National Workshop on Farmer Field Schools 2015

1. Dr. P. S. Rao
Former FAO-UN staff
National Workshop on "Farmers’ Field School "
February 6-7. 2015
NIPHM, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad.

2.  Farmer field schools (FFS) are a common
approach used to transfer specialist
knowledge, promote skills and empower
farmers around the world
(Waddington,2014).
 FFS are implemented by facilitators using
participatory “discovery-based” learning
based on adult education principles.

3.  Emerged out of a concrete and serious
challenge – high usage of toxic pesticides for
pest control in crops – health and
environment problems
 In Indonesia – in 1980’s – offshoot of green
revolution
 Govt sought a massive large scale
decentralised education program for
farmers – to reduce pesticides – but protect
incomes and production

4.  Inadequacy of govt. extension systems to
make this happen
 Demand from large no’s of poor farmers to
be part of the program
 IPM-FFS designed to address the above in
1989

5.  Holistic view of Elements of agro-eco system (AES)
 Impact of Human interventions – enhance or diminish
 Large and highly Heterogeneity of the large farm lands
 Farmers becoming experts and decision makers
 How to enable the numbers

6.  Application of IPM principles in the farms
 Master the process to support other farmers to learn
and apply
 Collaborative activities/experiments by communities
to institutionalise the principles
 Drawn from adult non-formal education approaches

7. The FFS approach was designed to address the
challenge of ecological heterogeneity and local
specificity by placing the control of small-scale
agro ecosystems in the hands of the
people/farmers who manage them (Pontius et al.,
2002).

8.  First wave of FFS in 1989 in the rice fields of Indonesia
 200 FFS’s in four districts of Yogyakarta
 Indonesian National IPM program
 Funded by Govt. of Indonesia, USAID
 Technical support by FAO-UN
 1800 FFS’s for rice by 1990 as part of upscaling of GoIN
IPM in 6 provinces
 By 1991, pilot FFS’s for rotation crops and spreading to
other countries in Asia

9.  From 1991 to 1994, with support from the FAO Inter-
country IPM Programme, rice IPM-FFSs reached to
Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Lao PDR,
Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
 First Farmer-to-Farmer FFS in Indonesia in 1990 - an
initiative of farmers who graduated from the first
round of FFS
 By 1993, Farmer-to-Farmer FFSs were established in
Bangladesh, Cambodia and Vietnam.
 From 1995 to 1999, the Farmer-to-Farmer Programme
took roots in China, Lao PDR, Nepal and Sri Lanka

10.  From 1991 to 1994, with support from the FAO Inter-
country IPM Programme, rice IPM-FFSs reached to
Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Lao PDR,
Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.
 First Farmer-to-Farmer FFS in Indonesia in 1990 - an
initiative of farmers who graduated from the first
round of FFS
 By 1993, Farmer-to-Farmer FFSs were established in
Bangladesh, Cambodia and Vietnam.
 From 1995 to 1999, the Farmer-to-Farmer Programme
took roots in China, Lao PDR, Nepal and Sri Lanka

11.  FFSs are now active in Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin
America and the Caribbean, Near East and North
Africa, and Central and Eastern Europe, and in the
United States and Western Europe (Denmark)
 FFS implemented in a total of 87 to 90 countries
reaching 15 to 20 million farmers(A. Braun, 2008)
 2012-14; a systematic assessment of 80+ evaluations of
various FFS’s carried out
 FFS now includes PPM, INM, PCM, Livestock, Water,
Climate Variability, etc.

12. The Field Schools differ from other extension methods
with the following characteristics:
 FFS are season-long crop and field based experiential
learning
 based on pre-identified challenge and curriculums
 Support each participating farmer to get deeper insights
regarding their crop ecosystem through individual
assessment
 Facilitate farmers in discovering knowledge and the
methodology to learn more
 Developing capacities in farmer to farmer dissemination
of the process/technologies/options.

13. 1. Group of farmers with a common interest
2. The Field – for collaboration and experimentation
3. Trained FFS Facilitators
4. The Curriculum – follows natural cycle of its subject
5. The Program Leader
6. Financing

14.  With a common interest – pesticide reduction, yield
improvement, etc.
 Could be an established one – Self Help Group, User
Commiitee, Rythu Mitra, youth clubs, etc
 Mixed – male and female – or separate – depending on
culture and tradition
 New groups based on the need

15.  Practical and hands on
 Field is the teacher – plants, insects, soil particles, etc
 NO classroom teaching / lecturing
 Community’s own farm/plot

16.  Un-learning of previous knowledge
 Change of attitudes to that of facilitators
 Skills in participatory learning
 Discovery based learning
 Technical domain knowledge
 Group’s learning and action process
 Farmer Facilitators – most effective than outside
extension agent

17.  Facilitation skills
 Learn to grow crops soiling their hands
 Organisation skills
 Management skils
 Preparing training materials, documentation, etc.

18.  Must follow the natural cycle of the topic – crop /
animal / soil etc - Seed to seed or egg to egg
 Different aspects of subject goes in sync with what
is actually - happening in the farmer field
 Relevant technical topics simplified in pictures
 All activities based on experiential learning
 Action, observation,
analysis and decision making

19.  Direct application of acquired knowledge in their
field
 Emphasis on ‘How’ and ‘Why’ – innovation and
local adaptation
 Season long experiments, short term activities
 Icebreakers / Energisers / Team building exercises
 Special topics – need based – Swach Bharat
Abhiyan, HIV/AIDS
 Resource Persons from research institutes, etc.

20.  Enabling and overall lead
 Support the facilitators
 Negotiate challenges in transition to participatory
approach
 Organise the training materials
 Identify resource persons – scientists, govt. staff, social
leaders, etc.
 Monitoring and evaluation

21.  To support group learning activities – can
be low cost or expensive
 Training – key recurrent component
 In extension – it is transport
 Innovative ways to raise local funds – FFS
plots?

22.  Initial start-up costs – moderate
 Running costs will be much lower
 Scaling up costs will be reasonable and
much less than traditional extension
activity
 Innovative ways to raise local funds – FFS
plots?

23.  The IPM Field School is field based and lasts for a full
cropping season
 A crop (rice) FFS meets once a week with a total number of
meetings that might range from at least 10 up to 16
meetings.
 Each FFS meeting includes at least three activities: the
agro-ecosystem analysis, a “special topic”, and a group
dynamics activity.
 Between 25 and 30 farmers participate in a FFS.
Participants learn together in small groups of five to
maximise participation. (Pontius, J. et.al., 2002)

24.  The primary learning material at a Farmers Field
School is the crop (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.

25.  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.
 All FFS’s include a Field Day in which farmers make
presentations about IPM and the results of their studies.
 A pre- and post-test is conducted as part of every Field
School for diagnostic purposes and for determining
follow-up activities.

26.  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

27.  Users should be encouraged to monitor and
manage their own groundwater system
 Blending of science and indigenous wisdom is
possible
 Introduction of simple tools and skills would
enable users to manage their groundwater
systems

28.  Lasts a full hydrological year
 25 and 30 farmer participants
 Once every 15/20 days
 Primary learning material: HU
& farmer field
 Sessions at farmer plots
 Small groups of five to
maximize participation
 Experiential, and participatory
methods

29.  Hydro-ecosystem analysis,
special topic, and group
dynamics activity
 Compare farmer and
experimental plots
 Several additional field studies
depending on local field
problems
 Ballot Box Exercise: Pre- and
post-test
 Field Day: share learning and
results of their studies

30. HU area calculation
Crop Water requirement
Hydrologic cycle
Borewell discharge
measurement Pumping wells
In a basin Recharge Rate
Land Use Pattern
Hydrologic Basin
Annual Water Balance