Gender integration in the Plantwise programme: identifying strengths and limitations in Nepal
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Nepal, the Plantwise programme, in collaboration with International Development Enterprises (iDE) has established networks of locally owned plant clinics, run by community business facilitators (CBFs) trained as plant doctors, who provide practical plant health advice.This study examines how gender is integrated into this programme in three purposively selected study districts.It presents the experiences of farmers, the challenges they faced in accessing plant health services through a gender and social inclusion lens.It also identifies strategies and lessons for development of gender responsive plant health programmes. Gender integration in the Plantwise programme: identifying strengths and limitations in Nepal Highlights• Farmers valued the plant health advisory services provided by Community Business Facilitator (CBF) plant doctors, which were communicated using locally understood language and approaches• 70% of the trained CBF plant doctors were women.This resulted in the number of women farmers visiting plant clinics exceeding that of men farmers where women CBF plant doctors operate.• As a result of the plant health training, CBF plant doctors gained additional technical expertise, which earned them trust, helped to increase their client base, and increase their income.• Plant clinics operations appear to be systemically sustainable as CBF plant doctors are linking agro-dealers with farmers, earning commission on input sales to cover their costs in providing plant health services.• During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic period, plant doctors were able to provide advice to farmers by phone, using different social media platforms, indicating the potential of ICTs to reach farmers located in remote areas of Nepal, who are normally not reached by agricultural extension services. ContextPlantwise is a global programme led by CABI that aims to help farmers reduce crop losses and increase productivity, through strengthening plant health systems, therefore improving the agricultural resilience of rural farmers.Plant clinics are a central part of the programme, where trained extension staff deliver on-demand advice to farmers at central locations e.g. market places, community centres, at regular days and times.In 2013, the Government of Nepal (GoN) and CABI entered into an agreement for the adoption and implementation of the Plantwise programme in the country.It was agreed that the Plant Quarantine and Pesticide Management Centre (PQPMC), erstwhile the Plant Protection Directorate, would be the contact point and coordinating agency in Nepal.The programme trained more than three hundred extension staff (including about 20% women staff) from different district agriculture offices on different modules of the Plantwise programme.These trained extension staff successfully set up and ran plant clinics in their respective areas.Due to the success and relevance of the programme, the GoN institutionalized different Plantwise components in its internal programme with an annual allocation of more than GBP 50,000.However, due to a shortage of staff, (the farmer to extension agent ratio is 1270:1 (Dhital, 2017)), it was decided that plant clinics need to be extended to other alternative approaches like Farmer Field Schools, an FAO initiative; and the CBF programme adopted by iDE, to reach more farmers.In 2018, it was agreed between PQPMC, CABI and iDE that the Plantwise programme should work in collaboration with the ongoing CBF initiative in the country.The CBF initiative trains entrepreneurial farmers based in rural communities with basic IPM skills, to provide extension advice to farmers on agricultural inputs.The CBFs earn a commission from agro-dealers on input sales.Adopting a novel approach, CABI and IDE trained CBFs as plant doctors with courses covering plant health diagnosis, treatment advice and record management.The CBFs How to cite this paper
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».