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)?

07/02/2023

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

The Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) approach has been adopted under the Integrated Soil Fertility Management Project (ISFM+). It was introduced as a quick-win solution to increase both crop and biomass production through the incremental promotion of varied but complementary technology packages.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) approach is intended to increase both crop and biomass production through the incremental promotion of varied but complementary technology packages. These include the production and use of organic fertilizers, treatment of soil acidity, and improved retention of crop residue. All help in reducing the depletion (mining) of soil nutrients. One characteristic feature is the engagement of research and development partners at all levels such as in joint problem identification, learning, participatory planning, piloting technology, and exchange visits. The approach involves model farmers and also focuses on farmers with limited means to purchase chemical fertilizers. It enhances the production of organic fertilizers to increase both soil fertility and crop productivity. Furthermore, ISFM enables farmers to generate off-farm and on-farm income through the production and sale of organic fertilizers, vermiworms, and green manure seeds, etc. The partners assist in identifying soil-related issues, as well as enhancing the adoption and institutionalization of the approach. ISFM aims to improve stakeholders' understanding of land degradation issues and the necessity of SLM by creating access to relevant seasonal training, exposure visits, collective learning, and action.
Project focal persons representing partners at different levels and development agents (DAs) are used to facilitate the process and serve as potential links with stakeholders. At the local level, the Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) sub-approach supports the implementation of the technologies on an incremental basis (see WOCAT database). Also, the Soil Fertility Improvement Cluster approach (see WOCAT database) assists in scaling out of the ISFM approach by adopting and superimposing technologies such as vermicompost with improved compost production. Farmer ambassadors are identified from the FREG model based on their performance. They assist in mainstreaming and dissemination of the approach and technologies to indirect beneficiaries. The implementation process of the ISFM involves district and kebele selection, identification of watersheds and voluntary farmers, provision of capacity-building training, conducting participatory planning, supplying inputs, and technical support. To realize the aims, the ISFM+ allocates financial support to the partners at different levels via Local Subsidy Contract.
Project staff including federal and regional advisors are involved. They provide training, technical backstopping, reviewing progress, M&E, and feedback services. District focal person closely follows up on the implementation - with the support of DAs in steering farmers' group meetings and collective learning. In addition, DAs assist in piloting on farm short and long-term demonstrations, organizing field days and exchange visits, collecting data, and overseeing activities.
Land users like the technologies introduced and implemented via the ISFM approach. The promotion of collective learning and action leads to increased soil fertility, and improved crop production and smallholders' livelihoods. The creation of new sources of income for land users is among the benefits they appreciate the most. However, farmers are less enthusiastic by the way that group meetings clash with their other activities and this leads to some members dropping out. Also, the cost of technologies promoted by the ISFM such as combined uses of chemical fertilizers, bio-fertilizers (for legumes), organic fertilizers, and quality seeds are envisaged as a possible constraint among others.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos 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 main objective of the approach is to promote the integration of technologies, collective learning, and action for treating degraded soil, increasing soil fertility and crop productivity while ensuring sustainable uses of land.

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	external support	District focal person and development agents. Facilitate the implementation right from awareness raising, farmers' group formation, training, supply inputs, and technically support the implementation.
planning	interactive	Regional advisor, focal persons, and the farmers. Each engaged in a participatory planning exercise.
implementation	interactive	Farmers, focal persons, and development agents. Farmers implement the technologies being guided by the approach. Whereas, the focal person and development agents oversee and provide technical support.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Focal person, development agents, and land users. They conduct participatory M&E to ensure collective learning.

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 land users, supported by SLM specialists

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

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.

One-third of the land users represented by female farmers.

Form of training:

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

Subjects covered:

Soil degradation, rehabilitation of the degraded soil using different technologies and agronomic practices notably lime, organic fertilizers, bio fertilizer, crop residue management, mixed cropping, green manuring, application of minimum tillage practices, etc.

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:

Advisory services are provided by the focal person and development agents at Farmers Training Center and on the farmers' field.

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.

Farmers Research and Extension Group (FREG) has been established at the local level and has been serving as an approach at the local level. It has been serving as a local platform that brings members of the farmers' group together in participatory planning and joint learning of the technologies piloted on the farmer's field and short and long-term demonstrations.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

The project provides financial support through the Local Subsidy Contract. Capacity building is central to the implementation of the project. Farm tools as an incentive for the best-performing farmers and on-field soil testing equipment are provided to support the partner organizations scaling out the implementation of ISFM.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Monitoring and evaluation is the pillar of the project activities and the adopted approach. The project along with implementing partners pilot short-term and long-term demonstrations, monitor the progress, and evaluate the achievements. Therefore, M&E is a regular activity in which the federal and regional project advisors rely on to generate feedbacks to amend or improve the implementation of the project activities.

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

Yes

Comments:

This document can simultaneously be used for documenting the approach and monitoring and evaluation.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

The research targets the feasibility of the technologies introduced via the ISFM approach and the project itself. The role of integrating different technology packages in improving soil fertility and crop productivity is also among the focuses of the research.

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):

ISFM+ is the source of the budget. A local Subsidy Contract (LSC) has been provided to partner organizations to effectively implement and follow up the activities with an additional allocation of finance for inputs and services.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

The project introduces technologies, provides inputs (improved seeds, chemical fertilizers, lime), and seldom supplies farm tools for a few well-performing models as an incentive.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

• agricultural

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:

Farm tools for outstanding farmers as well as a solar panel for residents in a rural setting as an incentive for well-performing in adopting the approach and proper implementation of the project.

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:

As the production of organic fertilizers adopted on an individual basis and tangible benefit acquired from the implementation of the integrated approach introduced via the approach as well as the increasingly growing supply of lime for acid soil amendments similar to other chemical fertilizers, the likelihood of sustaining the approach for implementing integrated technologies is inevitable. Besides, the public organizations for instance bureaus of Agriculture and line offices such as in west Oromia of Jimma and Buno-Bedele zones institutionalized the production and uses of organic fertilizers via huge investments in establishing vermiculture centers to reach out to the large majority of smallholders subjected to soil degradation issues.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It promotes collective learning and action among smallholders living in a homogenous landscape facing similar land/soil degradation issues.
It enhances soil fertility and soil health by introducing integrated technologies and creating evidence-based learning.
Gain widespread publicity that allows the public and land users to build trust in the approach and component technologies that positively impact the livelihood of smallholders and the land in general.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach has been adopted and institutionalized within the government's mainstream rural development and agricultural extension.
The project and the implementation approach are in line with the government's short and long-term plan to ensure the food and nutrition security of the nations while conserving natural resource basis.
Integration is basic to address the nexus of issues that combine knowledge and skills development, the introduction of important agricultural inputs, technologies, or practices, all in one.

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?
Integrating technologies/practices and inputs via the approach has cost implications.	Promote the land user's awareness of the cost-benefit of adopting the approach and introduction of subsidy to some inputs such as agriculture lime for acid soil amendments.
The approach drives labor-demanding technologies and practices.	Promote collective action through adopting labor share arrangements as well as efficiently use family labor for follow-up of the production of organic fertilizers by task sharing.
The high investment cost for some technologies is promoted by the approach.	Enable land users to make the right choices of diverse technologies catered through the project and the adopted approach.
Delay in supply of agricultural inputs such as agricultural lime	Encourage private sectors involvement or the agro dealers in the supply of the agricultural inputs.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The limited scope of the project implementation sites.	To try to reach out to similar landscapes with similar land degradation issues including the marginal regions. Or else, institutionalize the approach at the national level so that the public sector takes up and popularizes it in areas with similar problems.
The collaboration and collective action at local levels through the existing platform is staggered by new arrivals and other local administrative chores.	Local government actors and partners need to be well aware and give due emphasis beyond considering the intervention implemented through ISFM as merely project activities that usually come and go.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Leta, G., Schulz, S., Alemu, G. 2020. Agricultural extension approach: evidence from an Integrated Soil Fertility Management project in Ethiopia. Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering, 7(4): 1-13. DOI: 10.15302/J-FASE-2020331

Available from where? Costs?

Free online

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Integrated Soil Fertility Management

URL:

https://ifdc.org/integrated-soil-fertility-management-isfm/