Shiva Kumar Shrestha

Sustainable Soil Management Programme (SSMP)

HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, Nepal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Decentralizing the “Farmer-to-Farmer Extension Approach” to the Local Level-

Technology Transfer for Smallholder Farmers---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agriculture Forestry and Environment Committee in Gumdi VDC, Dhading

Presentation outline

1. Context of Agriculture Extension

2. Objectives

3. Decentralized FtF extension approach

4. Results, Learning , challenges and discussion

5. ConclusionsELF facilitating training for farmers

group, Okhaldhunga, 2011

Context of agriculture extension

Need to reform in extension- improve service delivery

.

3. Neighborhood extension

Spontaneous, slow process , confined to

one place only

1. Public/GoN sector extension

Centralized, less relevant , less effective, less efficient and, less

responsive- DAG

2. NGOs lead extension

Donor oriented, not sustainable., very limited coverage

Farmergroups

coop

Ag-36%,

66%83 RL%

44 FD – poor access of service and input

Objectives

examines the effectiveness of the “Farmer-to- Farmer (FtF) Extension Approach” in the mid-hill for technology transfer, as a better alternative to Government extension services.

Policy lobby - policy makers, development practitioners and researchers, civil society organizations and the media

Farmers train in nursery preparation- Khotang, 2011

Decentralized FtF Extension Approach- a potential solution for effective service delivery

.

DPP

SSMP

GO

3.Development and mobilization

of ELF through AFEC

2. Establishment of agriculture development funds and its mobilization

1 Formation of AFEC and run agriculture development

progarmme

Local participation

Ownership

Accountability

Transparency, Duplication, and

sustainabilityLocal Employment/

entrepreneur

DAG and remote responsive,

effective, accountable and

efficient service

Result and discussion

Name of the districts

No of VDCs in the

district

Total No of VDCs covered by SSMP

No of AFEC

formed with SSMP

Support

Total No of ELFs

Developed

No of Groups served

Total No of HHs

served

Funds (NRs) co–

financed by VDC in 2011/12

Funds (NRs) co–financed

by VDC in 2012/13

Achham 75 47 47 208 52 858 3,252,276 7,191,001Dailekh 56 35 37 94 6 82 2,601,000 5,499,576Jajarkot 30 20 20 68 15 179 3,585,200 3,210,830Kalikot 30 20 29 58 71 1,207 2,111,800 2,495,382Khotang 78 48 45 127 54 879 3,403,100 4,000,000Okhaldhunga 56 35 55 106 305 5,876 3,114,400 8,877,994Ramechhap 55 35 55 94 401 7,385 3,492,500 5,616,265

Totals 378 240 288 755 904 16,466 21,560,276 36,891,048

42% of ELFs are women;

more than 60% hh disadvantaged hh who received service through FtF approach

Result and discussion-------

Policy level :

EducationIntegrate in course

curriculum of agricultural educational institutions-

Directives MoAD piloted in 39 mid hill districts, gradual y in

75 districts

Co financing by all VDC with the policy support of

MoFALD

Local Level

Seven DDC and 378 VDCs adopted

FtF Extension approach

Major learning of the FtF extension approach

the FtF is a cost-effective service delivery mechanism -especially in

remote areas

Service accessed by poor and disadvantaged groups, often

excluded from mainstream assistance

empowered the discriminated through providing opportunities to become extension agents or committee members

increased participation in the planning, budgeting and implementation of agricultural development programmes.

there is much local support for the establishment of agricultural committees at the VDC level as it is directly accessible and

accountable to local farmer

Challanges

• Capacity of the local level functionaries- AFEC.

• Elite and political Influences in committee

• Political influence at the VDC level may lead to funds being spent in other sectors, particularly on infrastructure projects.

• Policy gap -pro-poor focus in policies relating to agricultural extension and decentralization policy.

Conclusion and Recommendation

• VDCs managed FtF approach- proven as more effective for empowering

disadvantaged farmers and effective delivery of services, thus highly popular.

• expanded policy in favor of decentralized agriculture extension, promote

- diversified institutional pluralism in agri. extension

- institutional reform in public sector extension

• Provide platform for dialogue for multi – sectoral extension service providers

• Promote investment in agriculture extension

T

H

A

N

K

YO

U

For Your Attention

Farmers Group

ELF

Facilitation skill training

Skill Test

Income

generation

Demonstration Plot

Lea

der

Far

mer

Development of ELF

Technical Training Farmers Lead

Experiment

Farmer

Leader Farmer

Experienced Leader Farmer

Primary Responsibility: involvement in agricultural extension to disseminate own knowledge and skill, and informal technology transfer

Secondary Responsibility: continuous study and experimentation of new technologiesreplication / exhibition of good technologiesmodel farm operation and increase in productivity and net profit

The main responsibilities of the ELF

Operations of FtF extension approach

2. Farmer Groups

Mobilization

Inventory

Funding

Social Mobilization

Agri.

Ser

vice

Plan

ning

Demand

1.Support Actor- Public, NGOs, Private

4. Agriculture Forestry and Environment

Committee .

3. Experienced Leader Farmer

Village Development Committee - Agriculture development Funds

ELF

Planning CAC,WCF

Agri. Inputs

SSMP

DA GoN

Paym

ent

.

Block Grant

.

District Agriculture Development Committee

District Development Council- District Development Fund

District Agriculture Development Office

District Farmers to Farmers Committee

Agriculture Service Center

Local Service Providers

SSMP

Integration in annual plan/ Technical back stopping

Capacity development

Cen

tral

L

evel

Dis

tric

t L

evel

Ilaka Level

VDC Level

Household

Community

Farmers and Leader Farmers

Community Awareness center, Farmers Group,

and the ELF

The AFEC

3.2 Institutionalization of FtF Approach

Farmers Groups

Mobilization

Roster Maintain

Agreement and Fund

Social Mobilization

Ser

vice

Ser

vice

C

harg

e

Pla

nnin

g S

uppo

rt

Proposal submissi

on

SupportActors

Agriculture Forest and Environment

Committee

Experienced Leader Farmers

Village Development Committee-VDF

Major reasons of ineffective extension services

Functionaries: absence local level functionaries for agriculture development: one ASC has to cover > 8000 HH

Human resource: in sufficient frontline extension worker- farm family ratio 1:1500, Agri labour migration- 900 youth/day

Funding : < 3% of National budget, public investment per HH 0.26-6.5 US$ . 0,2% in research

Policy: local level, Local Governance Acts and Regulation- 1999, foresee the devolution of agriculture but not transpired

Weak linkages between research, education and extension