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. Conclusions ELF 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 Farmer groups 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. DP P SSM P GOGO 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 sustainability Local 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 ,252,2767,191,001 Dailekh ,601,0005,499,576 Jajarkot ,585,2003,210,830 Kalikot ,207 2,111,8002,495,382 Khotang ,403,1004,000,000 Okhaldhunga ,8763,114,400 8,877,994 Ramechhap ,385 3,492,5005,616,265 Totals ,46621,560,27636,891,048 42% of ELFs are women; more than 60% hh disadvantaged hh who received service through FtF approach

Result and discussion Policy level : Education Integrate in course curriculum of agricultural educational institutions- Education Integrate in course curriculum of agricultural educational institutions- Directives MoAD piloted in 39 mid hill districts, gradual y in 75 districts 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 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

Farmers Group Farmers Group ELF Facilitation skill training Skill Test Income generation Demonstration Plot Leader Farmer 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 technologies replication / exhibition of good technologies model 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. Service Planning Demand 1.Support Actor- Public, NGOs, Private 4. Agriculture Forestry and Environment Committee. 4. Agriculture Forestry and Environment Committee. 3. Experienced Leader Farmer 3. Experienced Leader Farmer Village Development Committee - Agriculture development Funds ELF Planning CAC,WCF Agri. Inputs SSMP DA GoN Payment

. 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 Central Level District Level Ilaka Level VDC Level Household Community Farmers and Leader Farmers Farmers and Leader Farmers Community Awareness center, Farmers Group, and the ELF The AFEC 3.2 Institutionalization of FtF Approach Farmers Groups Farmers Groups Mobilization Roster Maintain Agreement and Fund Social Mobilization Service Service Charge Planning Support Proposal submission Support Actors Support Actors Agriculture Forest and Environment Committee Agriculture Forest and Environment Committee Experienced Leader Farmers 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 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