These guidelines are a synthesis of lessons for good practice from six case studies of grass-roots support for on-farm conservation in Eastern and Southern Africa.

This document first defines good practice, then lists ten key aspects of good practice, giving specific suggestions about how to handle each aspect, based on the lessons from the case study projects. Click here for further information on the field work and analytical methods used in this project.

What is “good practice”?
Good practice refers to what projects must provide, call down or ensure in order to support the sustainable maintenance and use of agricultural biodiversity.

One of the main lessons from the case studies is the need for an integrated approach, providing a range of incentives, and organisational development, as well as technical advice.

Providing what farmers want
Successful projects support on-farm conservation by providing services that farmers want. From the farmer scoring exercises in each case study, it is clear that above all else farmers value:

- Market channels (providing inputs, selling produce, obtaining services). Relying on traditional channels on their own is not sufficient.
- Additional knowledge on production techniques (eg Integrated Pest Management, organic production, quality production). Traditional techniques are not enough on their own, and may have been a factor in traditional farmers varieties falling into disuse (as was the case, for example, with durum wheat in the Ethiopian case study area, where traditional techniques were inadequate for combating rust)
- New crops to respond to new market opportunities, changing climatic conditions (especially shorter growing seasons), or to provide better nutrition and livelihoods
- Traditional varieties are valued for specific attributes: cheaper, more reliable access to seed and planting material (particularly relevant where there has been significant retrenchment of government service delivery); restoration of cultural heritage where traditional varieties have been lost in the past for whatever reason (conflict, drought, research and extension campaigns promoting modern varieties).

Providing incentives
There has to be an incentive for farmers to maintain and use agricultural biodiversity on-farm: the case studies found economic or market incentives were of most interest to farmers, whereas only a few get involved in on-farm conservation out of interest or as a hobby.

The incentives used in the case studies were: providing market channels, increasing yields, reducing costs, and prizes. We found different incentives have very different effects. Prizes encourage a few specialists, not wider uptake. The chance to sell seed, for example to community seed banks, was good for individual farmers (providing cash income) and good for the community as whole (increasing the local availability of seed). Projects need to be careful not to provide conflicting incentives. For example, one case study project ran a farmer-based seed multiplication scheme for modern varieties for a local seed company at the same time as holding seed fairs intended to promote the maintenance and use of traditional varieties: most farmers focussed on the income opportunities from the multiplication scheme, knowing that only a few of their neighbours would be successful in winning prizes at the seed fair.

Providing knowledge
In the farming systems studied, traditional production techniques are no longer enough, due to ecosystem changes (season length, new pests and diseases) and/or changes in production systems (especially increasing intensity of production) and livelihood needs (cash income for school fees, etc).

The starting point should be validation and building on existing farmer knowledge, but such an exercise may well reveal areas where it is relevant to introduce appropriate new techniques. In the case study projects, these included integrated pest management, organic production, quality-assured production. Fitting with existing culture is an advantage. For example, part of the success of the project in Ethiopia arose because it was introducing organic production techniques for durum wheat, a crop which has great religious significance.

Working with farmers – general principles
Establishing effective working relationships with farmers was a critical factor in determining the success of the different case study projects. Although this should be obvious, not all projects devoted sufficient time and resources to getting this right from the start. Key points include:

- Putting front-line staff in the project area on a long-term basis
- Dealing with potential problems of exclusion of key stakeholders by working with existing socio-cultural roles (for example, don’t expect women to attend distant training courses if it is culturally unacceptable for women to stay away from home overnight)
- Using project approaches that create an opportunity for farmers to meet together (to share information on prices, diseases, production techniques, etc), in contrast to for example Training & Visit type systems that use individual contact.

Working with farmers – using group approaches
Using group approaches was highly valued in the farmer scoring exercise for the reasons outlined above. In any case, few projects have the resources to work through individual contact. Whether the project works through existing groups (e.g. set up by previous projects or the state agricultural extension service), or new groups, does not appear to affect success (although using existing groups may be cheaper for the project), so long as:

- group interests coincide with project objectives
- projects spend time and resources on:

-group formation if necessary
- institutional capacity building

Institutional arrangements
Successful projects:

- had a project champion with a clear vision and capacity to make the project work, including the ability to mobilise stakeholders at all levels
- devoted time and resources to identifying and involving all relevant stakeholders, to ensure

- political will from government
- service delivery from relevant government or private sector institutions, where they exist (e.g. extension, quality standards)
- matching of interests with industry (because where the produce is of interest to processors or exporters, they may support the project by paying premium prices, providing transport or technical advice)

Funding chain
Successful projects:

- keep funding chains short (for example, the Kenyan project has disbursement officers stationed at District level)
- have autonomous, reliable, locally based resource managers. This can be difficult within government structures (unless there has been really effective decentralisation) which are by their nature bureaucratic – suited to regulation/control but less suited to service delivery.

Resource requirements
Total resource requirements, including those not fully costed within project structures or provided in kind by other institutions, are relatively high and include:

- Sufficient local staff
- A committed project champion operating at national level
- Service delivery by project or partner institutions (extension, quality control, etc)
- Transport for inputs and outputs

Some of the case study projects charged membership fees, levies, or consultancy fees to other agencies using project services, to reduce net costs. The extent that this is possible depends on the level and reliability of farmers’ benefits from the project, and the level of demand for project services (a full economic appraisal of the project is needed to ascertain this accurately).

Physical location
Our field work revealed that most of the case studies are located in areas of fertile soils. We did not measure how much this influenced project success, but we assume it is beneficial rather than harmful. Added to this, most of the case studies use IPM and/or organic approaches, which contribute to sustaining the soil.

Most of the case studies are in areas with poor roads infrastructure (although not necessarily geographically remote). On the one hand, this increased farmers’ interest in the project, as a means of getting on-the-spot access to inputs, outputs and advice. On the other hand, it increased project costs.

Sustainability
The ultimate goal of projects supporting on-farm conservation must surely be to contribute to the development or strengthening of systems for the maintenance and use of agricultural biodiversity on-farm which will be sustainable over the longer term. The experience of the case study projects suggests there are five key requirements for sustainability:

- The system must be popular with farmers – in most situations, this involves some form of economic incentive
- The system must be market-based (uses prices) not project-based (using prizes)
- The market on which the system is based must be reliable, not transient or greatly variable
- Over the long term, any regular funding required for conservation activities must come from channels that are permanent and accessible (eg marketing agreements with industry, membership fees/levies rather than donor funding)
- Over the long term, economic integration (roads, transport, market chains for inputs and outputs) must become the responsibility of permanent institutions not the project. In the case study projects, it is debatable whether this is feasible in the current economic climate.

Kenya Final.pdf

Addis Ababa, February 2003

A workshop was held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 3rd to 7th February 2003 to synthesis and derive common lessons from all six case studies. The workshop was hosted by Ethio-Organic Seed Action (EOSA) at the Ras Amba Hotel, and opened by H.E. Ato Gebremedhin Belay, Vice Minister of Agriculture.

Six of the seven participants who conducted the field- and desk-based case studies managed to attend, together with Elizabeth Cromwell, project coordinator and Carlos Barahona project statistician. In addition John Young (ODI) joined the meeting to advise on communication issues and design the web-site, and Connie Almekinders attended as a biodiversity resource person on behalf of GTZ.

The initial task was to confirm that the case studies that were selected were in fact ‘successful’ in terms of having a positive impact on agro-biodiversity conservation. This was verified and to some extent quantified. The group then split into teams to extract critical information on common themes from each Case Study report. The synthesis reports from this exercise allowed both cross-cutting issues to be identified, as well as differences among projects to be highlighted. These were developed into initial draft ‘Best Practice Guidelines’ and ‘Policy Implications’ for the implementation of projects aimed at the sustainable conservation of on-farm agro-biodiversity for food and agriculture.

A Stakeholders meeting was held on the final day of the workshop. Here the initial findings from the Data Analysis Workshop were shared with seven stakeholders from government departments, NGOs as well as International organizations. Useful feedback was obtained from the stakeholders on the relevance of the findings in relation to their own experiences. Also, their views on the relevance of this project’s communication strategy were sought.

On the final afternoon, team members discussed the communication strategy, agreed responsibilities for producing proposed information products, and discussed the programme and participants for the final regional meeting.

In addition to the workshop. team members also enjoyed some traditional Ethiopian food, Ethiopian dancing and a field trip to an EOSA project site near Addis.

The project team would like to express their thanks to EOSA for all the logistical arrangements for the workshop, and to all the participants of the seminar for their invaluable advice.
Genetic_Diversity_and_On-farm_Seed_system_Ethiopia.ppt

The East African Sub-Regional Pilot Project for Farmer Field Schools, Integrated Production and Pest Management (IPPM FFS)

The Farmer Field School (FFS) training method was first developed by the FAO-assisted Indonesian National IPM program in 1989. The concept behind an FFS is that groups of farmers meet on a regular basis to do practical learning that is based on a season-long curriculum. The learning combines local knowledge with scientific ecological approaches. All lessons are hands-on and field based with a few lectures on special topics. Farmers carry out experiments on study plots which they establish and manage as a group. In FFS the extensionist’s role changes from that of a primary knowledge source to that of the facilitator of a learning process.

The East African Sub-Regional Pilot Project for Farmer Field Schools started in 1999 in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania with activities based in 8 pilot districts. The goals of the project were to:

- Expand the capacity of governments, NGOs and the private sector to respond to the knowledge and information needs of resource-poor farmers
- Reduce food insecurity and enhance sustainability of agricultural land use through farmers’ improved understanding and control of determinants of farm performance
- Increase the competence of extension systems to provide farmer education that responds effectively to local resources and conditions
- Establish a networking capacity for exchange of FFS experiences within and between countries
- Contribute information on the replicability and effectiveness of FFS as an alternative and sustainable extension method

The pilot project is administered as a regional project under the execution of the Global IPM facility of FAO in collaboration with national Ministries of Agriculture. The local area extension staff of the host government carries out FFS field based operations and receives overall guidance from the project assistant in each country. A regional co-ordinator from CAB International Africa Regional Centre provides technical backstopping to the project assistants.

A FFS is a group of 25 farmers who meet weekly through an entire growing season to learn through practical experience about integrated production and pest control. The groups are facilitated by both government extension staff and farmers. Following training each extension worker runs between 2 and 4 FFS in his duty area for one season. Farmers who graduate from the first FFS volunteer to facilitate new FFS in the neighbourhood with close guidance of the extension staff facilitator. Such FFS are referred to as farmer–run. To date there are over 1000 FFS within the project area (Kenya 481, Uganda 490 and Tanzania 167) with close to 25,000 beneficiaries. FFS focus on different crops in each country. In Tanzania FFS focuses on cooking bananas, cassava and vegetables (local and exotic); in Uganda on cotton, groundnuts, sunflower, cassava, vegetables (local and exotic), sweet potatoes and beans; and in Kenya on vegetables (local and exotic), maize, beans, sorghum, cassava and sweet potatoes. In all three countries, small livestock and HIV/AIDS have been included in the FFS curriculum.

A new financial model has been developed in which the FFS group receives a grant which it then uses to purchase learning materials and to reimburse transport cost and lunch to the staff facilitator. Self-financing groups can obtain a loan from a revolving fund, which it must subsequently return at the end of the season through funds raised from the field plots and through an educational fee.

In the FFS study fields farmers carry out different trials which include testing of different crop varieties. This has led farmers to diversify the number of crops they grow which includes both indigenous and exotic ones. The promotion of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) has enhanced the conservation of on-farm biodiversity and composting has enhanced soil life.

Benefits
Benefits of the FFS approach for the conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity include:

- Increased knowledge among farmers of farm ecology, decision-making, different varieties and different production systems,
- Better understanding of biological control measure, and increased use of non-chemical control measures
- Reduced level of pesticide usage and increased use of non chemical control measures,
- Increased use of manures and making of compost (40-80% farmers using manure).
- Between 20% and 100% increased yields on study plots and in farmers fields,
- Increased crop diversity,
- Enhanced group cohesiveness and better financial management and expenditure management within groups,
- Farmers empowered to seek solutions to their problems (e.g. farmers visiting ICRAF station to solicit technical advice).
- Farmers are recognised as leaders in the community,
- Farmer networks formed from the grassroots to district level, managed by farmers themselves leading to improved extension and farmer interactions and horizontal flow of information,
- Gender roles recognised and respected e.g. women allowed to freely air their views,
- The new ‘grant system’ and self-financing groups offers the potential for sustainability and expansion.

Challenges
The project has however encountered some bottlenecks along the way:

- Large project area and few extension staff who are unable to meet the demand,
- Large number of local dialects, spoken by few extension workers,
- The transformation of extension staff from instructors to facilitators is not easy,
- The FFS approach (working together through a single growing season) does not translate easily to perennial crops

Lessons
Lessons from this case study include:

- IPPM FFS are a useful method to promote agrobiodiversity conservation, and farmers who have been through a FFS can pass on their knowledge to others,
- The FFS approach helps build networks from village grassroots to district levels and between farmers’ and marketing organizations, opening up excellent avenues for information exchange between farmers and other stakeholders ranging from service providers to market access.
- FFS contribute to community development. FFS educated farmers are more confident in running their own and other community acticvities,
- The Self-Financing model, and farmer-facilitated FFS offer an excellent opportunity for scaling up

Martin Kimani & Abisai Mafa