue management, and bioslurry. A FREG employs a participatory approach, whereby joint investigation and learning is implemented. Farmers' group members use participatory planning and peer learning from one another. The approach is gender inclusive: one-third of the members in a FREG are women. There is also a mix of social categories. FREGs are populated by proactive model farmers who adopt and demonstrate technologies for scaling up. After the first year, the best-performing model farmer serves as an ambassador for knowledge and skills transfer to the indirect beneficiaries.
Collective investigation, learning, adoption, and then promotion of proven technologies are the key features of the approach. Member of the FREG jointly identify soil fertility/acidity-related issues, participate in training and demonstrate the technologies. The ISFM+/ Agroecology projects equip the target groups with implementation skills and knowledge. Site and participant selection are made with participation of woreda and kebele representative partners and the target farmers. Then soil-related issues are jointly identified with the support of laboratory analysis by the Regional Research Institute. This demonstrates that the intervention is implemented by the public research and development actors with technical, financial and/or inputs supply from the projects. The approach tends to mobilize the communities living in similar agroecology and farming systems who are subjected to the same SLM-related issues.
Identifying proactive model farmers and establishing demonstration plots for different technologies and crop types are the basis of collective learning. The demonstration is employed as an experimental and learning plot by showcasing and inspiring farmer groups and indirect beneficiaries in the area. Organizing field days and exchange visits further enables the demonstration of technologies for scaling out. Experience shows that where ISFM+ technologies have been piloted, farmers have built up new agroecology technologies such as cover cropping, intercropping and woodlots development over and above those previously adopted. Target farmers have piloted at least three or more technologies/practices on their plots. The woreda office of agriculture through the assigned project focal person gives closer follow-up for the proper implementation of the technologies. Provision of technical support and advisory service via the development agents (DAs) are among many other services.

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

To promote participatory implementation and peer-to-peer learning by increasing its scope from plot based to landscape scale. The approach capacitates the farmers' group and stimulates the scaling of the approach at a larger scale.

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	interactive	Farmers' group involved in participatory planning, experience exchange visit, and evaluation of the activities. Agricultural experts, development agents, and project staff oversee the implementation of activities and provide technical support/advisory services.
planning	interactive	Target farmers and development agents involved in problem identification/assessment and planning.
implementation	interactive	Farmers who are members of the FREG are involved in implementing the technology with technical support from the woreda focal person and the DAs.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

Land users, SLM experts, Development Agents (DAs), and project advisors play a substantial role in participatory decision-making on the selection of SLM Technologies.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Women-headed households are a member of the three model farmers in the sub-group of FREG. In general, the approach involves women one-third of the group members.

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

The concepts of agroecology, integrated soil fertility management and overall benefits of cover cropping and related crops such as Desmodium.

Comments:

The approach stimulates to conduct farmers group meeting at the beginning of the season as well as for end season evaluation of the pilot technologies.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

The advisory service is face-to-face on demonstration plots at various crop stages including for split application of Urea fertilizer, disease/pest management time, harvesting, and post-harvesting.

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

FREG has three model farmers leading the group. They mobilize their followers, demonstrate technologies, and steer collective action. Farmers' groups along with agricultural experts and project staff support the selection of technologies and replacement of the existing ones if the need emerges.

• Facilitation/mobilization

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Participatory monitoring and evaluation are part of the FREG approach. Essentially, beginning and end-season evaluation is the approach employed in the implementation of new technologies.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Yes

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research is part of the introduced technologies. Problem identification is the entryway to introducing a new technology/practice. Regional Agricultural Research Institute involves in the assessment and identification of problems, evaluation, and issuance of appropriate recommendations that make the intervention evidence-based.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

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

The budget is generally allocated to support woreda's operational cost and to supply necessary inputs for the implementation of ISFM+ and the Agroecology projects.

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)

• none

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

For best-performing farmers, incentives such as solar panels, energy-saving cooking stoves, wheelbarrows, etc., are offered to further motivate the farmers and enable them to properly implement the technology and become a very good advocator for scaling the beneficial practices.

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 positive outcome of applying the FREG is considered as a payoff for participating farmers as it gave them the energy to sustain the adopted practices. The outputs of integrating technologies, collective learning, and action allow to see significant yield increment per unit of land, improved soil fertility and soil health, etc.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Increases farmers understanding of SLM and enables to improve soil fertility and soil health.
Allows direct and indirect beneficiaries to adopt beneficial agricultural practices.
Promote peer learning to apply technologies that nurture soil fertility and increase crop production and productivity, supply feed to the livestock, manage pests...

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Ensure stakeholders' participation and allows the development of a sense of ownership of the technology.
Promote knowledge sharing for scaling out of the technologies.

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 farmers' group meeting is not so strong and there are absentees or dropouts because of the overlaps with other regular and casual meetings, and private chores.	Strengthening appropriate participation in planning, implementation, collective learning and action process.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lower level of farmers' commitment and non-zealous to bring change with positive impacts.	Need regular follow-up and continuous awareness creation exercises.
Take the project intervention for granted	Mainstreaming further land-related issues and the necessity of adopting ISFM and agroecology practices to ensure the sustainability of the management intervention.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Agricultural extension approach: evidence from an Integrated Soil Fertility Management project in Ethiopia. Leta, G., Schulz, S., Alemu, G. 2020. DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2020331

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.researchgate.net (Free online)

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Evaluation of Farmer Research Extension Group as Extension Approach: The experience of Sida-Amhara Rural Development Program in Kalu District of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Abebe, E. 2008.

Available from where? Costs?

https://depot.wur.nl/1129

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Farmer research and extension

URL:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5055710_Farmer_research_and_extension

Title/ description:

Basics of cover cropping

URL:

https://organicgrowersschool.org/gardeners/library/basics-of-cover-cropping/