Farmers field school a strategy By Allah Dad Khan

FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL THE THE

MODERN APPROACH TO MODERN APPROACH TO AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENTAGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL FARMERS FIELD SCHOOL THE THE

MODERN APPROACH TO MODERN APPROACH TO AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENTAGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

By By

Allah Dad KhanAllah Dad Khan

PPD CMP IIPPD CMP II

What is a Farmer Field School?

• Farmer field schools (FFS) is described as a Platform and “School without walls” for improving decision making capacity of farming communities and stimulating local innovation for sustainable agriculture.

• It is a participatory approach to extension, whereby farmers are given opportunity to make a choice in the methods of production through discovery based approach.

• A Field School is a Group Extension Method based on adult education methods. It teaches basic agro-ecology and management skills that make farmers experts in their own farms.

• It is composed of groups of farmers who meet regularly during the course of the growing seasons to experiment as a group with new production options. Typically FFS groups have 25-30 farmers.

What is a Farmer Field School?Contd

• FFS aims to increase the capacity of groups of farmers to test new technologies in their own fields, assess results and their relevance to their particular circumstances, and interact on a more demand driven basis with the researchers and extensionists looking to these for help where they are unable to solve a specific problem amongst themselves.

• (FFS) is a forum where farmers and trainers debate observations, apply their previous experiences and present new information from outside the community. The results of the meetings are management decisions on what action to take.

• Thus FFS as an extension methodology is a dynamic• process that is practiced and controlled by the farmers to transform their

observations to create a more scientific understanding of the crop / livestock agro-ecosystem.

• A field school therefore is a process and not a goal.

Objectives of FFS

• Broad Objectives• To bring farmers together to carry out collective and collaborative inquiry with

the purpose of initiating community action in solving community problems

• Specific Objectives

• 1. To empower farmers with knowledge and skills to Make them experts in there own fields.

• 2. To sharpen the farmers ability to make critical and informed decisions that render their farming profitable and sustainable.

• 3. To sensitize farmers in new ways of thinking and problem solving

• 4. Help farmers learn how to organize themselves and their communities

FFS also contribute to the following objective;

• 1. Shorten the time it takes to get research results from the stations to adoption in farmers’ field by involving farmers experimentation early in the technology development process.

• 2. Enhance the capacity of extension staff, working in collaboration with researchers, to serve as facilitators of farmers’ experiential learning. Rather than prescribing blanket recommendation that cover a wide geographic area but may not be relevant to allfarms within it, the methods train extensionists and researchers to work with farmers in testing, assessing and adapting a variety of options within their specific local conditions.

• 3. Increase the expertise of farmers to make informed decisions on what works best for them, based on their own observations of experimental plots in their

• 4. Establish coherent farmer groups that facilitate the work of research and extension workers, providing the demand of a demand driven system.

Origin of FFS

• Almost one third of the world’s population are members of farming households in Asia. Most of these farming families are small holders. Forty years ago, the Green Revolution was launched with the aim of improving the productivity of small farmers. By improving access to water, improved varieties, and other inputs, the Green Revolution helped to double average rice yields between the 1960’s and the 1990’s.

• During the 1970s it became increasingly apparent that pest resistance and resurgence caused by the indiscriminate use of insecticides posed an immediate threat to the gains of the Green Revolution. At the same time, research was being conducted that demonstrated the viability of biological control of major rice pests. However, gaps still existed between the science generated in research insti

• tutions and common farmer practice conditioned by years of aggressive promotion of pesticide use. Over the ensuing years, a number of approaches were tried to bring integrated pest management (IPM) to small farmers - particularly rice farmers - in Asia, with mixed results. Some experts claimed that the principles of IPM were too complex for small farmers to master, and that centrally-designed messages were still the only way to convince farmers to change their practices.

• By the end of the 1980s, a new approach to farmer training emerged in Indonesia called the 'Farmer Field School' (FFS). The broad problem which these field schools were designed to address was a lack of knowledge among Asian farmers relating to agroecology, particularly the relationship between insect pests and beneficial insects [2].

Ffs origin• The implementation of projects using the FFS approach led to a deeper

understanding of the problem and its causes. It was recognized that sustainable agricultural development required more than just the acquisition of ecological knowledge by individual farmers. It also required the development of a capability for generating, adapting and extending this knowledge within farming communities. The weakness of this capability in most farming communities is itself an important problem; one which has often been exacerbated by earlier agricultural development programmes that fostered a dependency on external sources of expertise.

• This deeper understanding of the problem was first recognized by farmers in Indonesia who graduated from FFS but realised there was more they could do to improve rural livelihoods. They started to organise new groups, alliances, networks and associations, and became involved in planning and implementing their own interventions. These interventions were highly diverse, ranging from research and training, to marketing and advocacy work. In response to the activities of these groups, IPM projects started to support the idea of ‘Community IPM’, which gave considerable attention to organisational issues rather than focussing solely on technological and educational aspects of IPM. [3]

FFS ORIGIN • The term “Farmer Fields Schools” came from the Indonesian

expression Sekolah Lapangan meaning just field school.

• The first Field Schools were established in 1989 in Central Java during a pilot season by 50 plant protection officers to test and develop field training methods as part of their IPM training of trainers course phase of the FAO-assisted National IPM Programme. This Programme was prompted by the devastating insecticide-induced outbreaks of brown plant hoppers (Nilaparvata lugens) that are estimated to have in 1986 destroyed 20,000 hectares of rice in Java alone.

• .

•

INDONESIA IS Pioneer• The Government of Indonesia’s response was to

launch an emergency training project aimed at providing 120,000 farmers with field training in IPM, focused mainly on recording on reducing the application of the pesticides that weredestroying the natural insect predators of the brown plant hopper

• The technicalities of rice IPM were refined in 1986 and 1987 and a core curriculum for,training farmers was developed in 1988 when the National IPM Programme waslaunched. It was based not on instructing farmers what to do but on empowering themthrough education to handle there own on-farm decisions, using experiential learning techniques developed for non-formal adult education purposes

Development of FFS• Two hundred Field Schools were established

that season with 5000 farmers participating. The following season in 1990, and an additional 45,000 farmers joined Field Schools run by 450 crop protection officers. This work was undertaken by the FAO assisted Indonesian National IPM Programme (project code). The programme now trains more than 100,000 farmers per year in season-long Field Schools and assists with follow-up activities carried out by the farmer groups.

NOW FFS ARE • After Asia the FFS approach has been extended to several

countries in Africa and Latin• American. At the same time there has been a shift from a focus

on a single constraint of a single crop (IPM for rice based systems) to an emphasis on the multiple aspects of crop production and management, to ropping systems, to non crop/forest (livestock production etc) to natural resource management (Soil fertility, water conservation etc) to Socio-cultural dimensions of community life (food security &nutrition, savings, health,

• HIV/AIDS, literacy training, livelihoods etc).

• African countries implementing the approach are among others Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Gambia, Egypt, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique

Putting it in Perspective

• The Target Group- Farmers– Resource deficient, Illiterate, Traditional, inward looking

• Objectives– Poverty alleviation.

– Enhanced Productivity

– Reduced Costs

– Social Organization– Group formation (pressure Groups)

– Conflict Resolution (Debate and consensus building)

– Empowerment and removing dependency– Setting Research Agendas

– To do own research

•Natural Resource Management

•Freshwater use•Soil Conservation•Environment protection

•Health consciousness

•Livelihood improvement through Technology Use.

Putting it in Perspective

Basic Principles of Farmer Field School

1. Grow a healthy crop

2. Conserve natural enemies

3. Conduct regular field observations

4. Farmers understand ecology and become experts in their own fields

Basic Aims of Farmer Field School

1. Skill Development

2. Empowerment

3. Will power

4. Capacity of Decision Making

Technology Transfer

• Products vs Knowledge based Technologies• Knowledge vs Skill Development

• Learning by doing vs by seeing

• Discovery based learning

• Decision making vs following advice

• Situation based vs Technology based development

• Participatory vs Empty barrel approach

Why FFS for Farmers Only farmer can make the “right” Farm Management

decision based on his own perceptions of economics and technologies.

So farmer should be trained in decision-making There are too many farms (5.00 mill) and too few

extension workers to be able to service them all. A self multiplying training programme for farmers need to be established.

Each farmer field is different in pest, beneficial fauna, soil and other eco-system elements and cannot be treated on a generalized technology package message.

Technologies requiring decision-making and management need skill transfer training.

IPM cannot be implemented simply by demonstration, field days, TV Ads, radio, publications etc.

FFS Approach• The FFS approach was developed by

an FAO project in South East Asia as a way for small-scale rice farmers to investigate, and learn, for themselves the skills required for, and benefits to be obtained from, adopting on practices in their paddy fields.

Farmer Field School Approach

Farmer Field School is a school without walls. Farmers and extension workers are students. The Farmers Field is the class room and the plant is the teacher. As the plant grows the students gain knowledge in the light of their observations. The get together at a fixed time every week once and make their own decisions based on observations and data analysis for the health of the plants.

TOF

25 Facilitators

10 FFS

3 days TOF per week

2 days FFS per week

Innovations

•Partial residence

•Single district participants

Pakistan Model

Non-Formal education Specialist/

Facilitators

Researchers/ Subject matter

Specialists

ToF 25 Facilitators

Facilitators are furtherdivided into 5 groups

each group comprises of 5 facilitators

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5

FFS FFS FFS FFS FFS FFS FFS FFS FFS FFS

Training of Facilitators

Basic Aims of Farmer Field School

1. Skill Development

2. Empowerment

3. Will power

4. Capacity of Decision Making

TOF: Training of Facilitators Activity guided by a facilitator who has been trained before hand CHARACTERISTICS

One complete growing season Learning by doing Growing own crop (regular observations on

plant development) Carry out FFS Group dynamics (serve as preparation for

trainees to conduct FFSs themselves and to gain facilitation skills)

Fostering corporate identity (provides joint spirit which is crucial factor for the success)

TOF/FFS Crop Cycle Activity ChartTOF/FFS Crop Cycle Activity Chart

L

Land Preparation/ Group formation

AESA

Insect Zoo

Special topic

AESA

Insect Zoo

Group Dynamics

AESA

Insect Zoo

Group Dynamics

S Topic

AESA

Insect Zoo

Group Dynamics

Data Analysis

Agro-Ecosystem Training

Cucumber Cropping CalendarIsmailia, Winter Season

October November December January FebruaryPreplant Seedling Growth Flower Fruit-Set Harvest

Climate protect young plantsfrom strong winds

preferred temperature: day 24o/night19

o

rH should not sink below 40-50%preferred temperature: day 20

o/night16

o

rH should not sink below 40-50%preferred temperature:

day 27o/night27°keep tunnels closed for

germination onlyventilate tunnels, particularly after sunrise to avoid water on the leaves at any time

keep tunnels closed at night

Soil use fine-structured, wellaerated organic soils

use 20-40m3 manure to

increase organic matter add 50-100 kg sulfur to

lower alkalinity

plant 2-3 cm deep keep soil warm to assist

germination

remove weeds

Water use well drained soilswith high water holdingcapacity

irrigate lightly and regularly, preferably in the morning hoursavoid water logging and periods of water stress

NutrientsN 50 kg Ammon. Sulfate

P 100 kg Super Phosphate

KCa 50 kg Calcium Nitrate

Microelements

Protection Favorable Conditions: Control Measures:

Downy Mildew 20-25oC90-95% rH

Protective:Cu-oxichlorideCurative: systemic

Powd. Mildew 20-25oC

75-85% rH Micronized Sulfur/water

Spider Mites warm and dryMicronized Sulfur

AphidsK-soap

CulturalPractices

do not grow cucumberrepeatedly in the samefield to avoid nematodes

use 1.5 kg seeds/fd6-8000plants/fd1-2 plants/m2

clip tips to encourageside shoots

cut out old, diseasedleaves

50 kg Potassium Sulfate 50 kg Potassium Sulfate

50-100 kg Super Phosphate

Use TX6 Nozzles for best coverage

Crop Calendar

Water

Beneficials

Cultural Practices

Nutrients

PestsWeather

Soil

Plant

Ecosystem Analysis

Agronomic Data

WeeklyPlant Height# of leaves/plant# of flowers/plants# of fruits/plantsWeight of harvested fruits

Plant Protection

Data

Weekly

Counting insect pests

Counting natural enemies

Diseases incidence

General Data

Weekly

Variety

Days after planting

Weather conditions

Soil conditions

Agro-ecosystem Analysis Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA)(AESA)

Far

mer

Fie

ld

Sch

ools Give a man a fish

…...and feed him for a day

Teach him how to fish…..and feed him for life

Updated Crop wise FFS information in Pakistan Up to Dec-2007

CROP FFSFarmer Trained %

Cotton 3,768 70,603 67.2

Wheat 22 457 0.4

Vegetables 670 16152 15.4

Date Palm 61 1159 1.1

Mango 304 7224 6.9

Citrus 198 4950 4.7

Apple 31 565 0.5

Sugarcane 11 220 0.2

Rice 137 3612 3.4

Live-Stock 9 135 0.1

Grand Total 5,211 105,077 100.0

FFS APRROACH WORK AREA

• Rice• Cotton• Vegetables• Sugarcane• Wheat• Maize• Fruits

• Livestock• Poultry • Enterprises• Health • Teachers• Others

• FFS(Men)

• WOS(Women)

• CEC(Children)

• FFFS(Whole

Family)

MODELMODEL AGRI. CROPAGRI. CROP COMODITIESCOMODITIES

Characteristics of the Farmer Field School Approach

• Farmers as Experts. • Farmers ‘learn-by-doing’ i.e. they carry out for

themselves the various activities related to the particular farming/forestry practice they want to study and learn about. This could be related to annual crops, or livestock/fodder production.

• The key thing is that farmers conduct their own field studies. Their training is based on comparison studies (of different treatments) and field studies that they, not the extension/research staff conduct. In so doing they become experts on the particular practice they are investigating.

Characteristics of the Farmer Field School

Approach• The Field is the Learning Place. All learning

is based in the field. The maize field,• banana plantation, or grazing area is where

farmers learn. Working in small subgroups• they collect data in the field, analyze the data,

make action decisions based on they• analyses of the data, and present their

decisions to the other farmers in the field school• for discussion, questioning and refinement.


Approach contd• Extension Workers as Facilitators Not Teachers.

• The role of the extension worker is very much that of a facilitator rather than a conventional teacher. Once the farmers know what it is they have to do, and what it is that they can observe in he field, the

• extension worker takes a back seat role, only offering help and guidance when asked to do so.

• Presentations during group meetings are the work of the farmers not the extension worker, with the members of each working group assuming responsibility for presenting their findings in turn to their fellow farmers. The extension worker may take part in the subsequent discussion sessions but as a contributor, rather than leaders, in arriving at an agreed consensus on what action needs to be taken at that time.


Approach contd• Scientists/Subject Matter Specialists Work With

Rather than Lecture Farmers: The• role of scientists and subject matter specialists is to

provide backstopping support to the• members of the FFS and in so doing to learn to work in

a consultative capacity with• farmers. Instead of lecturing farmers their role is that of

colleagues and advisers who• can be consulted for advice on solving specific

problems, and who can serve as a• source of new ideas and/or information on locally

unknown technologies


Approach contd• The Curriculum is integrated. • The curriculum is integrated. Crop

husbandry, animal husbandry, horticulture, land husbandry are considered together with ecology, economics, sociology and education to form a holistic approach. Problems confronted in the field are the integrating principle.


Approach contd• Training Follows the Seasonal Cycle. Training is

related to the seasonal cycle of the practice being investigated. For annual crops this would extend from land preparation to harvesting.

• For fodder production would include the dry season to evaluate the quantity and quality at a time of year when livestock feeds are commonly in short supply. For tree production, and conservation measures such as hedgerows and grass strips, training would need to continue over several years for farmers to see for themselves the full range of costs and benefits


Approach contd• Regular Group Meetings. Farmers meet at

agreed regular intervals. For annual crops• such meetings may be every 1 or 2 weeks

during the cropping season. For other• farm/forestry management practices the time

between each meeting would depend on• what specific activities need to be done, or be

related to critical periods of the year when• there are key issues to observe and discuss in

the field


Approach contd• Learning Materials are Learner Generated.

Farmers generate their own learning• materials, from drawings of what they observe,

to the field trials themselves. These• materials are always consistent with local

conditions, are less expensive to develop, are• controlled by the learners and can thus be

discussed by the learners with others.• Learners know the meaning of the materials


Approach contd• Group Dynamics/Team Building. Training includes

communication skills building, problem solving, leadership and discussion methods. Farmers require these skills. Successful activities at the community level require that farmers can apply effective leadership skills and have the ability to communicate their findings to others.

• Farmer Field Schools are conducted for the purpose of creating a learning environment in which farmers can master and apply specific land management skills. The emphasis is on empowering farmers to implement their own decisions in their own fields

tot• Training of Trainers (technically sound facilitator training)Farmer Field

Schools• - basic field course• - group organisation• - research methodsCommunity Action• - clubs, etc.• - farmer to farmer study• - farmer forumsActivity flow in IPM programmes• Test and validate: The Field School method proposes that no

technology will necessarily work in a new location, and therefore must be tested, validated, and adapted locally. Thus, IPM methods are always tested in comparison with conventional practices. The end result is that beneficial aspects of IPM are incorporated into existing practices. There are no “IPM Farmers”, and “IPM adoption rate” is around zero in good Field Schools. There are, however, better farming practices and high adaptation rates.

Hands-on learning activities:

• Beside season-long field studies, the Field School also uses other hands on learning activities to focus on specific concepts. “Zoos” in which insect and disease life cycles can be observed more easily on potted plants, and controlled testing of pesticide toxicity with chicks are such activities. These methods also provide ways for farmers to continue studying after the Field School. Farmers are able to use the same methods to help other farmers to learn about IPM as well.

Hands-on learning activities:

: All Field Schools include field based pre- and post-tests for the participants. Farmers with high attendance rates and who master the field skill tests are awarded graduation certificates. For many farmers, the Field School is the first time that they have graduated from any school or received a certificate in recognition of their farming skills, a point of great pride to many families.

A process, not a goal:

• It must be remembered that Field Schools are a method to provide farmers with a learning environment so that they can achieve the goal of reducing inputs, and increasing yields and profits. In some programmes the number of Field Schools, or expansion of programmes becomes the overwhelming target and success criteria that quality suffers and the initial goals are not met

“Work self out of a job”:

• The facilitator in a Field School attempts to work him/herself out of a job but building the capacity of the group. Indeed, many Fields Schools take over the job of the extension facilitator by doing Farmer to Farmer training and other local activities to strengthen other members of the community.

Follow-up:• All Field Schools normally have at least one follow-up season,

the intensity of which will be determined by the motivation of the Field School participants, time constraints of participants and facilitator, and to some extent - funding. Follow-up has been known to be a little as monthly support sessions for farmers to discuss their own problems in implementing IPM, to as much as farmers running a complete Field School for other farmers. Often farmers agree to repeat the Field School process for one more season to verify findings, or to repeat the process of the Field School on a new crop to learn IPM for the next crop. Some groups begin to form associations, people’s organisations, and clubs that are officially or un-officially organised and carry on studying as a group. The facilitator usually becomes less central in the process if he/she has done a good job, more often providing some technical backstopping and stimulation for the group.

Integrated Pest Management - Narrow and

Wide Views

• In 1957, “Integrated Pest Management” was first proposed as a concept which promoted the use of biological control (mostly free), good agronomic practices (good for crop yields), and other means before investing in chemical pesticides (costly, destroy natural enemies, create environmental and health social costs) to control pests. At that time, as now, many farmers used pesticides on a calendar basis, governments promoted their use, and they were considered a essential aspect of “modern” agriculture. Sometime later, largely due to basic misuse of “economic thresholds”, IPM also began to be defined as “spray only when the pest exceeds the threshold”. The original concept was to promote good practices, the second concept was useful for selling pesticides.

• A wider view of IPM has been developed in recent years as a result of farmer focused Farmer Field School programmes. The basis of this view is derived from the original biologically intensive IPM concepts. Academic definitions are replaced with understandable straightforward principles;

Comparison between FFS and conventional T&VComparison between FFS and conventional T&V Com

PARAMETER FARMER FIELD SCHOOL CONVENTIONAL T & V

1. Learning method By doing, experimenting,participating, discovering

By listening ( Element ofexperimenting anddiscovering still absent)

2. Training venue Subject of learning (field, crop,animal etc)

Training shade or tree

3. Duration Complete study (Season longcycle)

One or two sessions

4. Extension Agent andtheir role

Trained expert. Spends most oftheir time assisting farmersconvince themselves about agiven technology

Jack of all trades. Spendsmost of their time trying toconvince farmers

Comparison between FFS and conventional T&VComparison between FFS and conventional T&V Com

PARAMETER FARMER FIELD SCHOOL CONVENTIONAL T & V

5.Farmer and his/herrole

Participator, Contributor,Decision-maker.Assumption- farmer is a cup oftea full of knowledge but needssteering.

Listener. Managementdecisions usuallyprescribed.Assumption- farmer is anempty cup of tea that needsto be filled

6. Qualification toparticipate

None discriminatory Need to be able to write withsome intensive programmes(Master farmer training)

7. Programme Planning Done and agreed upon by/withfarmers. Extension agentcommits themselves

Office work. Extensioncommitment not quaranteed

8. Evaluation andadoption

Together with farmers. Adoptionis the choice of the farmer

Office. Usuallypersuasion/force

STEPS IN CONDUCTING FFS (CLASSICALL APPROACH)

There are 8 key classical steps in conducting FFS

• 1. Ground working activities • 2. Training of Facilitators • 3. Establishment and running of FFS• 4. Evaluating PTDs• 5. Field days• 6. Graduations• 7. Graduations• 8. Follow up by facilitators

1. Groundworking activities

• Identify focus enterprises• · Identify priority problems• · Identify solutions to identified

problems• · Establish farmers’ practices• · Identify field school participants• · Identify field school sites

2. Training of Facilitators

• Crop/livestock production and protection technologies• · Field guides on how to effectively deliver crop/livestock

production and• protection topics using non-formal education methods (NFE)• · Participatory technology development (PTD) with emphasis

on the• approaches and developing guidelines on conducting PTD• · Non-formal education methods with emphasis on what,

when and how to• use NFE in FFS• · Group dynamics• · Special topics to be addressed at every stage of training.

3.Establishment and running of FFS

• With the guidance of facilitators, the group meets regularly throughout the

• season, and• · Carries out experiments and field trials related

to the selected enterprise.• · Implement PTDs (Test and Validate)• · Conduct AESA and Morphology and collect

data• · Process and present the data• · Group dynamics• · Special topics

4. Evaluating PTDs• Analyse collected data• · Interpret• · Economic analysis• · Presentation

5. Field days• During the period of running the FFS, field

days are Organized where the• rest of the farming community is invited

to share what the group has• learned in the FFS.• · 1or 2 per season• · Farmers themselves facilitate during this

day

6. Graduations• This activity marks the end of the

season long FFS. The farmers,• facilitators and the coordinating

office usually organize it.• · Farmers are awarded certificates

7. Farmer run FFS• FFS farmer graduates now have

the knowledge and confidence to run their

• own FFS.

8. Follow up by facilitators

• Occasionally the core facilitators will follow-up on schools that have

• graduated preferably on monthly basis. The core facilitators also backstop

• on-going farmer run FFS.

Local funding goal:• Some of the Field School activities focus on

future planning and funding raising. There is an explicit goal for groups to become independent and seek local support separate from national funding. In some cases this has meant that farmers each bring a bowl of uncooked rice to a meeting to but together for snack money, or as much as writing a proposal and receiving a funding grant from government or NGO sources. In national programmes, it is desirable to have funds available directly to farmer groups that request support for their local activities.

Training and Visitation comparison with Field

Schools Point Classical Training and Visit Farmer Field School evolution

Field-level extension officer’s job

Deliver pre-packaged “messages” from a research-extension linkage. Primary job is information transfer, not technical expertise, which is reserved for Specialists not at the field level.

Technical Facilitator: Every FFS trainer should have basic technical skills (at least able to grow the crop, or rear animals, etc.). Secondly, every FFS trainer should have group oriented training and management skills. These skills are typically learned in a season-long Training of Trainers where they learn what they will teach.

Experience of trainers

Variable, but most often lacking basic farming skills and experience. Field level staff given communication skills.

Master trainer with farming experience gained during Training of Trainer programmes in which each person is required to grow crops and carry out field studies so that they test what they will use in Field Schools later.

Information Primarily top-down messages from distant research stations about situations presumed to be representative of farms.

Recommendations are tested against conventional practices and new information about to the site emerges. Promotes local creativity.

Contact point Contact farmers that are supposed to train other farmers by passing on external information.

Groups of interested farmers that farm on a daily basis through generating local study circles.

Time frame Continuously, forever, on a two-week regular cycle not based on any natural phenology.

A pre-defined period. Usually on a weekly basis over a season. FFS may be longer than a season, but never less than one season integrated with the crop phenology.

Pedagogy Training: Use of static pre-determined demonstrations and in field examples to show and tell.

Education: A focus on underlying principles that allow farmers to derive and adopt recommendations within their own dynamic their ecological, social, and economic realities.

Evaluation At best indirect: based on measuring delivery and funds spent.

Pre- and post-testing. Community self-surveying. Identifiable indicators defined in terms of system-critical factors. Internal rates of return.

Training site Demonstration field, training centers, home of Contact Farmer, static not revisited in time or observed in terms of any on going process.

A shared field in which the FFS uses to dynamically validate and test new management methods over the entire season (e.g. decisions during one part of the season can be verified by yield cuts)

Long term objectives Increase food production, etc. “Farmer’s attitudes, lack of knowledge, and practices are an object/constraint of a development process”

Nurture groups that will continue to address agricultural and community problems on their own and with technical backstopping.

“Farmers as the subject of development”

Research Primary source of information is research stations assumed to develop representative models that are widely applicable.

A process and consequence of local testing and within-community/ecosystem learning.

Description of a typical

Farmer Field School • The Farmer Field School (FFS) is a group-based

learning process. During the FFS, farmers carried out experiential learning activities that helped them understand the ecology of their rice fields. These activities involve simple experiments, regular field observations and group analysis. The knowledge gained from these activities enables participants to make their own locally-specific decisions about crop management practices. This approach represents a radical departure from earlier agricultural extension programmes, in which farmers were expected to adopt generalized recommendations that had been formulated by specialists from outside the community.

.

Description of a typical Farmer Field School

• The basic features of a typical rice IPM Farmer Field School are as follows[4] [5]:

• The IPM Field School is field based and lasts for a full cropping season. • A rice FFS meets once a week with a total number of meetings that might

range from at least 10 up to 16 meetings. • The primary learning material at a Farmers Field School is the rice field. • The Field School meeting place is close to the learning plots often in a farmer’s

home and sometimes beneath a convenient tree. • FFS educational methods are experiential, participatory, and learner centred. • Each FFS meeting includes at least three activities: the agro-ecosystem

analysis, a “special topic”, and a group dynamics activity. • In every FFS, participants conduct a study comparing IPM with non-IPM treated

plots. • An FFS often includes several additional field studies depending on local field

problems. • Between 25 and 30 farmers participate in a FFS. Participants learn together in

small groups of five to maximise participation. • All FFSs include a Field Day in which farmers make presentations about IPM and

the results of their studies

Description of a typical Farmer Field School

• A pre- and post-test is conducted as part of every Field School for diagnostic purposes and for determining follow-up activities.

• The facilitators of FFS’s undergo intensive season-long residential training to prepare them for organising and conducting Field Schools.

• Preparation meetings precede an FFS to determine needs, recruit participants, and develop a learning contract.

• Final meetings of the FFS often include planning for follow-up activities.

• Although Farmer Field Schools were designed to promote IPM, empowerment has an essential feature from the beginning. The curriculum of the FFS was built on the assumption that farmers could only implement IPM once they had acquired the ability to carry out their own analysis, make their own decisions and organise their own activities. The empowerment process, rather than the adoption of specific IPM techniques, is what produces many of the developmental benefi

01/08/2007 69

Citrus FFS OrchardsCitrus FFS Orchards

01/08/2007 70

Visit of Secretary Agriculture NWFP to Citrus FFS at Swabi

01/08/2007 71

04/15/23 73

Visit of Secretary Agriculture Visit of Secretary Agriculture NWFP to Citrus FFS at NowsheraNWFP to Citrus FFS at Nowshera

01/08/2007 74

Tomato ToF Dargai, M. Agency 2006-07Tomato ToF Dargai, M. Agency 2006-07

THANK THANK YOUYOU