the farmer field school approach

Humboldt Universität zu Berlin

M.Sc. Integrated Natural Resource Management

Participatory Rural Innovation and Knowledge Systems WS 2014/2015

Dr. Thomas Aenis & Dr. Silke Stöber

The Farmer Field School Approach

Angela Gulia Memoli (563896)

Zandie Bonagua (564051)

Natalia Martinez Zarate (563750)

2

Abstract

The Farmer Field School is still one of the most implemented forms of extension service

worldwide. Its popularity can be attributed to its effectiveness as an alternative learning experience

as its different techniques, such as Ecosystem Analysis, Village Immersion, Agroecosystem

Analysis and Participatory Technology Development are all aimed at stimulating the farmers'

decision-making skills and to improve their knowledge in what surrounds them in order to develop

farming management strategies for local problems. Case studies from Colombia, Kenya, and the

Philippines show that the Farmers Field School Approach is effective not only in empowering and

improving the skills of farmers, but also in enhancing productivity and sustainability of the farming

systems that participated in the programs. However, the approach is far from perfect as it has yet to

achieve maximum impact in certain settings.

3

Table of Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Farmer Field Schools .................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Definition and history ...................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Principles of the FFS approach ........................................................................................ 8

2.3. Elements of the FFS approach ....................................................................................... 10

2.3. The FFS methodology .................................................................................................... 11

2.5. The FFS techniques ......................................................................................................... 11

3. Case Studies .................................................................................................................................. 14

3.1. Farmer field schools: Case study from Colombia .......................................................... 14

3.2. The establishment of FFS in tea production: a case study from Kenya ......................... 18

3.3. FFS-IPM knowledge dissemination and retention in the Philippines ............................ 20

4. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 26

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 28

4

List of Abbreviations

AESA Agro-Ecosystem Analysis

CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa. Potatoe International Center

CORPOICA Corporacion Colombiana de Investigacion Agropecuaria

(Colombian Corporation of Agricultural Research)

DA Department of Agriculture (Philippines)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FEDEPAPA Federacion de Paperos de Colombia (Colombian Federation of

Potato Producers)

FFS Farmer Field School

GAP Good Agricultural Practices

ICM Integrated Crop Management

IPM Integrated Pest Management

KTDA Kenya Tea Development Authority

PCE Participatory Comparative Experiment

PTD Participatory Technology Development

TRFK Tea Research Foundation of Kenya

5

1. Introduction

Imparting new knowledge and training farmers, especially those in developing countries, can be

challenging. They have been the target of several approaches structured to enable them to increase

yield, productivity, subsistence, without or with minimal negative impact on the environment.

However, there is no single approach, extension or otherwise, that is capable of instilling

information to diverse groups. Finding a suitable approach or combination of approaches that are

capable of offering solutions to some of the farmers’, especially the smallholders, more pressing

concerns has never been more urgent.

The Farmer Field School approach is a form of extension service that is being implemented

worldwide to address the farmers’ need to define their priorities, develop their own agenda,

encourage innovative and informed decision making, impart with them the ability to conduct their

own research, and stimulate farmers to share and facilitate their findings and learning process to

others (Braun, Thiele, & Fernandez, 2000).

Braun and Duverskog (2008) published a global status of FFS and while some regions and cases

prove to be sustainable and effective in terms of new knowledge acquisition and technology spread,

others have shown limited results. This paper seeks to re-visit the Farmer Field Schools approach,

its history, principles, elements, methodology, and techniques as well as analyse three case studies

featuring the approach. The three cases are comprised of a study from Colombia identifying the

methodology applied and how the participants viewed it, a case study from Kenya exhibiting a

multi-national company aided approach, and a study from the Philippines evaluating the

effectiveness of the FFS approach in terms of knowledge retention and dissemination.

2. Farmer Field Schools

2.1. History and Definition

The Farmers Field School approach derived its name from the Indonesian words “Sekolah

Lampanga” which translates to Field Schools (Khisa G. , 2004). The first Farmer Field School was

founded in Central Java Indonesia in 1989 during the FAO Integrate Pest Management Farmer Field

Schools Pilot Program (IPM-FFS). Taking into account the consequences generated by the

indiscriminate use of pesticides such as health and environmental matters, the purpose of the FFS

implementation was to reduce the farmer's dependence on pesticides in rice fields (Berg, 2004).

Aside from finding solutions to the problem induced by pesticide applications in rice fields in

Indonesia, the FFS approach also allows the analysis of crops and a holistic view of the ecosystem.

6

The approach takes into consideration how humans can manage the ecosystem in order to improve

or alter its equilibrium (Braun & Duveskog, 2008).

During the expansion of FFS program to different countries, it has emphasized the inclusion of

aspects beneficial to crop and livestock production such as integrated disease management, crop

management, plant nutrition management, water and soil management, polyculture systems,

alternative production, natural resource management, and socio-cultural dimensions of community

life (Khisa G. , 2004) (Waddington, Snilstveit, Garcia, Vojtkova, Anderson, & White, 2012).

Soon after Indonesia, the FFS program was introduced to twelve other Asian countries and to Africa

and Latin America in the mid-nineties. By 2004, the FFS program has been implemented in over 30

countries and in 2008, the countries adapting the approach has almost tripled reaching 87 countries

including the United Sates and some European countries, table 1 shows the detailed breakdown of

the FFS’ reach (Braun & Duveskog, 2008). It should be noted that though there is a suggested

framework for the FFS approach, it is adjusted and modified to better suit the particular conditions

and needs of each country and demographics (Berg, 2004) (Waddington, Snilstveit, Garcia,

Vojtkova, Anderson, & White, 2012).

Table 1. Countries Implementing the Farmer Field School Approach

Year Countries

1989 - 1991 Indonesia

1992 Vietnam

1993 China; Philippines; Sudan

1994 Bangladesh; India

1995 Sri Lanka

1996 Cambodia; Egypt; Ghana; Kenya

1997 Laos PDR; Mali; Pakistan; Peru; Tanzania; Zimbabwe

1998 Nepal; Thailand

1999 Brazil; Bolivia; Ecuador; Ethiopia; Uganda; Zambia

2000 Colombia; El Salvador; Honduras; Nicaragua; Senegal

2001 Benin; Burkina Faso; Malawi; Mexico; Mozambique; Niger; Nigeria

2002 Dominica; Dominican Republic; DR Congo; Haiti; Jamaica; Suriname;

Trinidad and Tobago

2003 Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Cameroon; Croatia; Guyana; Hungary;

7

Iran; Kyrgyzstan; Romania; Serbia and Montenegro; Sierra Leone;

Slovak Republic; Syria; Turkey

2004 Algeria, Armenia; Bhutan; Gambia; Guatemala; Jordan; Lebanon;

Morocco; Namibia; Palestine Territory; Togo; Tunisia; Uzbekistan

2005 Angola; Rwanda; USA

Source: (Braun, Jiggins, Röling, van der Berg, & Snijders, 2006)

According to Hagiwara, Ogawa, Kariuki, Ndeti, & Kimondo (2011), the farmer field schools “… is

an innovative, participatory and interactive learning approach that emphasizes problem solving and

discovery based learning”. The group of people involved in this approach are farmers (men and

women) and farmer representatives tackling and aimig to resolve a common set of issues (Braun &

Duveskog, 2008) (Sustainet, EA. Sustainable Agriculture Information Initiative, 2010).

Khisa (2004), remarked that a significant feature of the FFS is taking place in a “school without

walls”. It is a learning process that does not take place in the confines of a classroom but in the

fields. This form of education enables teaching and learning in an interactive manner that simulates

real conditions, confronting problems and solutions at real time enabling farmers to practice,

evaluate, and compare the conventional and traditional knowledge used in their crops along with

new alternative and sustainable technologies (Hagiwara, Ogawa, Kariuki, Ndeti, & Kimondo,

2011).

According to Braun & Duveskog (2008), a core characteristic of the FFS approach is its way of

giving each participant, be they a farmer or the facilitator, equal rights to contribute their knowledge

and information they have acquired from observing the activities conducted during the approach. Its

other main aim is to promote knowledge transfer to other communities via its graduates.

The FFS approach combines two learning processes, the first one being the process of learning and

applying techniques proposed by technical experts, through observation, discussion, analysis,

presentation and collective decision-making and actions. This process allows the participants to

identify the pros and cons of the procedures used (Hagiwara, Ogawa, Kariuki, Ndeti, & Kimondo,

2011). The other learning process, on the other hand, let the farmers provide input to the facilitators

and experts based on their previous experiences and collective effort. This two-way learning

process gives every member of the group the opportunity to become the student and the teacher.

Braun & Duveskog (2008) noted that the approach is far from perfect as it is not a cure all solution.

Individual cases come with their own unique conditions which should be taken into consideration

8

prior to the implementation of the FFS as failure to do so may worsen the current problem or

generate new ones.

2.2. Principles of the FFS Approach

Aside from being a participatory tool for empowering farmers, the FFS is structured in such a way

that will let participating farmers develop better or improved analytical and decision making skills

(Braun, Thiele, & Fernandez, 2000). Unlike formal educations and trainings, farmers get to

experience interactive learning as FFS is not a one sided method of imparting skills, knowledge,

and information (Ooi, 1996). It is guided by the following set of principles or characteristics that not

only differentiates it from other participatory systems but also renders it with a more interactive and

empowering approach (Hagiwara, Ogawa, Kariuki, Ndeti, & Kimondo, 2011):

The field is the learning place: Indoor or “classroom” sessions are limited and majority of

the time learning are spent in the field where a Participatory Comparative Experiment (PCE)

has been set in place. Learning sessions are conducted sans textbooks and lectures and

“curricula” are adapted to the local setting with careful consideration of the participants’

(farmers) input and predilection.

Facilitation, not teaching: There are no teachers in FFS only facilitators. In FFS the farmers

are both participants and teachers. Facilitators are present to encourage constructive

discourse, listen with utmost focus, and to prod the farmers into analysing, sharing,

observing, and discovering the solutions themselves.

Hands-on and discovery-based learning: FFS’ version of homework, lectures, and lab

experiments is the learning by doing method wherein farmers learn or gain knowledge by

actually experiencing a process making the knowledge learned easier to retain.

The farmer as expert: Local knowledge and practices passed on from generations and in a

community are just as important as new information, techniques, and processes and the FFS

approach makes sure that they are integrated into the system.

Equity and no hierarchy: The input and importance of the facilitators and farmers are viewed

and received with equal bearing as both parties learn from one another.

Integrated and learner-defined curriculum: Though there is a “guideline” for the FFS

approach, no curriculum is the same as it tailors it for the group it is catering to. It can be

adjusted to suit the needs and priorities of its target demographics.

Comparative experiments: Scenarios and settings which can be compared (e.g. a control and

an experimental field) are arranged, observed, and analysed and problems or whatever issues

that occurs are dealt with as they happen or in real time.

9

Agro-ecosystem analysis: Observed during the entirety of the project the Agro-ecosystem

analysis (AESA) is the backbone of the FFS approach as it calls for all the participants,

including the facilitators, to reflect on what they’ve observed, learned, and analysed and

discuss this among them. Figure 1 gives a conventional AESA for FFS Approach to

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) in rice farming.

Figure 1: An archetypal FFS-IPM for rice farming AESA

Source: (Braun & Duveskog, 2008)

Special topics: Special topics are present in every FFS curriculum and they are set or

determined depending on the particular group and case. They are comprehensive and can go

beyond the scope of the field. External resource people or agencies can be employed or

called in to aid in facilitating special topics.

10

Team building and social animation: Like all other activities involving groups, FFS also

makes sure that all its participants and facilitators establish rapport so as to ease participants

into opening up and to establish cohesion, and open communication.

Participatory monitoring and evaluation: Being a very interactive approach, participants of

FFS not only assist in developing the curriculum but also the monitoring and evaluation

method of the project, This allows for improvement for future projects, addressing of

shortcomings, and assessment of whether the agreed objectives were met as well as the

hindrances to achieving the set objectives.

2.3. Elements of the FFS Approach

In order to conform to its core propositions, several elements--each with their own unique

characteristics--are essential to FFS (FAO, 2010). These elements and their corresponding

characteristics are:

The group: Composed of 20-25 participants (farmers, their kin, or other representatives)

selected based on interest or other pre-determined factors, the group is the core of the FFS.

The group--depending on the dynamics, instances, and outcome, may either be strengthened

or disbanded to form separate groups.

The field: Serves as the classroom, the laboratory, the library, and the training facility as it

has most of the materials necessary for the approach.

The facilitator: The facilitator or facilitators are individuals with ample knowledge in the

subject being tackled by the FFS. They are neither teachers nor lecturers; they simply

coordinate the participants throughout the project. They can either be an extension officer or

someone who underwent FFS training before (Braun & Duveskog, 2008).

The curriculum: Are designed to be in sync with the subject’s natural cycle (e.g. rice,

livestock, milk production, etc.) in order to simulate real time and situations on the field.

Activities included in the curriculum may sometimes last an entire season (i.e. plating

season for crops).

Program leader: Not a usual fixture on the field yet a vital part of the approach, the program

leader ensures that the right facilitators are identified, trained, and given enough support

(material or others).

Financing: No FFS will be possible without sufficient funding. Depending on the scope,

FFS may be low to high-cost. Funding can come from a myriad of sources such as NGO’s,

development agencies, government, etc. (Braun & Duveskog, 2008).

11

The principles and elements of the FFS approach are configured to address current and persistent

problems in the field while enabling the farmers to tackle future or recurrence of problems on their

own while, ideally, disseminating the knowledge they’ve acquired. These principles and elements,

however, will not be complete without structured methodologies and techniques (Braun, Thiele, &

Fernandez, 2000).

2.4. The FFS methodology

The first step to be followed in order to implement a FFS is to establish a relaxed environment to

work in, by encouraging the participants to introduce themselves, making them comfortable and by

enhancing team spirit and openness. This first objective can be reached by implementing different

participatory methods, for example by dividing the participants in groups of two or three

components and asking them to produce posters or cards in which they present themselves,

including different aspects of their lives (roots, professional background, dreams) (Khisa, 2002).

The role of the facilitators is firstly, to establish a sense of inclusiveness by involving all the

participants in the conversation and maintaining an open dialogue while remaining impartial. The

session has to be maintained on an informal and relaxed level, the content of the conversation has to

be transparent to all participants and any contribution has to be considered essential (Khisa, 2004).

After the initial part of presentations, both facilitators and participants should express their

expectations from the course, by visualizing their ideas on boards that will be used during and at the

end of the course to check if the expectations are met (Khisa, 2002). Different methods may be used

to carry out the different sessions of a FFS, such as visualization, group discussions, field exercises

and field visits (Khatam, et al., 2010).

Since the participants come from different locations and are supposed to spend some time together,

the facilitators should set rules and regulations of good behavior (e.g. patience, punctuality, no

smoking in the class) before the start of the actual training course, to avoid interruptions,

misunderstandings and chaos. The norms can also be set by the facilitators in compliance with the

participants suggestions and are then visualized on boards so that everyone is aware of them

(Minjauw, Muriuki, & Romney, 2002).

12

2.5. The FFS techniques

The first activity which is carried out before the actual establishment of the FFS is the village

immersion, in which the facilitators enter the community for the first time and meet the local

authorities and opinion leaders in order to explain their objectives and goals, their role and what

they expect from the upcoming activities. The objective of this phase is to stimulate the local

opinion leaders to participate in the future activities and to actively be involved in the establishment

and support of the FFS (UPWARD, 2002).

In order to recognize and distinguish between the different living, non-living organisms and the

physical environment in which they live in and to understand their singular roles and interactions,

the facilitators guide the participants through the ecosystem analysis (FAO, 2010). The participants

are divided into groups and guided through the field, taking notes of all the elements they see.

Subsequently, within each group the results are discussed and visualized and then presented to the

other groups and facilitators. Through this initial technique the participants improve their

knowledge in what surrounds them, become aware of the importance of each single element of the

ecosystem and start having a critical point of view that helps develop their decision-making skills

(Arnoud, Jiggins, Röling, van den Berg, & Snijders, 2005).

The concept of “What is this? What is that?” is a discovery-based learning tool used in the Farmers

Field School approach, in which the participants are taught to find the answers by asking further

questions. The learners are stimulated towards the development of their own analysis of the

situation, in order to be able to make better decisions. The key concept of this technique is to ask

open questions instead of closed questions in which the answer is already suggested and there is no

chance for further dialogue; facilitators should answer questions with other questions in order to

stimulate the conversation and therefore stimulate the knowledge of the participants on a particular

topic (Minjauw, 2001). Generally, participants are divided into groups of three people which play

the role of the farmer, the technician and the recorder. The group goes to the field and starts the

exercise: the “farmer” observes the environment and asks questions such as “What is this?” to the

technician, which replies with open questions (e.g. “Where did you find it?”, “What was it doing?”)

leading the conversation to a deeper level and stimulating the dialogue; the technician should never

give a direct answer with the name of the object they are observing. The recorder takes notes of the

dialogue. After the roles are switched, the groups meet again in the session hall and discuss their

results and opinions (Mweri, Mombasa, & Khisa, 2001).

13

A more detailed description of the ecosystem in which the farmers work in is the Agroecosystem

Analysis (AESA), which can be considered as the core of the FFS and it is not only a tool used to

better understand the linkages between the elements of an ecosystem, but also an instrument to

develop the farmers ability to make management decisions in a group (FAO, 2010). The process

starts with an accurate observation of the field by small groups of participants which take notes

about the environment individually; then the groups return to the meeting area and each member

explains to their colleagues what he or she has noticed (e.g. pests, soil conditions, plant health,

climatic conditions). The result of the discussion and data analysis is a drawing of the field with all

its components and the groups end up also with a possible management strategy that is then

presented to the other groups and the facilitators (Gallagher, 2003).

As suggested by van Veldhuizen “Participatory Technology Development (PTD) is a creative

process of joint experimentation and research by farmers and development agents in discovering

ways of improving farmers' livelihoods” (van Veldhuizen, Waters-Bayer, & Wettasinha, 2004).

Participatory Technology Development is another helpful tool to be implemented in the Farmer

Field School approach, in which all the participants, both farmers and facilitators, are involved in

participatory activities that aim to stimulate the research of cause-effect relations of local farming

problems and the development of management strategies to deal with them (Minjauw, 2001). This

technique consists of seven steps:

1. Groundworking Activities: Firstly, the facilitators introduce themselves to the local

government officers to establish a relaxed environment; then information about the FFS site,

local problems and local farming practices is gathered;

2. Village immersion activities: The participants are immersed in the FFS site, introduce

themselves and validate the information gathered in the groundworking activities;

3. Prioritizing field problems: By using data gathered in the previous steps, field problems are

analyzed more in detail and prioritized in order to form a base of knowledge from which

starting the participatory technology development between farmers and facilitators. At the

end of this phase everyone is aware of the ecological, cultural, political and socio-economic

aspects of each single problem;

4. Plan and design PTD activities: Together with the local researchers, farmers and facilitators

define possible PTD activities in order to solve the problems. The activities have to be

simple and easily manageable by the farmers;

5. Implement PTD activities: PTD activities are conducted and monitored by farmers and

generally the attention is focused on the more urgent problems;

14

6. Collect and interpret results of PTD activities;

7. Utilize results in succeeding PTD activities: The results of the PTD activities have to be

seriously taken into account, in order to solve current problems and possible future problems

(Khisa, 2004).

3. Case Studies

3.1. Farmer field schools: Case study from Colombia

The FFS started in Colombia in 2000 under the auspices of institutions such as CORPOICA

(Colombian Corporation of Agricultural Research) and FEDEPAPA (Colombian Federation of

Potato Producers). FFS was carried out through the Potato Seed National Plan, sponsored by the

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The aim of the FFS in this plan was to start

investigation projects and transfer of technology programs (Braun, Jiggins, Röling, van der Berg, &

Snijders, 2006).

The FFS approach was executed in four different regions (Cundinamarca, Boyaca, Antioquia, and

Nariño) under supervision of staff trained by the FAO and CIP (Potato International Center) in

Ecuador. The focus of the FFS in Colombia is the implementation of the Integrated Crop

Management system (Fierro, 2003).

In Colombia, the Farmer Field Schools form part of the strategies used in promotion and research

works from different organizations such as CORPOICA, CIAT or Universities, which are focused

on the scope of agricultural participatory research.

Case: Implementation of FFS on potato farms in two municipalities in eastern Cundinamarca

The assessed case took place in Cundinamarca State in Chipaque and Ubaque Municipalities. This

zone was characterized by a significant potato production, as reported by DANE (2002) in the

National Census of potato cropping. In Chipaque, the area used for growing potatoes is around

177Ha and in Ubaque around 138Ha (DANE, 2002). It should be noted that the situation in this area

could vary depending on different factors such as climate (precipitation regime), potato market

prices fluctuation and other product demand (Espinal, Martínez, Pinzon, & Barrios, 2005).

The total number of participants in the two municipalities was 30 farmers, where 37% corresponded

to women and the remaining 63% to men. In the commune of Chipaque, three plots were

established to facilitate travel and attendance of the participants in this area. In the town of Ubaque,

two plots were maintained for implementing all FFS activities (Perez, 2014).

15

The primary aim of FFS in this case was to implement all the Integrated Crop Management (ICM)

features, with the purpose of improving the self-esteem, personal development, and individual

skills of the participants.

The methodology used for the FFS in these two municipalities had two main stages. The first stage

was the preparation for the FFS which consisted of identifying the communities that fulfilled the

criteria defined for the establishment of the FFS (Potato producers, smallholders), consultation and

coordination of activities with other organizations in the area, and identifying the farmers who

would eventually take part in the FFS. The second stage describes the methodology used during the

crop cycle (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Methodology implemented in the FFS Colombian Case

Source: Adapted from (Perez, 2014).

The explanation for each component of the second stage are as follows:

Selection of the area: The area was selected based on criteria such as major production

zones in the municipalities, The evidence of current problems due to excessive use of

pesticides The predominance of small producers, and its accessibility (Perez, 2014).

Exploration Visits: These visits were done in order to establish a relationship with the

organizations that provide technical assistance to those municipalities. The aim was to

request for financial and technical support during the FFS.

16

Motivation meeting: This step was carried out through a series of meetings seeking to

strengthen community ties and encourage commitment throughout the process.

Baseline creation: In order to gauge the FFS participants’ knowledge, a survey about the

aspects of integrated crop management was conducted. This baseline was a valuable tool in

the development of the curriculum and special topics during the FFS.

Plot establishment: In each of the five sites selected for the FFS, two plots were established.

The first one was called “learning lot”, It is where the ICM practices or new techniques

taught were performed, While the second plot, conventional cropping method was carried

out. The group was then divided into subgroups of 4 or 5 farmers, with plots (the ICM and

the control) allocated for each subgroup allowing them to observe and compare.

Experiments: Different experiments were carried out on each plot such as insect traps or

sampling insect population. These experiments are then used to answer the questions and

concerns of students, which were not sufficiently addressed.

Learning meetings: These meetings are mainstays of the FFS. Session duration vary from 3-

6 hours and is the platform where participants can discuss their agroecosystem observations.

The farmers can compare the differences and similarities between the ICM plots and the

control plot and present and share their findings in the plot with the others. They can then

discuss the results and decide on a solution together.

Special Topics: Special topics covered technical subjects related to the focus of the FFS.

The primary objective of this activity was to teach, clarify and/or supplement the knowledge

of farmers in a deeper and more theoretical way.

Basis for collaboration and collective actions: This step, along with the special topic, was

conducted parallel to the learning process of the crop cycle. Different exercises were

performed (mental and physical), with the aim of integrating and strengthening the ties of

among group members and encourage collective work. This process also involved ice

breakers and relaxed time for the participants during meetings.

Final evaluation: Once done with the crop cycle and learning sessions, a post-project survey

was conducted. This survey contained the same questions asked during the knowledge

assessment in the baseline process but with some modifications so as to include the topics

discussed during the entire duration of the FFS. This post-project survey gave an overview

of how much the participants have learned as well as their attitude towards the training

procedure.

17

Upon completion of the FFS project in Chipaque and Ubaque, farmers were asked to evaluate and

identify the beneftis of the activity (Table 2). The project received positive feedback from the

farmers. Participating farmers also incorporated some knowledge acquired to their traditional

practices such as the fertilization program. The fertiliationn program is a way of applying fertilizers

without any technical support, but is structured based on the current needs of crop growing. This

process starts with a soil analysis in order to recognize the real requirements at the time prior to

crop production.

The FFS process helped the farmers to strengthen links and relationships within the community,

allowing for a better and more harmonious collective work. Collective work also proved beneficial

to accessing new local and national programs as authorities, organzations, etc. responsible for

organizing such activities are more inclined to listen to a organized groups. Other postivie impacts

of the approach includes higher income, reduction of production costs, and generation of new

businesses that offer higher wages.

Table 2. Results according to the perception of the FFS participants

Aspects Positive Negative

Valuation of

family and

neighbors work

Own 30 0

Wife/Husband 23 7

Sons 27 3

Friends/Neighbours 27 3

Community Work 27 3

Knowledge

Soil Use and Management 26 4

Fertilization 26 4

Seeds quality 24 6

Pest Management 26 4

Diseases Management 26 4

Agrochemical products

management 23 7

Economic aspects

Increase Incomes 25 5

Attainment of employment 24 6

New individual business 22 8

New collective business 23 7

Source: Adapted from (Perez, 2014)

18

As a conclusion, it is important to highlight that although the overall results of the application of the

methodology of FFS in this particular case were favorable, this methodology view from its

theoretical foundation has some shortcomings. Aspects that can be improved include: the dispersion

of knowledge to farmers who are not part of the school when this was performed, the amount of

resources required to carry out the activities since some participants are small producers with

financial difficulties, and increasng the number of facilitators and trainers in order to cover all the

issues that needs to be addressed.

3.2. The establishment of FFS in tea production: a case study from Kenya

The Kenya Tea Development Agency (KTDA), together with Lipton, carried out a development

project in Kenya in 2006 with the purpose of improving the sustainability of tea production and the

incomes of smallholder farmers and the company by training them on the use of Good Agricultural

Practices (GAP). Since conventional extension service on GAPs proved to be inefficient, the KTDA

decided to implement the Farmer Field School Approach by establishing 4 FFS at the beginning and

by establishing another 20 FFS in the same sites (Momul, Mungania, Ngere and Nyansiongo) in

2007 (Hiller, Onduru, & de Jager, 2009).

The farmers participated in a voluntary way to the program and 30 of them were chosen per school,

with a total amount of 600 farmers per year; most of them practised mixed farming. Some criteria

were developed for the selection of the farmers, such as willingness to participate, farm size,

education level, age and gender. A parallel research has been conducted on other 60 farmers which

were not involved in the FFS, in order to make comparisons since the changes in the production

may be influenced also by other external factors (local economy, climate). The supervision on the

project and monitoring of its sustainability were carried out by Alterra and LEI, suggested by

KTDA and Lipton themselves; moreover, the techniques implemented in the FFS were developed

by the Tea Research Foundation of Kenya (TRFK) and some of its experts were involved in the

project (Mitei, 2011).

In order to improve the sustainability of their production, during the FFS sessions farmers gained

knowledge on the most important GAPs, as shown in Table 3.

19

Table 3: Average knowledge of GAPs for FFS and non-FFS farmers (0-low; 10-high)

Source: (Hiller, Onduru, & de Jager, 2009).

These data are based on the assumption that all farmers had the same knowledge of GAPs before

the start of the project. Some of the GAPs taken into account in the sessions were: soil conservation,

prune at 20 inches, infilling, rain storage, pruning knife, renewable energy, manure management,

equipment (Enomoto, 2011).

Another important aspect related to the establishment of the FFS and the relative adoption of GAPs

is an increase in productivity (Table 4) and quality of the yield. Productivity is expressed in terms of

kg of leaves per acre and it is not only the result of the adoption of more efficient farming practices,

but it is also influenced by climate conditions, changes in the government, economic trends of the

region (Minjauw, Muriuki, & Romney, 2002).

Table 4: Average tea productivity per acre per farm per production centre (in kg)


A significant increase in the productivity was registered in all sites except for Momul, no significant

differences were observed between FFS sites and non-FFS sites. Several external factors affected

productivity, such as a severe drought at the end of 2007 and election problems that caused road

20

blocks impeding the transportation of tea, machinery and raw material. Farmer’s productivity in

Momul was also influenced by the opening of a new big factory in that area (Hiller, Onduru, & de

Jager, 2009).

To conclude, the majority of farmers claimed that the FFS programme contributed to improve their

livelihoods under different aspects, as shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Estimation of the change of the farm-level indicators between 2005 and 2007 (%)


3.3. FFS-IPM knowledge dissemination and retention in the Philippines

For the past three decades, agricultural growth in the Philippines has been mostly attributed to the

farmers’ dependency on chemical pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc. with some even resorting

to the use of banned and/or restricted substances (Yorobe, Rejesus, & Hamming, 2011). Though

often resulting in high yields, several studies have exhibited that consistent chemical pesticide use

contributes to the soil quality degradation, pollution (ground, air, water), loss of biodiversity in

affected ecosystems, and pesticide traces in the food chain (Mendoza, 2002). The country’s

agricultural sector continued its adherence to the “green revolution” and it was applied to almost all

crops up until the early 80’s when the negative impact of intensive chemical fertilizer and pesticide

use (Mendoza, 2002).

Approaches to mitigate the effects of the intensive use of chemical based pest control and fertilizers

noted by extension practitioners included mass (radio, TV, periodicals, tabloids, etc.) and traditional

(songs, dramas, puppet shows, etc.) media were also considered as means of dispersing new

farming information to their intended beneficiaries as they have the ability to reach a wider

audience faster (Rola, Jamias, & Quizon, 2002). However, some practitioners argued that though

21

these methods have wider and faster reach, they are not able offer farmers a better and fuller

comprehension of the process, especially its ecological side There is also the education factor, rice

farmers tend to have lower levels of formal education which often times require a more profound

way of engaging them and facilitating them through the “knowledge discovery process” (Rola,

Jamias, & Quizon, 2002).

One of the more viable alternatives to what many farmers in the Philippines have come to know as

“modern agriculture” is the FFS-Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach (Rola, Jamias, &

Quizon, 2002), the country was among the first countries to experience FFS soon after its successful

run in neighbouring Indonesia (Palis, 2006). IPM was first promoted to rice farmers as rice is more

than just a crop in the country. 90% of the country’s population consider it as their staple food

providing 70 up to 80% of their daily caloric intake. The rice farming sector is also responsible for

16% of the nation’s GDP and 40% of the nation’s work force (Mendoza, 2002).

A study commissioned by the World Bank focused on the Province of Iloilo investigated the

retention and diffusion of IPM knowledge acquired by farmers from FFS. The average FFS in the

area utilized participatory experiments and promotes open discussion among farmers to convey

fundamentals of agroecology with each accommodating between 25-30 farmers for over a 10-week

period (Rola, Jamias, & Quizon, 2002). Similar to most FFS in the country, the Iloilo FFS relied on

public or government funding (Quizon, Feder, & Murgai, 2001). Recipient villages (locally called

barangays) of the FFS are determined by the Department of Agriculture (DA) as well as local

government officials. These pre-selected FFS recipient villages or barangays often come with

suitable characteristics (e.g. rice producing with better soil quality and well irrigated) making the

field predisposed to succeed (Rola, Jamias, & Quizon, 2002).

Rola, Jamias, & Quizon (2002), focused on the informal farmer to farmer knowledge sharing. They

researched the presence of any significant dissemination of information between FFS and non-FFS

farmers as well as the retention of knowledge acquired. The method employed to measure the

amount of knowledge diffused and retained by the FFS participants came in a form of a pre-tested

survey questionnaire which were distributed to households in FFS villages as well as households in

non-FFS villages. The selected villages (both FFS and non-FFS) exhibited the same basic

environmental and ecological conditions, with irrigated rice growing fields, and comparative farm

sizes. 72 FFS graduates were interviewed who were then asked to identify people whom they’ve

shared their FFS knowledge with, however, this process proved problematic and the researchers

resorted to random sampling. Table 6 shows the characteristics and profile of the respondents, while

22

tables 7, 8, 9 and 10 summarizes the results of the survey conducted by Rola, Jamias, & Quizon

(2002).

Table 6: The FFS status (graduate, non-graduate), locale, and characteristics of the survey

respondents

FFS Village Non-FFS Village

Characteristic FFS Graduate Non-FFS Farmer Non-FFS Farmer

No. of Respondents 68 89 146

Mean Age (in years) 51.91 51.22 54.30

Mean Number of Years in

School

8.82 8.2 8.59

Sex (%)

Male 42.65** 75.28 73.97

Female 57.35 24.72 26.03

Marital Status (%)

Single 7.35 7.87 10.27

Married 80.88 86.52 81.51

Others 11.76 5.62 8.22

Tenure Status (%)

Owners 20.59* 26.97 37.67

Certificate of Land Transfer 10.29 6.74 11.64

Lessees 14.71 13.48 14.38

Tenants 42.65 32.58 30.82

Others 11.76 20.22 5.48

Presence of Other Income

Sources (%)

Yes 48.53* 31.46 34.25

No 51.47 68.54 65.75

Household Buying Rice (%)

Yes 63.24 79.78 63.70

No 36.73 20.22 36.30

*Significantly different from control at .05 level of significance, based on z-test

**Significantly different from control at .01 level of significance, based on z-test

Source: (Rola, Jamias, & Quizon, 2002)

23

The profile of the FFS graduates has some noticeable differences compared to the non-FFS

respondents (save for the age range). These findings support Palis’ (2006) studies arguing that most

FFS participants are not the main decision makers in the household nor in the community. Note that

57.35% of the FFS participants were females and majority were non-landowners with a significant

percentage (48%) of them having alternative livelihood. The Philippines is a patriarchal society and

while the females of the household contribute to the livelihodd and manual labor, they have limited

say in the decision makin process. Land owners or those responsible for decision making at the

farm level are also more likely to send representatives to activities such the FFS, a phenomena

which in itself requires further research. Lastly, the presence of alternative livelihood, as mentioned

48% of the FFS graduates claim to have an alternative source of income, but how does this affect

the effectiveness of the approach? Having an alternative livelihood make the farmers less

vulnerable to drops in yield and this might affect how they view the importance of new knowledge

and skills that will better their rice productioin practices, this can also translate to them not having

as much time to partake in social activities with other people from their village reducing the

likelihood of knowledge sharing.

Table 7: The relationship of the FFS graduate to the immediate recipient of the knowledge

they acquired from the FFS

Relationship FFS knowledge

recipients (n=76)

%

Immediate family

Other household member 3 4

Relatives

Relatives within village 22 29

Relatives outside village 4 5

Non-relative

Farmer in the same village 21 28

Farmer in another village 19 25

Hired labourer 1 1

Others 6 8

Total 76 100


24

It is the FFS’ aim to empower farmers and allow them to spread the knowledge they acquire to

others creating a trickledown effect of knowledge (Van Den Berg & Jiggins, 2007) and the result of

Rola, Jamias, & Quizon’s (2002) survey (see table 7) exhibited a trickledown effect, albeit not

exponential, as the knowledge acquired reaches beyond the extended family and the FFS village.

The results of the survey shows a rather interesting statistics as very few household members were

imparted with information yet the FFS graduates were able to reach more farmers who are not

related to them. The societal, cultural, and even generational (as the average age of respondents

were oveer 50) dynamics surrounding this should be further investigated to better future

implementation of the approach and to maximize the spread of information.

Table 8: Knowledge comparison among FFS graduates, non-FFS farmers from the same

village and non-FFS farmers in non-FFS villages

FFS Village Non-FFS Village

FFS Graduate Non-FFS Farmer Non-FFS Farmer

(Control)


Knowledge Topics/Practices:

Pest management 6.85** 4.85 4.96

Nutrient management 2.98** 2.54 2.72

Seed health 5.4* 5.11 5.05

Pest resistant variety 2.44 2.43 2.36

Certified Seeds 0.92** 0.80 0.79

*Significantly different from control at .05 level of significance, based on t-test

**Significantly different from control at .01 level of significance, based on t-test


Table 8 provides evidence of the FFS’ effectiveness in imparting knowledge to its participants

(Yorobe, Rejesus, & Hamming, 2011). However, note that there are no significant differences

between the non-FFS farmers in the same village and the non-FFS farmers from the non-FFS

village even though farmers indicated that knowledge sharing occurred. Table 9 strengthens the

findings from table 7 as it shows the amount of pest management, nutrient management, seed

health, pest resistant variety, and certified seeds knowledge of FFS participants, non-FFS

participants from the same village and pure non-FFS respondents or those who does not have any

traceable links to the FFS graduates. Figures in table 9 shows that FFS raduates have a generaly

25

better grasp of knowledge in terms of pest and nutrient management, however, there is a lack of

significant differences in the other knowledge areas among FFS graduates, non-FFS, and pure non-

FFS respondents, these findings corresponds to Quizon, Feder, Murgai’s (2001) study which

suggests that the dissemination of knowledge from FFS graduates and non-FFS farmers exists but

has not reached optimal scale of scope or is not disseminating to as many people as expected. It can

be interpreted from these findings that the FFS is not a very cost-effective standalone participatory

approach.

Table 9: Knowledge differences among FFS graduates, FFS knowledge recipients, and pure

non-FFS

FFS Graduate Non-FFS Farmer Pure Non-FFS Farmer

(Control)


Knowledge Topics/Practices:

Pest management 6.85** 5.47 4.93

Nutrient management 2.98** 2.91* 2.57

Seed health 5.4 5.12 5.28

Pest resistant variety 2.44 2.28 2.37

Certified Seeds 0.92 0.81 0.83

*Significantly different from control at .05 level of significance, based on t-test

**Significantly different from control at .01 level of significance, based on t-test

The control group is comprised of farmers from villages without any FFS graduates


As for knowledge retention, Rola, Jamias, & Quizon (2002) grouped FFS participants between

“old” and “new”. The old participants (total of 51) graduated before 1995 while the new

participants (total of 18 participants) graduated after 1995. Table 9 presents the knowledge retention

among both FFS graduates, and as indicated by both the t-tests and chi-square, there are no

significant differences in scores between the old and new participants, which means that graduates

have retained the knowledge they learned. A similar finding was presented by Yorobe, Rejesus, &

Hamming (2011) where they have concluded that the FFS approach is an effective framework for

training farmers and continued application of acquired knowledge. It must be noted though that the

measure for knowledge retention was based on the survey conducted, other factors such as yield

26

performance, and persistent on-field adaption of the processes they learned in the FFS-IPM

approach were not covered by the study.

Table 10: Old vs new FFS graduates' knowledge scores comparison on sustainable farming

practices

FFS Graduate

Knowledge Topics/Practices Before 1995 (n=51) After 1995 (n=18)

Pest management 6.80 6.94

Nutrient management 3.08 2.83

Seed health 5.29 5.5

Pest resistant variety 2.51 2.28

Certified Seeds 0.92 0.89


4. Conclusion

The FFS approach is still widely practiced around the world and is the extension service of choice

for many developing nations (Braun & Duveskog, 2008). Its effectiveness as an approach to share

new processes and innovative approaches to crop and livestock production has been backed by

several studies. Its ability to reach out to diverse demographics of farmers while empowering them

and allowing them to incorporate what they know gives the FFS an edge over other methods of

training. It gives importance to farmers’ knowledge and cultural practices while making them

understand the importance of new information.

Participants of the FFS in Colombia viewed the approach as successful. They recognized its

benefits such as developing better workig relations in the community, improving relationships

among farmers, providing a solid foundation for the developmet of organizations that will allow

them to solve common problems, and finding an improved way to trade or market their products.

The approach was also an easier way to receive advice and training from development organizations

present in the area. Though it followed the recommended implementation guideline, the FFS

methodology applied in Colombia has had variations to better suit the local and ecological coditions

that existed during its duration making the approach well tailored t meet the needs of the

population, area, crops, etc.

The Farmers Field Schools implemented in Kenya have proved to be a successful instrument to

improve the farmers knowledge on the most important GAPs, tea productivity increased, the

27

sustainability of the production process and the livelihoods of farmers benefited from the project.

Regarding the dissemination of information from FFS farmers to non-FFS farmers, interviews were

conducted and the 30% of non-FFS interviewed farmers stated that their farming management had

improved as a result of sharing information with FFS participants.

The Philippine case study exhibited that the FFS approach is indeed a useful form of alternative

learning experience as evidenced by the graduates’ retention of knowledge in IPM several years

after they participated in the FFS. The study also showed that participants’ knowledge on the topics

tackled by the FFS were significantly better than their non-FFS counterparts, a result that looks

good at first glance. However, this knowledge gap is also an indicator that the approach is not

fulfilling its other aim, which is to disseminate information to farmers who did not participate in the

FFS via its graduates. The approach encourages other farmers to facilitate knowledge sharing in

their community and beyond as farmer-led schools is viewed as an effective and cost-effective way

of imparting knowledge and its failure to do so have a negative impact on its sustainability and

viability (Quizon, Feder, & Murgai, 2001). There is a need for further and localized studies

regarding the factors that contribute to information sharing among FFS participants as well as on

ways to tap the next generation of farmers. Lastly, updated extension services should be considered

as complementary approaches to be implemented side by side with the FFS to achieve optimal

results.

28

Bibliography

Arnoud, R., Jiggins, J., Röling, N., van den Berg, H., & Snijders, P. (2005). Global survey and

review of Farmer Field School experiences.

Berg, H. v. (2004). IPM Farmer Field Schools: A synthesis of 25 impact evaluation. FAO. Holand:

Wageningen University.

Braun, A. R., Thiele, G., & Fernandez, M. (2000). Farmer Field Schools and Local Agricultural

Research Committees: Complementary Platforms for Integrated Decision-Making in

Sustainable Agriculture. UK Department for International Development.

Braun, A., & Duveskog, D. (2008). The Farmer Field School Approach - History, GLobal

Assessment and Success Stories. IFAD.

Enomoto, R. (2011). Tea implementation guide for smallholders in Africa.

FAO. (2010). Farmer Field School Approach.

Gallagher, K. (2003). Fundamental elements of a Farmer Field School. Leisa Magazine, 5-6.

Hagiwara T., O. S. (2011). Farmer Field School. Implementation Guide. Farm Forestry and

Livelihood Development. FAO.

Hagiwara, T., Ogawa, S., Kariuki, P., Ndeti, J., & Kimondo, J. (2011). Farmer Field School

Implementation Guide. FAO, JICA, and KFS.

Hiller, S., Onduru, D., & de Jager, A. (2009). Sustainable tea production - An assessment of Farmer

Field Schools in Kenya.

Khatam, A., Muhammad, S., Chaudhry, K., Mann, A., Haq, I., Khan, Z., et al. (2010). Strengths

and weaknesses of FFS approach as perceived by farmers.

Khisa, G. (2002). Training guide on the Farmer Field School methodology- approach and

procedure.

Khisa, G. (2004). Farmers Field School Methodology- training of trainers manual. Kenya: FAO.

Mendoza, T. C. (2002). Impact Analysis of Organic Farming in Rice Agroecosystems in the

Philippines. Development of Basic Standard for Orgaic Rice Cultivation (pp. 1-26). Suwon

and Chonan, South Korea: 1ts RDA/ARNOA International Conference.

29

Minjauw, B. (2001). Training of Trainers- Manual for Livestock Farmer Field Schools.

Minjauw, B., Muriuki, H., & Romney, D. (2002). Development of Farm Field School methodology

for smallholder dairy farmers in Kenya.

Mitei, Z. (2011). Growing sustainable tea on Kenyan smallholder farms. International Journal of

Agricultural Sustainability.

Mweri, B., Mombasa, C., & Khisa, S. (2001). Report of the Training of Trainers course on Farmer

Field School methodology for Kari's soil management and legume research network project.

Ooi, P. (1996). Experiences in Educating Rice Farmers to Understand Biological COntrol.

Entomophoga, 375-385.

Palis, F. G. (2006). The role of culture in farmer learning and technology adoptions: A case study of

farmer field schools among rice farmers in central Luzon, Philippines. Agriculture ad

Human Values, 491-500.

Quizon, J., Feder, G., & Murgai, R. (2001). Fiscal Sustainability of Agricultural Extensions: The

Case of the Farmer Field School Approach. Washngton DC: Development Research Group,

the World Bank.

Rola, A., Jamias, S., & Quizon, J. (2002). Do Farmer Fiel School Graduates Retain and Share What

They Learn? An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. Journal of International Agricultual and

Extension Education, 65-76.

Sustainet, EA. Sustainable Agriculture Information Initiative. (2010). Technical Manual Farmer

Field School Approach. Nairobi: Assup Enterprises.

Users' Perspective With Agricultural Research and Development (UPWARD), The International

Potato Center (CIP), FIELD Indonesia Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation. (2002).

Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues and challenges.

Van Den Berg, H., & Jiggins, J. (2007). Investing in Farmers - The Impacts of Farmer Field

Schools in Relatio to Integrated Pest Management. World Development, 663-686.

van Veldhuizen, L., Waters-Bayer, A., & Wettasinha, C. (2004). Participatory Technology

Development where there is no researcher.

30

Waddington, H., Snilstveit, B., Garcia, J., Vojtkova, M., Anderson, J., & White, H. (2012).

Protocol: Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes in

Low and Middle - income Countries: A Systematic Review. The Campblell Collaboration.

Yorobe, J., Rejesus, R., & Hamming, M. (2011). Insecticide use impacts of Integrted Pest

Management (IPM) Farmer Field Schools: Evidence from Onion Farmers in the Philippines.

Elsevier Agricultural Systems, 580-587.

the farmer field school approach

Documents