LEIS A fileLEISA March 2003 Volume 5 no. 1 Farmer Field Schools have proven to be a very effective tool for promoting farmer learning and empowerment. In particular, they encourage

INDILEIS

March

20

03

vo

lu

me

5

no

.1

Including Selections from International Edition A

LEISAMarch 2003 Volume 5 no. 1

Farmer Field Schools have proven to be a very effective tool for promoting farmerlearning and empowerment. In particular, they encourage farmers to develop their

ability to think and take decisionsleading to increased self confidence.FFS can also be integrated with otherapproaches for scaling up successfulexperiences. As the FFS approach

becomes increasingly popular, new issues and challenges emerge, such as quality intheir implementation, and ensuring that the core principles of the approach aremaintained.

These were the issues addressed by an international learning workshop held inIndonesia in October 2002, “Farmer Field Schools – Emerging issues andchallenges”. Organisers included the Rockfeller Foundation, the International PotatoCentre (CIP) through the User’s perspectives with Agricultural Research andDevelopment (UPWARD) network, and Farmers for Innovation in EcologicalLivelihood and Democracy (FIELD), Indonesia.

This issue includes Indian experiences as well as selections from internationaledition. The International edition captured the highlights of the above mentionedworkshop. In most cases, included, are the shortened and modified versions of theoriginal workshop papers.

The Editors

Dear Readers

– a cotton IPM FFSas an example

Prabhat Kumar

Describes briefly the objectives andprinciples of Farmer Field School.Explains with an example how a typicalday programme is organized and thesteps involved. Discusses how theeffectiveness could be improved.

AME Foundation promotes sustainable livelihoods through combining indigenousknowledge and innovative technologies for Low-External-Input natural resourcemanagement. Towards this objective, AME Foundation works with small and marginalfarmers in the semi arid areas of the Deccan Plateau through generating alternatives,enrichment of knowledge base, training, linkage development and sharing experiences.www.amefound.org

ILEIA is the Centre for Research and Information on Low-External-Input and SustainableAgriculture. It seeks to exchange information on LEISA by publishing a quarterlynewsletter, bibliographies, and books. ILEIADOC, the data base of ILEIA’sdocumentation centre, is available on diskette and on ILEIA’s Homepage:www.ileia.org. Back issues of the ILEIA Newsletter are also available on ILEIA’s website.

LEISA is about Low-External-Input and Sustainable Agriculture. It is about the technicaland social options open to farmers who seek to improve productivity and income inan ecologically sound way. LEISA is about the optimal use of local resources andnatural processes and, if necessary, the safe and efficient use of external inputs. It isabout the empowerment of male and female farmers and the communities who seekto build their future on the bases of their own knowledge, skills, values, culture andinstitutions. LEISA is also about participatory methodologies to strengthen the capacityof farmers and other actors, to improve agriculture and adapt it to changing needsand conditions. LEISA seeks to combine indigenous and scientific knowledge and toinfluence policy formulation to create a conducive environment for its furtherdevelopment. LEISA is a concept, an approach and a political message.

LEISA India is published quarterly by

AME Foundation in collaboration withILEIA

Address : AME FoundationPO Box 7836,Bangalore - 560 078, India

Visitors address : AME Foundation,No.1583, 17th Main, 2nd Phase,J P Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078, IndiaTel : +91-080-6596780,

+91-080-658 2835Fax : +91-080-658 3471E-mail : [email protected]

EDITORIAL TEAM FOR THIS ISSUE

LEISA India

Managing Editor: K.V.S. PrasadAssistant Editor: TM RadhaEditorial Team: C.K. Subramanian

C.J. RobensSudha G Bhat

ADMINISTRATION

M Shobha Maiya

SUBSCRIPTIONSContact: KVS Prasad,AME FoundationNo.1583, 17th Main, 2nd Phase,J P Nagar, Bangalore – 560 078, IndiaE-mail: [email protected]

DESIGN AND LAYOUT

S Jayaraj, Chennai

PRINTING

Nagaraj & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

LEISA Magazine is produced in 3 editions

LEISA Magazine - Global editionLEISA Revista - Spanish editionLEISA India

The editors have taken every care toensure that the contents of this magazineare as accurate as possible. The authorshave ultimate responsibility, however,for the content of individual articles.

The editors encourage readers tophotocopy and circulate magazinearticles.

5

Farmer FieldSchools –experiences fromTamil NaduB . Vijaya Lakshmi, G Ravi Kumar,S Pattabhiraman and DanielAnand Raj

Briefly describes the implementation ofFFS by AME in Tamil Nadu. Highlightsthe various issues dealt with, thelearnings and the outcomes.

Fundamentalsof FarmerFieldsSchools

11

CONTENTSVol.5 no.1, March 2003

4 FFS: beyond the rice field

Editorial

5 Fundamentals of Farmer Fields Schools

– a cotton IPM FFS as an example

Prabhat Kumar

7 PTD practitioners - back to school?

Rik Thijssen

8 Field schools for Kenyan dairy farmers

B. Minjauw, H.G. Muriuki and D. Romney

11 Fundamentals of Farmer Field Schools

– a cotton IPM FFS as an example

B . Vijaya Lakshmi, G Ravi Kumar,

S Pattabhiraman and Daniel Anand Raj

14 Community forest management and FFS

Hukum Singh

17 Evaluation in FFS:A burden or a blessing?

Kim Groeneweg and Jorge Chavez Tafur

19 Picturing impact!

John Pontius

23 The greening of Self Help Groups

Seema Tripathi and Shiraz Wajih

25 Gender field schools

Mansour Fakih

27 Towards self-financed Farmer Field Schools

James R. Okoth, Godrick S. Khisa and Thomas

Julianus

29 FFS for tree crops

James Mangan and Margaret S. Mangan

31 The Narayana Reddy Column

Learning by Practicing

L. Narayana Reddy

32 Sources

34 Websites

35 Books

36 Visit to Central America

Themes for Leisa India

3

27Towards self-financed FarmerField Schools

James R. Okoth, Godrick S. Khisa and ThomasJulianus

A common point of concern for those considering FFS as anextension mechanism is the cost. This article describes severalinnovations to improve the financial sustainability of FFSs that havebeen developed and introduced by the East African Sub-regionalPilot Programme on Integrated Production and Pest Management(IPPM). The cornerstone of these innovations has been the evolutionof the original grant system (semi-self financed FFSs) into aneducational revolving fund (self-financed FFSs), supported by theproceeds of commercial plots that are managed alongside the studyplots. Local governments, NGOs and rural micro-financeinstitutions are now becoming more and more interested in theapproach, and in Kenya some farmers have even begun gatheringresources together to fund their own FFS activities, the so-calledself-sponsored Farmer Field Schools.

The greening of Self HelpGroupsSeema Tripathi and Shiraz Wajih

Self-help groups for women living in the Terai ofEastern Uttar Pradesh have been used not only asappropriate institutions to help women improve theirsocio-economic status, but also to mobilise them asagents of change. The process of “greening” thesegroups towards sustainable agriculture has broughttogether many different extension and supportmechanisms, including agro-service centres, mastertrainers and Farmer Field Schools.

23

L E I S A I N D I A • M A R C H 2 0 0 3

4 L E I S A I N D I A • M A R C H 2 0 0 3

IPM Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) forrice farmers in Asia have beenimmensely successful. Since the

Indonesian National IPM Programmeinitiated the first FFS in 1989, theapproach has reached over two millionrice farmers. These farmers haveincreased their yields and incomes,reduced pesticide use, and use inputssuch as water and fertilizer moreefficiently. They have gained theknowledge and practical experiencenecessary to manage their agro-ecosystems sustainably. They use theirknowledge and understanding toinnovate and solve their own problems,and share their knowledge with theirneighbours. FFS graduates havebecome leaders in establishingsustainable agricultural systems in theirvillages.

The success of the IPM FFS in Asia hasattracted the attention of developmentworkers – and donors – around theworld. As with every successfulapproach, there is a strong movement tocopy and adapt it to other situations.The FFS concept has been developed farbeyond IPM in rice. FFS now exist inover 30 countries around the world,encouraging farmer learning in areas asdiverse as dairy farming (Minjauw et alp.8), conservation agriculture and evencommunity health. These approaches donot all fit the original FFS modelexactly. Adaptations are necessary tomeet the needs of different topics (suchas IPM in tree crops, Mangan p.29) oradapt to different cultural situations.

This issue of LEISA looks at thedevelopment of the FFS concept beyondrice IPM and into a seemingly limitlessrealm of possibilities for assisting andeducating farmers. But how far can theconcepts and principles of the FarmerField School be developed andmodified, and what are the coreelements that need to be maintained toreproduce their original success ?

A new blueprint for agriculturaldevelopment ?

The IPM Farmer Field School hasbecome a model approach for farmereducation in Asia and many parts ofAfrica, Latin America and the MiddleEast. The FFS have, many standardfeatures, each of which contributes totheir success. The schools usuallycomprise season-long regular meetingswith a set pattern of activities, including

FFS: beyond the rice fieldEditorial

agro Ecosystem Analysis (AESA),presentations and special additionaltopic, as well as group building activities.Kumar (p.5) describes the elements thatappear commonly across successful FFSprogrammes.

But Farmer Field Schools are no blueprint. A FFS is a learning activity, not aninstitution although FFS often give riseto new organizations, groups andnetworks through a process of buildingcapacity and developing connectionsbetween people with common interests.,FFS are often combined with otherapproaches and can be integrated intoexisting groups and extension services.For example Tripathi and Wajih (p.23)describe the role they play in the“greening” process of bringing the topicof sustainable agriculture to women’sself-help groups in India.

The challenges of expansion

Every new adaptation and expansion, andevery move away from the originalsetting involves a trade-off. The originalIPM FFS’s in Indonesia were developedin a specific context. For example,considerable knowledge on rice pests andthe rice ecosystem was already The FFSwere developed to encourage farmers tolearn about ecology and gain knowledgethat would enable them to control pestsand manage their rice ecosystemproductively, but not necessarily todevelop new knowledge. In some areas,however, there is a need to develop new,locally specific knowledge andtechnologies. One such example is theCIP sweet potato programme ( seeSources, p.32). In such cases,approaches such as PTD can add a newdynamic dimension to a FFS programme(Thijssen p.7)

The process of developing criticalthinking, introduced in IPM FFS, can beutilised to address other topics, likehuman ecosystems.

FFSs are suitable for rapidly scaling upnew programmes. The basic curriculumis well developed, and farmer graduatescan become farmer trainers, as the hands-on nature of the training means thatfarmers can easily facilitate the learningactivities. However, the manner in whichthe scaling-up process is developed,particularly the initial training, can becritical to the success of the project. TheFFS approach needs to expand from awell-trained nucleus of facilitators who

have a good understanding of theconcepts involve, as well as the skills tofacilitate FFSs effectively(Vijayalakshmi et al. p. 11)

As with other agricultural extensionactivities, the cost of FFS becomes amajor issue as the approach becomesmore widespread. Innovative solutionsto this issue have been developed by aFAO /IFAD project, based on pioneeringwork by women’s groups in their projectarea. Okoth et al ( p. 27) describe theself- financing methods developed bythis project.

Many different groups now call theiractivities “FFS” and fears are beginningto emerge that they may be makingmajor trade-offs that lower the quality ofthe approach. Initiators of the FarmerField School movement fear that theterm “FFS” may become jargon to add toproject documents, without thoseinvolved fully understanding the basis fora successful FFS programme. One ofthe most interesting aspects of this issueis the range of different perspectivespresented on the basic question, “Whatmakes a Farmer Field School a FarmerField School ?”. These views are basedon different experiences in differentenvironments, with different limitedfactors. It could also be asked, if aprogramme has a beneficial impact, doesit really matter whether it fulfills all thecriteria for a “real” FFS ?

These questions may have more than oneanswer, and need to be addressed andguided by those involved or wanting tobe involved, in farmer education. FarmerField schools, like any other approach,are a tool, and their effectivenessdepends on both the context and the wayin which they are used. They are,however, a very special tool. Theycultivate a critical, holistic and creativeway of thinking. The process of learningabout ecology leads farmers to a greaterunderstanding of the interconnectednessof their environment and the broaderimpacts of the decisions they make.Such understanding adds toempowerment.

5L E I S A I N D I A • M A R C H 2 0 0 3

Fundamentals of Farmer Fields

Schools– a cotton IPM FFS as an example

Prabhat Kumar

What is Farmers Field School(FFS)?

As the name suggests Farmer’sField Schools (FFS) are theschools for the farmers outside

the classrooms and on the farms. Itoperates with the principles of the non-formal education and most of thesessions and contents are based on theadult learning principles.

What are the objectives of anFFS?In an FFS, the emphasis is on holisticcrop management wherein pestmanagement is considered as a part ofthe overall crop management. Each FFShas four basic objectives which are asfollows:

• Grow a healthy crop• Conserve natural enemies of crop

pests• Conduct regular field observations• Make farmers competent in their own

field• Reduce production costs

The Field Schools differ from otherprevailing extension methods by havingthe following characteristics:

• FFS are season-long crop and fieldbased training based on pre-identifiedproblem and curriculums.

• Assist each participating farmer toget deeper insights regarding theircrop ecosystem through individualevaluation.

• Assist farmers in discoveringknowledge and also on themethodology as to how to learn moreregarding a problem.

• Developing capacities in farmer tofarmer dissemination of thetechnologies.

Cotton FFS is usually 24 weeks long andcovers the topics from field preparationto harvesting. The trainers for these FFShave been trained and are fully exposedto the field problems.

Through FFS the capabilities of thefarmers in making informed decisionsregarding crop and field managementbased on crop ecology is enhanced.

Regular field monitoring isdone through AESA (Agro-Ecosystems Analysis).Decisions are made andimplemented.

Selected from the villagegroups of 25 to 30 farmersparticipating in the FieldSchool meet once a weekfor 3-6 hours. Theyparticipate in a series ofactivities including fieldmonitoring, analysis,discussion on technicaltopics through group exercises.

The Field School provides anopportunity for these farmers to masterits basic skills to enable them to makeinformed field management decisions.

A DAY IN A FARMERS FIELDSCHOOLA typical FFS session is presented asfollows:

7: 30 AM

Going to the field in groups and observegeneral field conditions, collect sampleplants and insects, make notes and gatherlive specimens.

8: 30 AM - Agro-Ecosystem Analysis(AESA):

This activity is the core in the weeklyprocess. Each team uses their fieldsamples and notes, to create visualanalysis, combining key factors such aspests, predators’ population, plant health,field conditions, weather and currentmanagement treatments.

9:30 AM - Decision making:

The output of analysis is a set of fieldmanagement decisions discussedthoroughly in small groups anddefended in open discussion in thepresence of all the participants. “What if…” scenarios further hone analyticalskills during the discussions amonggroups. Through right kind ofquestioning skills, the trainers facilitateeach and every aspect of field activity.

10: 00 AM - Special topics:

These topics are linked to crop stagesand/or to specific local problems. Thispart of the curriculum is tailored for each‘Farmers Guide Activities’ mastered by

facilitators during their extensivetraining. These exercises require morefieldwork. Topics covered include pestmanagement, INM, IDM, marketing,post-harvest, crop physiology, health andsafety, economic analysis, and water/fertilizer management.

11: 30 AM - Group dynamics:

Activities in problem solving,communication, leadership and teambuilding are conducted every week tostrengthen group cohesion and to helpparticipants develop organizational skills.

12: 00 Noon - Review and Planning :

Each school maintains an IPM and aLocal Practice Plot of cotton forcomparison of IPM field managementversus a locally developed practice.Weekly summaries of developments inthe field are conducted by reviewingresults of the agro-ecosystem analysis. Atthe end of the season the group does finalanalysis of yields and economics. Otherlong-term activities are reviewed duringthis session. Such activities may includethe development of ‘Insect Zoos’ forlearning about plants-insect and insect-insect interactions; dry insect collection,INM trials and defoliation studies.Planning future field school activitiesand post– FFS activities is also done atthis stage.

QUALITY BENCHMARKINDICATORSDirectly related to the programme’s IPMprinciples is a set of quality benchmarkindicators. At the end of the FarmersField School programme, an IPM farmer


growing cotton crop should be able toperform the following tasks:

Grow a healthy crop

1. Choose a variety, resistant or tolerantto local disease and insect complexessuitable for local soil and micro-climatic conditions.

2. Treat the seed with appropriatechemicals and other biological agentslike Trichoderma etc. to preventdamage by the early sucking pests

3. Apply correct amounts of nutrients incombination with organic manure andchemical fertilizers (N, P, K and Zn)based upon soil conditions using theprinciples of Integrated NutrientManagement.

4. Identify the various insect-pests andtheir life stages and also monitor theirearly build-ups to take appropriatepreventive actions so as to reduce theapplication of pesticides.

5. Safe and tested botanicals form anintegral part of the pest managementoptions along with local andindigenous experiences of thefarmers.

Conserve Natural Enemies

1. Recognise natural enemies in thefield.

2. Explain the effects of pesticides onnatural enemies.

3. Promote survival of predators bymanaging habitats either throughinter-cropping, row planting etc.

Observe field on a weekly basis

1. Recognise crop eating insects, diseasesand damage by rats in the field.

2. Know the population density of aninsect in relation to its natural enemydensity defines pests.

3. Accurately gauge field conditions ofinsect populations, diseases, weedsfor taking timely decisions.

4. Analyse the density of insects andnatural enemies, taking intoconsideration crop health, potentialyield, water supply and other factorsaffecting yield. The analysis shouldlead to field management decisionsincluding agro-economic and pestmanagement practices.

5. When specific insect densities mustbe reduced by use of insecticide,apply the insecticide in proper dosageand delivery and with minimumexposure to self and non-targetspecies.

6. When disease or insect population ishigh, adjust varietal choice for theensuing season.

FARMERS FIELD SCHOOLRESULTS

Do farmers attend?

Attendance rates have been high; in fact,many field schools have recorded a “dropin” the rate of non-registered participantsrather than “drop-out”. The goal of eachschool is that every participantthoroughly masters the skills andprinciples of IPM farm management. Toaccomplish this, farmers are encouragedto draw on their experience andknowledge of local agro-eco-systems.The result is an intensive participatorylearning environment. Participants areselected in consultation with villageleaders who officially announce thoseselected as participants. This officialrecognition of participants enhances theirdesire to do well in school activities.

Do farmers learn?

Broad based studies indicate that notonly farmers learn, but their attitudes arechanged related to farm inputs includingchemical use and field managementdecisions. Over 600 farmers havecompleted full season field schoolactivities as on March 2002, while 5000others have attended local ‘Field Days’,IPM People Theaters (Kala Jatras) andother field school sponsored activities.Studies are underway to quantify thesuccesses. Experience in one of the FFSin Raichur, Karnataka proved thatfarmers could save more than Rs.1400 /Unit area by making informed decisionsregarding the crop managementcompared to local / farmer’s practiceplot.

Normally evaluation is done with eachparticipating farmer at the beginning,middle and towards the end of the FFS.Based on this periodic evaluation,trainers attend to the individuals needsand interests.

Do trainers learn?

With passage of time and experience ofconducting FFS, trainers sharpen theirinteractive skills, skills for conductingsessions and converting a field probleminto a learning opportunity. That is thereason, an experienced trainer is assistedby a new trainer in conducting FFS.Thus, it is a two-way empowermentprocess, where farmers and trainersempower each other.

What do farmers do after their FieldSchool ?

Besides improving their farmingpractices, farmers tend to follow-up theirfield schools with additional activitiesthat benefit themselves as well as thecommunity. In several countries, the

learning momentum that is generatedthrough the FFS process, promoteformation of an informal forum forfarmers to share their experiences andproblems. However, the current FFS oncotton has just started picking up theright momentum and it would takesometime to reach that intensity.

LIFE AFTER FARMERS FIELDSCHOOL

1. Farmers Archive

Consistent monitoring, high level ofmotivation, team work, problem solvingability, extensive facilitators preparation,and a fast moving logistics / managementsupport team is needed to achieve widespread implementation of Farmer’s FieldSchool. There are several activities thatthe farmers group could take up, oncethey have learned the basics of cropecosystems and problem analysis.

2. Farmer to Farmers Spread

The outstanding farmers from these FFScould be selected, grouped and re-trained to act as Farmer Trainers tofurther take the newly acquiredknowledge and skills to others in theircommunity. Normally, two weeks oftraining of trainers (TOT) includes:

• Processes of the Learning

• Evaluation and Monitoring

• Baseline Survey and Curriculumdevelopment

• Converting problems into learningopportunities

• Fundamentals of Ecosystems

• Agro-Ecosystems Analysis

• Discovery Learning Tools

Once the farmers are through the TOT,the first season of training, they are tiedup with an experienced trainer to furthersharpen their training skills. Once fullyconfident, they start their own FFS.

3. More experiments to learn more

Important activities that normallyfarmers group does after the FFSinclude: working on some key areas likemanagement of a key insect-pest,biological and non-chemical options fordiseases and pest management, learningmore agronomic parameters andparticipatory breeding program. Thegroup normally requires regular follow-ups, in terms of monitoring and technicalassistance, to keep going.

Based on observations made by author,formerly Sr. Team Member, FarmingSystems, AME, Bangalore.


PTD practitioners : back to school?Rik Thijssen

Farmer Field Schools (FFS) andParticipatory TechnologyDevelopment (PTD) are both

participatory approaches for promotingsustainable agricultural development.They both work towards improvingfarmer decision-making capacity andstimulating local innovation. But whatare the differences? Are theseapproaches overlapping orcomplementary? And what can theylearn from one another?

FFS were developed in the late 1980s totrain Indonesian rice farmers onintegrated pest management (IPM). Theywere developed in response to the GreenRevolution. The aim was to re-educatefarmers in agro-ecology and developtheir critical thinking, based on theknowledge already available about riceecosystems. Farmer field schools focusedon bringing this knowledge andunderstanding to farmers through grouplearning, based on adult educationprinciples.

PTD was also developed in the late1980s. The concept arose out of theideas and “best practices” of smallNGOs and the farming systems researchand extension movement. PTD refers toa process of joint experimentation bydevelopment workers and farmers. Theaim is to combine the best of local andexternal knowledge, and work togetherto generate and disseminate agriculturalinnovations.

Contrasting elements

PTD activities include:

• Critical analysis of community-managed changes in the agro-ecosystem;

• Identification and use of indigenoustechnical knowledge;

• Reconstruction of successful localinnovation;

• Self-organisation and• Self-implementation of systematic

experiments.

These can sometimes be difficult toaccommodate in the FFS setting. This ismainly because of the creativelimitations of a “school” set-up, and thetime limits on FFS imposed by a projectapproach. Not least, limitations areimposed by the attitude of many FFS-facilitators: they can be teachers, butthey are not necessarily capablefacilitators of a participatory approach,as intended in the PTD philosophy.

The crucial contrasting elementsbetween the two approaches - FFS andPTD - could be summarised as follows:

• Perception of “participation”: whilePTD promotes a bottom-up learningenvironment based on indigenousknowledge, FFS provide a moretraditional teacher-student settingfor learning about knowledge heldby outsiders.

• Attitudinal changes: where PTDseeks major changes in attitudes ofresearchers and extensionists, FFScould be seen as the most effectiveway to accommodate the existingattitudes of these professionals.

• The learning process: although bothapproaches are largely based onself-discovery activities, FFS set“fixed” learning targets, while PTDis an open-ended process.

ConclusionClearly, the basic concepts of the twoapproaches are complementary, and theFFS approach provides fertile groundsfor PTD. It is, however, important todistinguish between enhancing the basicknowledge of farmers so that they canexperiment according to their specificcircumstances (FFS), and agriculturaltechnology development by or withfarmers (PTD).

FFSs fill gaps in local knowledge,conduct holistic research on agro-ecosystems, and increase awareness andunderstanding of phenomena that arenot obvious or easily observable. Theirstrength lies in increasing farmers skillsas agro-ecosystem managers. The

strength of the PTD-platforms lies intheir systematic evaluation of locallyacceptable, technological alternatives, aswell as their ability to influence theresearch agendas of formal research andextension systems.

Growing interest in both FFS and PTDby a wide range of financing andimplementing organisations reflects anunderlying perception that they formviable new alternatives. Bothapproaches will evolve further, and theirdevelopment should be carefullymanaged so as to draw on theirunderlying synergy. In order to fill thebasic knowledge gaps that still exist,PTD groups can borrow from the FFSprinciple of educating farmers on agro-ecological components, patterns andprocesses. In turn, FFSs should paymore attention to revising the attitudesof agricultural developmentprofessionals to enable them to becomemore involved in PTD work.

Rik Thijssen, Advisor SustainableAgriculture, VECO Indonesia, Jalan LetdaKajeng 22, 80234 Denpasar, Bali. Email:[email protected];[email protected]

A full version of this paper is available atwww.eseap.cipotato.org/upward

References:

Braun, A.R., Thiele, G. and Fernández, M.2000. Farmer field schools and localagricultural research committees:Complementary platforms for integrateddecision-making in sustainableagriculture. Network Paper No.105. ODIAgricultural Research and ExtensionNetwork, July 2000.

Connecting and expanding knowledge

During an ethno-botanical study in Taropo Village on Sumbawa Island in Indonesia, a localfarmer explained about a plant species known as “pupuk” (fertiliser). As he pulled out thesmall, clearly leguminous shrub, the many root nodules were very evident. The study teamasked the farmer why this plant was named “pupuk”. He said that “pupuk” had the ability toimprove soil fertility and this species was, therefore, valued during fallow periods. We alsochecked with this farmer if he knew what the function of the root-nodules was. Without anyhesitation, he claimed that they were for water storage. Small farmers possess a good deal ofwisdom and experience, with which they manage to survive and produce for their families. Butthey do not know all of the components and processes that play key roles in agro-ecosystems.

What would be the added value if the farmer from Taropo Village knew about the nitrogen-fixing capacity of root nodules of “pupuk”? First, it validates the local observation that thisplant species can play a role in soil fertility improvement. It could also provide the farmer withinformation that explains other indigenous knowledge held by the community, or contradictscertain local beliefs. Farmers could, for instance, draw a link to other species with rootnodules, and thus widen the range of locally available species with potential for soil fertilityimprovement. The monitoring aspect of FFS, using indicators, could provoke somecomparative studies, where farmers evaluate the real potential of different species. Finally,based on an increased awareness and understanding of a phenomena that is not obvious oreasily observable, a farmer like the one from Taropo Village could become a valuablecontributor to a team working on agricultural technology development.


Field schools for Kenyan dairy farmersB. Minjauw, H.G. Muriuki and D. Romney

In the Central and Rift ValleyProvinces of Kenya, approximately90% of rural households are

agricultural and of these, 73% havedairy cattle. Studies in Rift ValleyProvince have shown that smallholderfarmers consider the major constraintsto increased dairy production to beendemic diseases, particularly tick-borne diseases (TBD), and inadequatesupplies of feed resources.

Currently, over 1000 Farmer FieldSchools (FFS) on integrated pestmanagement (IPM) and/or integratedsoil management are being successfully

methods to test and introduce integratedmethods to control tick-borne diseasesand helminth infections, and to improveanimal husbandry practices and theefficiency of utilisation of availablefeed resources within the crop-dairysystem. These activities contribute tothe ongoing DFID Smallholder DairyProject (SDP).

Initiating FFS for livestockAll facilitators were trained during atwo-week training of trainers (TOT)course. This was run as a learningworkshop, where participants learnedthe basic principles of the FFS and atthe same time used them to developspecific examples of activities, tools andtechniques suitable for smallholderdairy production systems.

Facilitators trained in FFS approachesworked with established groups toprioritise the main constraints toimproving the efficiency of milkproduction, using participatorytechniques (pair-wise and matrixranking). Issues highlighted for allgroups were similar and included, inorder of priority: 1) feeding strategies;2) fodder establishment andconservation; 3) calf rearing andmortality; 4) diseases (tick-borne andmastitis); and 5) water management andbreeding. Equal priority was given tothe last two issues. Based on the resultsof this exercise, individual grantproposals were prepared by each group,including a detailed work plan with acorresponding budget.

A grant of US$600 was deposited in anaccount controlled by elected membersof the FFS group to cover the cost offield activities and the cost offacilitation (the transport and lunchallowances for the extension worker).Management of this budget empoweredthe farmers to control activities coveredby the FFS and ensured that theextension services offered responded tofarmers actual priority problems andneeds. The FFS groups usually meet ona weekly basis, but some vary theirfrequency to once every two weeks. Themain participatory techniques used,including Agro-Ecosystem Analysis andParticipatory Technology Development,were adapted to suit the specific needsof learning about livestock issues. Forlivestock FFS, understanding the impactof animal health on productivity andhow to control disease occurrence, is ofmajor importance.

ActivitiesSince the main objective of the FFS isto develop farmers learning skills, ratherthan to increase knowledge on aparticular technical issue, recordkeeping and accurate observation areimportant components. Agro-ecosystemanalysis is designed to improveobservation skills and to developdecision-making skills, and thistechnique is utilised to record andobserve the results of the PTDexperiments. This observation processforms the basis for understanding theinteractions between livestock and otherelements of the ecosystem, as they

implemented in Kenya - and many morein Africa as a whole. Can the FFSmethodology be developed for similarlycomplex issues like animal productionand health, where responses tointerventions may not be as fast?

In 2001, the DFID/FAO project onFarmer Field Schools for livestockbegan adapting and testing the FFSmethodology for animal health andproduction, focusing on smallholderdairy farmers. Ten pilot FFS have beenestablished in five different agro-ecological zones in Central, Rift Valleyand Coastal Provinces of Kenya. Inimplementing these FFS, Agro-Ecosystem Analysis (AESA, seeGallagher page 5) is adapted to makeanimals the focal point, andparticipatory technology development(PTD) techniques are utilised to addresslivestock-related issues. The project isalso developing approaches and

A sub-group prepares their AESA presentation.

Pho

to :

Bru

no M

inja

uw

Measuring girth for the evaluation of body life weight.

Pho

to :

Bru

no M

inja

uw


relate to the problem or technologybeing studied. For example, where thesubject is expected to have a directoutcome on the animal, such as afeeding or health management practice,the AESA is focused on the animal.

In practice, farmers are divided intosmall groups and they observe ananimal from one of their farms.Observations are guided by a checklistthat includes general information suchas the life history of the animal,parameters defining the level ofproduction, and observations describingthe health status of the animal. Eachgroup presents their results in astandardised format to the rest of theschool. These findings are thendiscussed, allowing farmer-to-farmerinformation dissemination as well as anevaluation of progress.

The establishment of the PTD process isone of the biggest challenges inlivestock FFS. Indeed, while it isrelatively easy to design a comparativestudy for integrated pest management incrops, the high economic value of cattledoes not permit experiments that mightinvolve any risk or even short-termlosses in animal productivity. Therefore,one of the objectives of the on-goinglivestock FFS project is to establish thekind of technology development thatcan be performed without any risk ordetrimental effect, while still allowingfarmers to experiment with newtechnologies. Three types of “PTDs”have emerged from on-going activities:

1) Classical experiments: Althoughlivestock are the focus of livestock FFS,many of the activities of the livestockkeeper are crop-related. This isparticularly the case for fodderproduction and grazing improvement.“PTDs” include:

- Establishing alternative sources offodder. A range of fodders are plantedusing different planting methods,treatments and/or different fertiliserregimes.

- Preservation of fodder using differenttechniques such as silage making and abox baler for hay.

2) Comparison of existing farmerpractices: Observation and evaluationof the different practices of farmers,within and outside the FFS group,provides the opportunity for farmers toaddress issues that do not lendthemselves to experimentation becauseof the high risk in terms of animal well-being or high costs for implementingthe experiment. Examples include:

- Tick control: comparison of efficacyof different acaricides and/or ofdifferent application regimes.

changed according to the calculatedneeds. Milk production using the newregime is compared with previousrecords of production using the oldregime.

Aesa number

Week/date

Sub-group name

GENERAL INFORMATION

Breed

Name/tag

Sire name and breed

Dam name and breed

Date of birth and

Age

Time of observation

Weather condition

Last treatment: date and drug used

OBSERVATIONS

Hair/coat

Body condition

Rumination

Respiration

Temperature

Ecto-parasites

Discharges

Dung

Urine

Wounds

Movement/temperament

Eyes condition

Mucus membrane colour

Lymph nodes

Housing and shading conditions

Presence of other animal/insects

Noises

PARAMETERS

Body weight

Last weight

Weight gain:

Daily milk yield

Milk yield status: (improving or

decreasing)

Number of calves

Date of serving

Date last calving

Pregnancy status

Calving interval

Feed quality

Feed quantity

Supplement

Water quality

Water quantity

RECOMMENDATIONS

How to improve the AESA records

- Parameter to be included

- Quality of observation

What needs to be done to improve

productivity?

Which treatment should be used?

- Vaccination efficacy: comparison ofdisease incidence in immunised andnon-immunised animals

- Comparison of milk quality and lossesdue to milk spoilage in relation to thequality of the milk parlourinfrastructure.

3) Ex-post analysis: In ex-post analysis,farmers compare actual experimentalresults with practices that were usedbefore. Results may be quantitative, ifrecords are available from the past orfrom similar situations, or qualitative,where farmer perceptions are evaluated.This also includes the “Stop and Go”method, where the treatment is stoppedand re-introduced several times to showits effect, using an animal as its owncontrol. Examples include:

- Water availability: the amount ofwater available to the dairy animal is

Presentation during a field day of fodderconservation techniques

Example fromat for the AESA in Dairy FFS.

Pho

to :

Bru

no M

inja

uw


- Genetic material: artificialinsemination is used to compare calfbirth weight with other calves or withexpected weight.

- Prophylactic programme: aprogramme of preventive treatment isapplied to a group of cattle and theirperformance is compared with previousproductivity and with neighbouringherds. This could include de-worming, atrypanocide and/or vaccination againstprevalent diseases.

Not every problem can be easily dealtwith using a “learning by doing”approach. Some problems, such as thoserelating to contagious diseases, forexample, are not suitable or toodangerous for experimentation. Othersmay be too abstract to be demonstratedphysically, such as the importance ofepidemiological status orimmunological reactions, and these canbe addressed in special topic sessionswhere issues are discussed. Since thefacilitator cannot be an expert in everysubject, he or she will help the farmergroup to invite the right person to talkabout the subject chosen by the farmers.

This empowers the FFS group tocontact other organisations such asNGOs or national or internationalresearch institutes. Special topics canalso include livestock and non-livestockrelated issues, giving farmers the chanceto access the information that addressestheir priorities at a particular moment.For example, talking to the communityabout trypanosomiasis when the villageis threatened with a cholera outbreak isunlikely to be addressing a priorityissue. Advice about cholera control willcertainly be more relevant.

ConclusionsIf scientific research is to achieve a realimpact on farm productivity andlivelihoods, new methodologies fordissemination of information have to bedeveloped. Participatory approaches,which facilitate farmer demand forknowledge, give them the opportunityto choose, test and adapt technologiesaccording to their needs. Throughparticipation in FFS, farmers developskills that allow them to analyse theirown situation and adapt to changingcircumstances. The ILRI livestock FFSproject, funded by the DFID AnimalHealth Programme, is testing andadapting a participatory method tocreate a sustainable relation betweenfarmers, extension officers and researchinstitutes. These relationships arethought to be a fundamental tool,allowing scientists to collect appropriatedata and to transform developedtechnologies into products adapted tofarmers needs.

Using the FFS approach, the project isdeveloping an innovative processthrough which farmers adapt existing

Recording general information for the AESA.

Pho

to :

Bru

no M

inja

uw

technologies and try out new ideas.These ideas are developed throughinteractions between farmers, scientistsand extension workers. This uniquerelationship is an excellent platform forepidemiological studies usingparticipatory methods, to disseminateinformation on disease prevalence, todesign relevant participatory technologydevelopment, and to introduce moresuccessful disease surveillance andcontrol strategies.

�

B. Minjauw and D. RomneyInternational Livestock Research Institute,PO Box 30709,Nairobi, Kenya.Email: [email protected]

H.G. MuriukiMinistry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, PO Box 30028, Nairobi,Kenya.


Acknowledgements: The financial supportof the Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID) and FAO isacknowledged.

References:

Minjauw, B., Muriuki, H.G., and Romney, D.2002: Adaptation of the Farmer FieldSchool methodology to improve adoptionof livestock health and productioninterventions. In: Responding to theIncreasing Global Demand for AnimalProducts, BSAS Conference, 12-15 Nov.2002, Merida, Mexico.

Your global online resource for Integrated Crop Management….

Up-to-date, high quality information direct to your desktop whenever you need it!

ICMfocus provides the most comprehensive information you require, including…

• ICM In Brief & In Depth: Global reports on ICM

• Access to over 900,000 ICM research summaries through a pay-per-view search system

• Email newsletter: to keep you informed and up-to-date

• Links, directories, calendars and more!

Visit ICMfocus

Visit us online at www.icmfocus.comRegister today for access to our free resorces...


Farmer Field Schools - Experiencesfrom Tamil Nadu

B. Vijayalakshmi, G. Ravi Kumar, S. Pattabiraman and Daniel Anand Raj

AME1 is devoted to improving thelivelihoods of dry land farmers throughpromotion of ecological agriculture inthe Deccan Plateau. AME has beenworking in the dry regions of TamilNadu, promoting crop improvementsthrough various participatory learningprocesses. Farmers Field Schools (FFS)is one such process.

The FFS is a tool to build capacities offarmer groups and NGO staff inmanaging crop ecosystems, to makethem better decision makers inpromoting sustainable use of resourcesat the cropping, farming and watershedsystems levels. Farmer Field School is aparticipatory approach, wherein trainingis imparted on the basis of farmersneeds. Once the need is identified,season long practical training isimparted emphasizing on learningthrough discovery. Training is providedin the farmers field itself which enablesbetter understanding of the fieldproblems, their management andcontrol. During the training, a holisticunderstanding of the agro-ecosystem isfacilitated among farmers.

AME started its work in the operationalareas of Trichy, initially by conducting aRapid Appraisal of AgriculturalKnowledge Systems (RAAKS), in 1997.The process brought out a number ofproblems being faced by the farmers ofwhich pests and diseases managementand soil-water conservation were theindicated priority areas. Thus, based onthe farmers needs assessment, AMEstarted its interventions with FarmerField Schools with the objective ofbuilding capacities of farmers (mainlywomen in SHGs) in integrated pestmanagement. However, AME has made

some value additions to theconventional approach by integratingexperimentation through ParticipatoryTechnology Development (PTD) andfacilitating multi-stakeholder concertedeffort in conducting FFS. The variousstakeholders involved were Departmentof Agriculture (DoA), Central IPMCentre (Trichy), NGOs and farmers.

FFS which started by training farmersand NGOs in Integrated PestManagement of paddy crop with 3 NGOpartners in 1997, expanded to over 14NGOs by 2002 including crops such asGroundnut, Cotton and vegetables. Atotal of 86 FFS have been organised, ofwhich, 36 were conducted ongroundnut, 23 on cotton, 20 on paddyand 7 on vegetables. A total number of1669 farmers and 245 NGO staff havebeen trained through FFS. Of late, FFSsare being conducted by the trained NGOstaff themselves, thus, spreading itfurther.

FFS- A Learning ProcessThough FFS was started to mainly trainfarmers in a specific technology with setobjectives, as the process progressed, anumber of issues started emerging,which led to refinement of strategiesand approaches. Following are theapproaches that have been followed inmaking FFS more effective.

1. Dealing with multiple cropsFFS was initiated with a single crop foran entire season. Gradually, it wasfound difficult to sustain attention andparticipation of the farmers, owing totheir diverse needs. For example, afarmer, who attends FFS for agroundnut crop finds it difficult to

concentrate only on it, as the time ofgroundnut crop harvest coincides withpaddy sowing. It was also observedthat the needs of farmers are notrestricted to just one technology of asingle crop.

Therefore, the focus of FFS was shiftedfrom single crop approach to a farmingsystem based approach. This approachenabled inclusion of new componentsrequired for sustainable farming, suchas enhancing organic matter.Technological options for enhancingorganic matter content of the soil viz.FYM application, vermicomposting, onfarm biomass generation through treeplanting etc. were integrated.

Gradually, experimentation andtechnology development was alsoincluded into FFS throughParticipatory Technology Development(PTD) which incorporates the principleof exploring various technologicaloptions (both indigenous and external)on issues identified in cropmanagement. When the FFS isdesigned and facilitated to address thecore issue, it motivates for immediateadoption. The need for good qualityseed production, input supplies andmarketing of good quality produce fromFFS villages etc., were identified asimportant during the FFS.

Suitable technologies for other cropswere also suggested, whenever required.Based on learnings and experiences, theprocess was built progressively in thenext seasons to address complex needs(such as green manure and good qualityseeds) at the cropping and farmingsystem levels. This also enabledcontinued linkage with farmers

1AME had begun working in Tamil Nadu asearly as 1986 at Pondicherry, providinginnovative training in ecological agricultureand alternative methods of farming. Atpresent, AME works in 10 districts, withthree NGO networks – LEISA,, ROOTS, andVasantham consisting of more than 100NGOs, in Groundnut, Cotton, Paddy,Vegetables as well as farming systems andwatershed development. AME was existentas a bilateral project before it became anIndian organization in 2002

Table 1. Capacity Building through FFS (1997-2002)

Crops Number ofFFS Farmers NGO

organised trained staff trained

Paddy 20 510 99

Groundnut 36 573 78

Cotton 3 451 53

Vegetables 7 135 15

Total 86 1669 245


throughout the year thus, strengtheningsocial mobilization, which resulted inincreased attendance in FFS sessions.

2. Family approach

It is generally observed that the onus oftechnology adoption lies entirely onthose who have undergone the training -for instance, adoption of light traps bywomen. The use of light traps requiresgoing to the fields, which are generallylocated away from the homesteads inodd hours of the day (6 – 8 PM). Incases where women are trained, themale members of the family felt that itis the responsibility of the woman to dothe activities. This increases thedrudgery, in turn leading to non-adoption of technologies. Thus, thoughwomen enthusiastically learnttechnologies, they were not in a positionto practice, thereby leading to reducedinterest among women to attend FFS.

To enable sharing of responsibilities andbring about a gender balance, a familyapproach, which required participationof both male and female members of afamily, was adopted. The familyapproach not only resulted in higherattendance of farmers (85 – 90%, asseen in the case of C.R. Palayam villageof Trichy where FFS in cotton wasfacilitated), but also rapid spread oftechnologies. The female membersdiscussed issues in their women selfhelp groups while male membersformed a farmers club, which was alsoactively involved in spreading thetechnologies.

In certain cases, children attending theFFS have also been influencing theirparents in deciding pest managementoptions. As part of FFS, drawingcompetition involving children inmanaging Red Hairy Caterpillar (RHC)

in groundnut evoked appreciableresponse from the farmers ofUdayalipatti village in Pudukkottaidistrict.

3. Bringing together variousstakeholders

It was found that adoption rates oftechnological options tried out in FFSwas very low even among farmers whoattended FFS. This was mainly due tonon-availability of quality inputs at therequired time and lack of support duringthe post harvest stage.

It was on these lines that widening thestakeholder base from just technicalinstitutions such as Department ofAgriculture, CIPMC etc to others suchas input suppliers, financial institutionsand marketing agents was taken up byAME. Collective input purchaseenabled almost 90% of farmers trainedunder FFS, to experiment with thetechnological options learnt throughFFS. A farmer group in Thirumanthuraivillage of Perambalur district alsoundertook collective marketing ofcotton harvest which resulted in anincreased amount of Rs 100 per quintal.This has encouraged other farmers whowere not a part of FFS also to join theFFS farmers groups in adopting thetechnologies.

Forward and backward linkages play amajor role in technology adoption andfarmer participation in FFS.Participation of all the stakeholders isessential for enabling farmers inleveraging the support for adoption oftechnologies in a sustained manner.Towards this end, the farmer groups inPudukottai and Perambalur were linkedto National Bank for Agriculture andRural Development (NABARD), bywhich it could access financialassistance for training programmes andinput purchases (Case 1).

4. Promoting off-season activities

In rainfed areas, there is a need &demand for creating local employmentto generate income for small farmers inoff seasons, extending upto 9 months inan year. This situation opens up optionsfor starting agri-based enterprises (likeseeds production, value addition,collective marketing) among the FFStrained groups. These have theadvantage over others types ofenterprises, in terms of easy rawmaterial availability, little investment onskill building and in easy marketing formeeting local needs.

For example, a farmer inPanikondanpatti village of Pudukottai

Case 1: Farmer’s club of Thirumanthurai Village,Perambalur District

Kharif 2002 was an important year in the lives of around 20 farmers of Thirumanthuraivillage. Despite the drought situations, they took up low external input cottoncultivation, in the FFS facilitated by RDS and AME Foundation. One of the FFSparticipants recorded a net return of Rs 10000.00 per acre, which was a completeturn around for him, while he incurred heavy losses owing to investing and usingfertilisers and pesticides in 2001.

The process also included sharing of results through inter farm visits, meetings etc,which strengthened cohesion among farmers. As a result, they got organised into afarmers club. This was later recognized by National bank for Agriculture and Ruraldevelopment (NABARD) under its VVV (Vikas Volunteer Vahini) Clubs scheme,which will support the maintenance cost of the club. This club was instrumental incollective marketing of 20 q of Cotton, resulting in an extra income of Rs 100.00 perquintal.

This is an example of institutionalisation beyond the FFS.


district was trained in paddy, cotton andgroundnut. As part of PTD, groundnutvarietal testing was taken up and CO 3variety was identified to be a goodperformer. The demand for qualityseeds prompted a farmer to go in forbreeder seed production of this variety,which had an assured buyback beyondhis requirements. This proved to be anincome generating activity, which hasnow attracted many farmers.

Another alternative, which is underconsideration by women SHGs, is thatof value addition and collective sale ofpigeon pea (which is mainly grown asan intercrop in Groundnut basedfarming systems), which can earnhigher net returns for farmers. On theproduction side, an assured marketdemand will increase the area underpigeon pea. This will also create impactat the household nutritional security andhealth aspects. These enterprises willcreate visible changes in the livelihoodlevels of the farmers.

5. Improving documentation andsharing

Data collection and documentation arenecessary components of FFS forfacilitating sharing of experiences in amore systematic manner. Analyticalinformation and inferences from FFSdata will support the monitoring andevaluation processes. The formats andlogistic arrangements should be in placebefore initiating the process.Arrangements for documenting thefollow up exercises and the independentspread are vital, to realistically arrive atimpact created, during various stages.

AME has been facilitating national levelinteractive workshops to share on farmresults. Farmers from FFS groups havebeen able to share their experienceswith adequate confidence in such multistakeholder group based on datacollected during the season. One suchexample is it was suggested by thecotton round table to increase intercropsto the extent of 20% based on previousdata derived from FFS conducted incotton during Kharif 2001. Recognitionto farmers in such a platform alsoencourages them to serve as betterextension agents enabling wider spread.

Major Outcomes

FFS in various crops have built up thecapacities of farmer groups and NGOstaff in managing crop ecosystems, tomake them better decision makers inpromoting sustainable use of resourcesat the cropping, farming and watershedsystems levels. It has helped farmers

change their attitudes considerably fromthe “all insects are pests” mindset andresorting to indiscriminate pesticidesprays. Post FFS scenario has provedthat pesticide-free crop can be possibleeven in crops like Cotton, Paddy andVegetables (like Brinjal),

Improvement in farm income and soilquality following the use of intercropsas a pest management option wasanother outcome. In Groundnut, trapcrops (Cowpea, Castor, Pigeon pea,Sunflower) and other crops such asSorghum / Bajra/ Blackgram performedmultiple roles of income generation,insurance crop, soil nourishment etc.

FFS has effectively combined theindigenous knowledge with scientifictechnologies resulting in innovations(Case 2).

The farmers who learnt the managementoptions in certain specific crops startedapplying it to other crops. For instance,the FFS farmers in P.K. Agaram villageof Trichy district who were trained incotton began applying the availabletechnologies to other crops such asonion and groundnut and got goodresults.

FFS had visible impact on women inagriculture. The capacity buildingprocess enabled them in getting duerecognition in the family while takingdecisions on crop management. Thedrudgery involved in lifting water forspraying pesticides was reduceddrastically as alternative control optionswere understood. Intercroppingremained largely the domain of womenas they had the control on the incomerealized from it while it also influencedthe nutritional security of thehousehold.

The ultimate outcome of FFS was adecrease in cost of cultivation leading tohigher net incomes. New avenues likecollective marketing that opened up in

Case 2: Innovations in snail management

For farmers of Kunnam village snails are a menace. Snails cut the young plantsand eat the fruiting bodies. Spraying several rounds of pesticides usuallycontrolled it. As, it was not effective in the long run, the farmers resorted tohand picking, which was a tedious process.

During the Cotton FFS, farmers innovated that Cowpea, as an intercrop wasuseful to trap snails. It was noticed by the farmers that snails preferred cowpeathan any other crop and hence were attracted to cowpea, where they were simplypicked and destroyed.

One more innovation was that, snails got attracted to earthern pots, and potswith Neem seed kernels inside were found to be effective in mass trapping ofsnails.

cotton helped in increasing further thenet incomes.

ConclusionFFS approach is considered the mostsuccessful among various agriculturalextension methods. However, theadoption of the technologiesdisseminated through FFS largelydepends on the initiative and interestshown by the individual farmers. To beable to sustain and spread on its own,the processes need to beinstitutionalised within the group. Tillthat time, regular follow-up for the FFStrained groups is necessary. If facilitatedin a meaningful way, the FFS approachwill enable improving livelihoods offarmers in a relatively short time.

Acknowledgements

AME Foundation acknowledges theNGO partners, stakeholders,participating farmer groups and SHGs,the contribution of whom was vital inconsolidating these learnings. Much ofthe data used are from the AME projectPhase IV. We thank ETC India (whichimplemented the AME programme) forits support.

Authors

AME Foundation (Trichy Area Unit)

Plot No 37, Door No. 661, EVR Salai,

KK Nagar, Trichy, Tamilnadu,

India – 620 021

Email: [email protected]


Community forestmanagement and FFS

Hukum Singh

Women farmers learning how to measure tress

Pho

to :

Huk

um S

ingh

Sharada Devi forest has beenprotected and used by localcommunities under community

forestry arrangements since the 1980s.Here, as in many other parts of Nepal,the rights and responsibilities for forestresource management have beensuccessfully transferred to the localForest User Group (FUG).

However, although the condition ofboth forest and water resources havevisibly improved under thesearrangements, the flow of productsfrom the community forest is far belowits capacity for sustainable production.Community forestry has succeeded inprotecting the forest, but has failed toprovide the expected benefits to users.The main reasons for this are atendency to over protect communityforests, and a lack of forestmanagement support to the FUGs.Recent initiatives to set up FarmersForest Management Schools (FFMSs)have attempted to address these issues.

What are Farmers ForestManagement Schools?Farmers Forest Management Schools(FFMS) are fora for group learning.The FFMS aim to add value tocommunity forestry practices bydeveloping ways of managing the forestto ensure that it yields substantialbenefits to its users. FFMSs bringfarmer users and forest managementpractitioners together to explore waysof combining the principals of formalforestry science and technical forest

management with local communityexperience and knowledge. Together,they are able to develop methodologiesfor active management of communityforest areas. Through training and jointaction, the formal science of thefacilitator and the knowledge of localfarmers interface to become a new bodyof knowledge. With these insights,FFMS can facilitate a process ofnegotiation that can result in new plansand principals for forest management(see table p. 14).

Sharada Devi Forest User GroupThe case of the Sharada Devi ForestUser Group illustrates one set ofexperiences in integrating FFMS intocommunity forest practices. TheSharada Devi FUG is located in themiddle hill district of KabhrePalanchok, about 25 km east ofKathmandu, at an elevation of 1500m.The FUG had been registered with theDistrict Forest Office since 1993 andhas been granted authority to managethe forest. Prior to this, communityforestry practice was based ontraditional institutional arrangements.

The Sharada Devi community forestcovers about 44 hectares. It lies abovethe village and consists mainly ofSchima castanopsis (Katus-Chilaune)forest. The principal tree species areSchima wallichii (Chilaune),Castanopsis tribuloides (Musure Katus)and Myrica esculenta (Kafal). Theforest is mostly at a young stage withvigorously growing saplings. However,in terms of stocking levels and volumeof timber, it is in a moderate to poorcondition.

Most of the 152 households affiliated tothe Sharada Devi FUG are farmhouseholds but some farmers also haveoff-farm employment and businesses.Most households depend directly ondrinking water sources found in theforest area. Local people have observedthat both the forest and the watersources have improved since they wereformally handed over to the community.

The FUG in Sharada Devi isrepresented by an elected executivecommittee consisting of 13 members,including two women. Negotiations andcompromise among village-levelpolitical parties has resulted in all majorpolitical parties being represented onthe committee. The only group withoutrepresentation are the lowest caste, theDalits.

Piloting FFMS in Sharada Devi

The idea of using the FFMS approachoriginated during a national leveltraining workshop for forest rangers andproject staff organised by the RegionalCommunity Forestry Training Centre(RECOFTC).

Good training is an important aspect ofFFMS, and therefore capacity-buildingfor facilitators and selected users fromthe FUGs was the first step. A trainingworkshop was organised for 16 men andwomen from the FUG who wereinterested in taking part. Facilitationtraining for the FFMS was carried outthrough a process of questioning,brainstorming and field practice, andincluded the development of actionplans.

Consultations then took place with theFUG committee, and an informal FFMSgroup was established.

With help from the Nepal-AustraliaCommunity Resource Management


Project (NACRMP) and RECOFTC, theFFMS began to experiment withdifferent silviculture options. Three trialplots were established and the way theforest regenerated under variousthinning intensities was observed andanalysed. The trials had three specificobjectives. First, to establish anappropriate cutting regime anddetermine how frequently, when andwith what intensity Schima-Castanopsisforest should be harvested in order tomaximise fuel wood production.Second, to demonstrate the effects ofdifferent forestry management practicesto FUG households and third, tointroduce FUG members to innovativeforest management practices.

As data became available, project staffhelped those involved in the experimentto record their results in a register (seebox). Although this way of recordingdata and assessing results was foreign tomost households in the FUG, they werealso able to observe directly the effectsof different treatments on theexperimental plots.

Positive impactThe men and women taking part in theFFMS reported that the most successfulpart of the programme had been thecollection of data on forest growth.Working closely together, they observedthe rate of growth of different species oftrees, analysed the data and verballypresented the results of what they hadlearned to the members of the FUGCommittee. The group assemblies wereused to inform other members of theFUG how experiments wereprogressing.

During the trials, many non-FFMSmembers passed by the experimentalplots to see what was going on. Some ofthose who had initially criticised FFMSparticipants for destroying the forest inthe name of their experiments latermade it clear they valued the results,and suggested that other trial plotsshould be established to investigateother aspects of forest management.During the trials, the FFMS participantscarried out most of the activities.Project staff provided support during theapplication of different treatments, andwhen measurements and data analysiswere being carried out.

The results of the Sharada Devi FUGFFMS trials provided the group with

information relevant to the developmentof appropriate community forestmanagement practices for their region.

However, despite farmer enthusiasm forthe trials, there are very real challengeswhen it comes to translating the resultsinto practice. Although RECOFTC andsome of its collaborators have clearobjectives as far as FFMS areconcerned, the continuation of theFFMS process is far from certain onceproject staff have withdrawn theirsupport. Although the Sharada DeviFUG trial plots indicated ways in whichthe availability of fuel wood could bemaximised, these insights have yet to beincorporated into the formally approvedforest management operational plan forthe FUG.

ChallengesThe value and innovative aspects of theFFMS have been acknowledged, and tosome extent absorbed by some of theparticipants and service providers inexperiments such as those conducted inSharada Devi. In practice, however, thefull potential of the approach has yet tomaterialise. Following are some of thechallenges that can be identified fromthe experiences of the Sharada DeviFUG in implementing FFMS.

First, the on-site training was conductedby outsiders and little attention wasgiven to strengthening the FUG itself.Project staff from RECOFTC wererequired to train under-paid andoverburdened middle-level managers inthe skills they needed to facilitate theFFMS process. However, creating newknowledge and developing goodfacilitation skills does not necessarily

Some findings of the FFMS trials in theSharada Devi Forest• Farmers observed that tree growth in the

coppice system (vegetativere-growth from tree stumps) was manytimes better than in control (protectiononly) systems.

• Kali Mayal had the fastest growth rate,followed by Musure Katus, Chilaune,Kafal and Phalaat.

• Musure Katus had the highest vigour interms of capacity to produce themaximum number of shoots.

• Musure Katus grew better in a coppiceunder a standard system than in acoppice with clear felling. Chilauneperformed well in a coppice where therewas a clear felling system. Phalaatperformed equally in both systems.

• The shorter the stump height, the betterthe health and growth of coppice shoots.

• The appropriate girth size (orcircumference) of the stump wasbetween 25 cm and 50 cm for all species.

Potential added value of the FFMS to Community Forestry (CF)

Elements Current practice of CF Possible added value to CF

Regime type Protection only Sustainable production

Management Objective Subsistence – fulfilment of basic needs Considers both subsistence and commercialproduction of forest products

Management mode Passive management, focusing on Active management, focusing on timber andselection felling of dead, diseased non-timber forest productsand dying trees

Source of knowledge and technology Based on farmers experience and Both local knowledge and formal forestrylocal knowledge knowledge

Emphasis on communication Among community members only Between community members andoutsiders

Model of Technology Transfer Training, publications, extension Demonstration, observation, memory,materials verbal

Main role of facilitator Capacity building of local institutions Capacity building of local institutions, andalso facilitators’ own capacity buildingworking together with communities

Who is involved? Committee & local elites Committee, user groups, facilitators &community

Who generates the technical Outsider facilitators, forest technicians Facilitators and users togetherinformation? and professionals

Who implements the programme? Facilitators train the users, and users Both facilitators and users learn togetherimplement programme and users implement the programme

Who monitors the programme? Service providers Both users and service providers


mean that these managers will providethe sort of support a community needsto manage its forest resources in asustainable way. In addition, not allfacilitators will be equally effective, andsome will be more committed to settingup FFMS sites than others. This meansthat the process of developing amethodology for forest managementusing the FFMS approach must takeinto account the need to strengthen thecapacity of local institutions such as theFUGs, and the need to ensure thatappropriate institutional changes takeplace at government level.

Second, a broader uptake of the FFMSapproach has been hindered by a lack ofinformation. Currently, information andpublications on the FFMS trainingapproach, methods and process islimited and only accessible to very fewpeople, even at the level of serviceproviders such as the District ForestryOffice. In addition, most of theliterature on FFMS is published inEnglish. Access to this type ofinformation is therefore limited to thosein donor-funded organisations who canread and write English. Equallyimportant, no materials have beendeveloped so far for illiteratecommunity members.

Third, very little attention has beengiven to organised training,demonstrations and exposure visits onFFMS for community members. Inthose FUGs where FFMS are beinginitiated, very few people are actuallyinvolved in planning, designing andimplementing FFMS. Those who areinvolved are usually committeemembers or persons selected by thecommittee. The majority of FUGmembers do not know how selectionsare made, what an FFMS is or what it isdesigned to do.

Finally, social issues including theexclusion of the Dalits and women fromFUGs and FFMSs needs to beadequately addressed. The issue ofsocial exclusion has been raised bymany different developmentorganisations, and is discussed duringfacilitator training. In practice, however,Dalits and women are still excluded inmany cases. This implies that they areexcluded from planning how forestproducts should be extracted, settingprices, and deciding when to harvestand how the harvest should bedistributed. In defence of the FFMS, ithas been argued that the FFMS in Nepalis still a pilot programme, and thatmarginal groups can be included laterwhen the programme is betterestablished.

OpportunitiesDespite the challenges mentionedabove, the experiences of the SharadaDevi FFMS also show that FFMS havehad a positive impact, and that there areopportunities for developing theapproach further.

The need for a production-orientedregime is now widely accepted amongprofessionals and community members,and there is a consensus that the currentfocus on forest protection should bechanged to one of active management.Some FUGs have begun to manage theirforests in order to optimise theirproductive capacity. Visits by FUGs andprofessionals to FFMS sites haveresulted in FFMS being facilitated in anincreasing number of areas. Lessonscontinue to be learned from those siteswhere FFMS are more established.

There is considerable donor support forcommunity forestry projects in almostevery district in the hills and also insome districts in the Terai region. This

means there are human and financialresources available to carry out forestmanagement activities so that thecondition of the forest resources, andthe people who depend on them, can beimproved. More than 11000 FUGs havebeen established throughout Nepal, andmany of them are functioning well andare willing to adapt to active forestmanagement. There is also an enablingpolicy environment. Communityforestry legislation is in place and FUGshave their own operational plan thatallows them to carry out harvestingoperations and to market forest productsthemselves.

ConclusionExperience has shown that during theprocess of developing the concept ofFFMS, a number of basic challengesmust be faced. Facilitators must haveenough institutional and organisationalsupport to enable them to workconsistently and effectively. Also,fundamental issues such as appropriatefollow-up training, and making forestryofficials in general more aware of thepotential of FFMS, must be dealt with,as well as constraints of time andfinance that can inhibit facilitatoreffectiveness. On another level, thepolicy and legislative environment andcurrent practices

– including procedures for drawing upand ensuring compliance withoperational plans for timber production– must all be taken into account whennew approaches are being negotiated.

Today, in addition to the District ForestOffices, there are many service-providing organisations, includingbilateral projects, NGOs, localorganisations and the FUG federation,who are willing to support thecommunity forestry programme.Synergies between their competencies,roles and responsibilities can be utilisedto convert the current protection-oriented regime of the communityforests into a sustainable productionregime. FFMSs have a role to play inthis process, as the Sharada Deviexperience has shown.

�

Hukum B. SinghNACRMP/NORMS, PO Box 208,Kathmandu, Nepal.

Email: [email protected]

A full version of this paper is availableat www.eseap.cipotato.org/upward.

A Forest User Group harvesting their forest.

Pho

to :

Huk

um S

ingh


Evaluation in FFS:a burden or a blessing?

Kim Groenweg and Jorge Chavez Tafur

Looking at the many training andextension programmes currentlytaking place in the rural areas of

Peru, there is not one that does notinclude the word “evaluation” as one ofits activities. On paper, all projects andprogrammes evaluate many of theiractivities and resources. In practice,however, the picture is not so clear orstraightforward: evaluations areperceived as being very difficult andcomplex. So much so, that often theysimply do not take place.

A short field survey, carried out as partof the FFS process initiated with anFAO IPM-FFS Project in Peru, showedmany of the limitations all FFS actorsface around the processes of monitoringand evaluations. The following fivemost significant limitations anddifficulties could be identified:• Lack of time and resources of FFS

facilitators• Lack of ownership giving

facilitators limited possibility tocontrol and influence the process.

• Little experience and capacity formonitoring and evaluation, and thisexperience is limited to the use ofquantitative indicators.

• Little diffusion or use of what isfound - evaluation results areseldom published and reports are notdistributed.

• Negative perception of evaluationsby field workers who often see themas “control-tools” applied by thosein charge.

Trying out PM&EIn this context, the FAO project tried toidentify whether and how monitoringand evaluation could become beneficialto FFS trainers and their organizations.It did so by trying out differentParticipatory Monitoring & Evaluation(PM&E) processes, hoping to throw offthe image of evaluation as a burden.PM&E was seen not as a structured set

of steps andactivities, butrather as amultifunctionaltoolbox containingguidelines,methods and toolsto facilitateparticipatoryassessments,interactions andunderstandingbetween the actorsinvolved. In short,the processimplementedshowed that

PM&E is useful to: strengtheninstitutional involvement; learn andimprove performance and link differentactors.

Strengthening institutionalinvolvement

The FAO IPM FFS project offered theFFS methodology for potato and cottoncultivation to several institutions, as analternative to their usual agriculturalextension and training activities.However, after a complete trainingprocess and implementation phase,many of the decision makers were stillnot convinced about the effectiveness ofthe FFS methodology. Many of the“bosses” had very little notion of theirfield workers’ new activity. Theachievements of facilitators in their FFSwere rarely discussed in staff meetings,neither were they included in theinstitutions’ reports or analyses.Consequently, facilitators received verylittle assistance from their own institutions.

In order to strengthen the involvementof the whole institution in FFSactivities, the project’s Board ofDirectors was asked to evaluate the FFSmethodology and to give their opinionon the project’s achievements. Anevaluation plan was designed jointlywith all representatives, requiring theirdirect involvement in the process. Themembers of the Board identified theirown indicators based on what theyconsidered a “good” project shouldcontain. Later, in a full day visit to thefield, these Directors implemented theirplans, “evaluating” according to theirindicators. Returning from the field,they all sat together to analyse andpresent their results, trying to come tocollective conclusions. Their visions,opinions and conclusions werepresented the next day to a group ofFFS facilitators. This provided anopportunity to exchange perceptionsand experiences; to jointly reflect uponthe strengths and limitations of themethodology; and to develop a commonunderstanding between decision makersand FFS facilitators.

This brief experience demonstrated thatevaluation can be an effective way ofprovoking interest and involvement,even in those situations whereknowledge and interest are initiallymodest. It showed that actors feelappreciated when their help and opinionis asked for, and moreover, it providedvaluable information on the institutions’perceptions, interest and values. Afterhaving evaluated the FFS methodology,

the members of the Board whoparticipated in the evaluation showedmuch more interest in and appreciationof the methodology. At the same time,the project workers gained a muchbetter idea of the Board’s point of view.

Improving immediateperformanceTwo main evaluation activities arecommon to all FFS training processes.The most significant is Agro-EcosystemAnalysis (AESA). This is based on aseries of field and crop observationscarried out during the whole croppingseason. Farmers are trained in variousAESA tools, which enable them to makeinformed decisions on cropmanagement. A second integratedevaluation approach is the “ballot box”,an exercise involving tests that measurefarmers understanding and abilitiesbefore and after an FFS training season.This is usually based on relevant,practical agro-ecology such as cropgrowth strategies, weeds, insect pests,the damage they cause and their naturalenemies.

In both AESA and the “ballot box”exercise, evaluation is considered anessential element for farmer learning. Itis accepted that field evaluationsimprove farmers capacities. So why notutilize evaluation to improve thecapacities of facilitators and other actorsinvolved in FFS? This was tried in thecontext of the IPM-FFS project, withthe objective to ensure qualitythroughout the whole FFSimplementation. Evaluation wasconsidered part of a process rather thana separate activity. Facilitators wereencouraged to evaluate every FFSsession, to reflect on their ownperformance and carefully prepare eachnew session. In addition, PM&E toolswere elaborated to strengthen theanalyses of IPM, crop production andexperimentation results. This meantfocusing on evaluation not onlyimmediately after harvesting, or at thefinal session of the FFS trainingprocess, but at each stage of the trainingprocess, as a continuous activityincluded in each FFS session.

In a short training session onparticipatory methods, all facilitatorsdesigned PM&E plans for their fieldschools. Each plan identified clearobjectives for evaluation, including whoshould participate and what inputs wererequired. A set of indicators wereselected to be discussed and analysedwith the participants, including forexample yields, costs, quality of productand the presence of pests. Issues ofimmediate relevance were discussed inevery meeting, such as those related tothe facilitator’s performance, the topicsdiscussed, the whole learning processand interest showed by participants.Practical methods and tools were alsoused that could be easily applied infarmer communities such as matrix

A poem presented as part of a finalFFS evaluations

Photo : Kim Groenweg


scoring, role plays, songs, poems, lettersand drawings.

Both farmers and trainers expressedtheir satisfaction at being able toexchange opinions and discuss items ofimportance in a relaxed and entertainingway. The methods enhanced not onlythe interactions between facilitators andfarmers, but also reinforced theinterfaces between farmers themselves.Facilitators emphasised that PM&Eimproved their relationship with farmersand provided them with valuablefeedback. This left them feeling a lotmore secure about their performanceand motivated to improve their FFS. Atthe same time, farmers felt appreciatedand enjoyed this dynamic way ofevaluation.

Linking actorsPM&E tools and methods were alsoused to create platforms for discussionbetween the different actors, both tovalidate the FFS methodology and tostimulate interaction. Various types ofworkshops were organised with theparticipation of representatives of thedifferent institutions, facilitators,farmers, and members of the FAOProject.

In every workshop, members of eachgroup were invited to define the mostimportant aspects to be evaluated. Thisshowed clearly that each actor or groupof actors had different backgrounds,interests, and expectations, which didnot always coincide with the FFSprinciples. A thorough analysis wasneeded to gain an understanding ofthese different backgrounds andobjectives, and to determine the type ofbenefit that the FFS methodology couldprovide to the specific actor. It wasnoted that with indicators of their ownchoosing, each actor found it easier toanalyse both the process and the resultsachieved through the FFS. Farmersappreciated the opportunity to expresstheir opinions, analyse the achievementsand limitations of the methodology andidentify future plans. These workshopsmade both the project and actors awareof the different perspectives of thoseinvolved, opening a door for increasedco-operation and common work.

LimitationsVarious constraints and limitations werealso identified in the use of PM&E.First of all, the methodology isrelatively unknown, and it usuallyrequires those involved to change someof their attitudes. Undoubtedly, this alsomeans changes in the institutionalpolicies and M&E methods and toolscurrently applied, something that is notlikely to happen overnight. It should bementioned, however, that within theexisting systems there are manypossibilities for this approach, as moreand more development organisationsand fieldworkers share a positive viewand express a need for participatorymethodologies.

A recurring problem is that fewfacilitators have the necessary skills.Therefore, intensive training isrecommended in rapid and practicalmethods and tools for PM&E.Assistance is also required for strategicplanning to develop location- and actor-specific PM&E mechanisms.Considering FFS practitioners lack oftime and resources, development ofeasy, fast, dynamic, time and cost-effective PM&E methods is necessary.

ConclusionsThe activities implemented showed thatPM&E enhances involvement byinviting key actors to evaluate activities,leading to an increased sense ofownership. PM&E activities strengthenparticipation, raise awareness of thecurrent situation, and enhance thewillingness to continue participating.They encourage dialogue and motivateactors to look closely at the situationand develop an opinion. Interaction andunderstanding between the differentactors is stimulated through the creationof platforms for dialogue.

As with other kinds of evaluation, timeand resources are limited. There is still,therefore, a need for simple and fastmethods, and specific trainingprogrammes are required. PM&Erequires clear and well-definedobjectives to avoid unnecessary and

ineffective work, which, notsurprisingly, is perceived as a heavyburden. Efforts should be made toinclude evaluations as an integral part ofFFS implementation, rather than aseparate activity.

PM&E encourages learning, as itgenerates feedback and self-reflection.It motivates FFS facilitators and farmersto improve their activities and skillsbecause they themselves identify whatis achieved. They become aware of theirown strengths and weaknesses, and ofthe results of their actions. Hence,PM&E enhances peoples self-esteem,confidence and motivation to improvetheir activities undertaken. In contrast toconventional evaluations, PM&E hasthe power to empower.

�

Kim GroenewegFAO IPM-FFS Project, Lima, Peru. Email:[email protected] Chavez-TafurETC-Andes, Lima, Peru. Email:[email protected]

A full version of this paper is available atwww.eseap.cipotato.org/upward.

References:Guijt, I. 1998. Participatory Monitoringand Impact Assessment of SustainableAgriculture Initiatives: An Introduction tothe Key Elements. Sustainable Agricultureand Rural Livelihoods Programme.Programme Discussion Paper Number 1.London: IIED, 1998.

Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation in the FFS cycle

Community and participant selection� Baseline study (needs and problem analysis using PRA tools)

Mapping of farmers practices provides material for final evaluation� Introduction of the FFS methodology to the community� Selection and inscription of participants

Preparations� Elaboration of curriculum, official FFS agreement and time-schedule� Training norms, group forming and identification of role of host team

Getting started� Pre-ballot box test

Evaluation of participants knowledge, to adapt training and monitor advances• Analysis and design of FFS• Analysis of soil health and fertility and selection of seed• Field preparation� Introduction of record keeping for all expenses

Tool for analysis of field production results (cost-benefit analysis)

Implementation of FFS training sessions• Opening• Review and evaluation of agreements� Agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA)

Decisions on pest management made based on field evaluations• Special topic• Group dynamics and energizers• Agreements and compromises� Evaluation of session

Decisions on content and process are based on evaluations with allparticipants and trainers at the end of every FFS session

Harvest and analysis of field results• Analysis of production and ICM� Evaluation of FFS process and activities

Participants develop indicators for analysis of field results, the process andactivities,using PRA tools & baseline study data

� Post-ballot box testFinal test to assess participants’ advances which can provide a basis for planningfollow-up activities

• Planning of future activities• Closing ceremony


Over the years, manyparticipatory approaches havebeen used by the staff of IPM

projects in Indonesia to examine theresults of IPM activities. The mostrecent, a photo study in the Ciamisdistrict of West Java, was carried out byFarmer Study Groups to learn about theimpact of Community IPM on povertyin farming communities.

A total of three villages were selectedfor the study, one in each of threedifferent sub-districts, Padaherang,Lakbok, and Cikoneng. By 1999, thefinal year of the national IPM farmertraining project, there existed in allthree sub-districts:

• Government trainers who hadconducted FFS;

• Farmer IPM trainers who hadconducted farmer-to-farmer FFS;

• Groups of FFS alumni conductingfield studies;

Picturing Impact!John Pontius

• IPM trainers who had facilitatedtechnical and planning meetings foralumni at the sub-district level.

Farmer Field Schools for Integrated PestManagement (IPM) began in the Ciamisdistrict in the early 1990’s, but therehave been no nationally funded IPMactivities in Ciamis since 1999.However, numerous activities have beenfunded or supported by the districtgovernments, by FAO’s CommunityIPM programme, and by the NationalIPM Farmers Association. Two fieldworkers from Ciamis DistrictAgriculture Services, who were part ofthe national IPM farmer trainingproject, have been coordinating thesupport from these organisations andproviding technical support to theactivities of FFS “alumni” (graduates ofthe field schools) in the area.

Farmer Study Groups were formed overthe last two years as action research

groups for FFS alumni. The FSG havebecome the organisational foundationfor FFS alumni in the villages, as theywork to establish farmer-led communityIPM programmes. The members of theFSG have been conducting various fieldstudies in vegetable and rice productionsystems. One of the primary concerns ofthe groups is soil ecology. As aconsequence, the groups have workedon issues related to composting andorganic soil amendments. The threeFSGs have also been assessing theeffectiveness of SRI (System of RiceIntensification). The groups have beentrying to increase the numbers offarmers applying IPM approaches intheir villages. Although there aresimilarities among the three FSGs, theiractivities have varied due to thediffering social and ecologicalconditions. These groups and theirmembers are the driving force forCommunity IPM in their villages.

MethodsParticipatory evaluation should set outto capture the perspectives, voices,preferences and decisions of the leastpowerful stakeholders related to a givenproject. In the case of Community IPM,this means farmers. Photographs can be

CINTA ALAM FARMER STUDY GROUPSidaharja Village, Lakbok Sub-district

Marsim and Samini are members of the evaluation team

This is rice straw. Before we had IPM, this straw wasburned. Now the straw is being composted or turnedunder. Also we have learned that using a cangkul for fieldpreparation is better for the soil than using a tractor. Andonce the land is prepared we spread ash. These thingshelp the fertility of our soil. Marsim

This is the yard of my neighbour, a non-alumnus. You can see eggplant, chillies,and cassava. My neighbour used to letthis land go to waste. Now, having seenwhat alumni are doing with organicfertiliser and their back yards, myneighbour is copying them and plantingempty ground with vegetables and usingorganic fertiliser. Now my neighbour hasa “living store” that helps with dailyneeds and provides some income. Marsim

This photo shows the study plots of ourFarmer Study Group, Cinta Alam. We haveplanted vegetables and are using organicfertiliser. The plots help to provide anexample for other folks and we learn aboutgrowing vegetables and using organicfertilisers. The idea is to help us increaseour incomes. Our meeting place is in thebackground. Marsim

FSG Cinta Alamorganised advocacyled to the repair ofthis irrigation ditchin our village. Thisditch was brokenand caused ourhomes to flood.Alumni have helpedthe whole village bytheir advocacy tolocal government to get support to repair this ditch that provides waterto over 25 hectares of rice fields. To do the job, 6 million rupee wasneeded. We collected US$ 2 million from farmers. Negotiations led byBapak Sukendar, a Farmer IPM Trainer, between alumni and the PublicWorks Department led to their contributing the other 4 million. Thehouses next to these ditches use to be continually flooded. The fieldsdidn’t get enough water. Now, with the repairs, the fields will get waterand the housesstay dry. Samini


used to help the individual, group orcommunity reflect on itself (Freire1989).

For the study, five members from theFSG in each of the three villages wereselected to become members of theevaluation team. They were mostly thenewer members of the FSGs, and theirtask was to conduct the evaluation studyin each of their villages. In brief, theteams were asked to take photographsthat showed the impact of IPM onpoverty in their villages. Each teammember wrote short explanations for thephotographs that he or she made.

The study took place in three stages.The first stage was a four-day workshopwith three objectives: establishing aperceptual focus for the study amongteam members; reviewing IPM activitiesin the villages and what membersperceived as the results; andfamiliarising the evaluation teammembers with the cameras that theywere to use.

During the second stage of the study,team members returned to their villages.Each participant carried a roll of filmand a battery for the camera. There was

one camera per village and it rotatedamong the five evaluation teammembers in each village. Each personhad the camera for a day and each couldtake as many pictures as they wanted upto the capacity of the role of film thatthey carried (36 photos).

The third stage of the study was afollow-up workshop. During thisworkshop, team members:

• wrote an accompanying textdescribing the photographs and made“IPM impact albums”;

• analysed their results and made teampresentations on the impact of IPMactivities on poverty in each village;

• discussed and presented theirconclusions about what they learnedduring the study;

• developed action plans for theirFSGs;

• evaluated the study process that theyhad experienced over the last severalweeks.

Below are a few of the photographs andaccompanying explanations made bythe evaluation team. In a very real

sense, each of these photographsportrays the impact of IPM activities.

Analysis and Conclusions

During the follow-up workshop, eachvillage evaluation team was asked topresent an analysis of the impact of IPM on poverty in their village basedon the data that they collected duringthe study. Discussion followed thepresentations and the teams went on tonote that in general, community IPMactivities had led to greater creativity,independence, lowered costs andimproved incomes.

The following quotes are furtherexamples of their analysis.

IPM activities have increasedcreativity among farmers.

The teams cited examples including thefollowing:

• “Trichoderma, which is anantagonist of fusarium, can be usedeffectively in chillies. Because wewant to apply IPM and avoid usingpesticides we are forced to becreative to find alternativeapproaches to pest control.”

Growing pesticide-free rice and vegetables with organic fertilisersallows alumni to make ponds in their fields that can be used toproduce fish. This provides additional income. Samini

TURANGGA FARMER STUDY GROUPMangunjaya Village, Padaherang Sub-district

Mafahir, Nasiman, Lin Suryanih and Sakiman Holil aremembers of the evaluation team

This is Bapak Zakaria and hiswife. He is an IPM FarmerTrainer and has become thehead of his hamlet. He hasbeen a part of Turangga’sactivities and he is now usingground that was once empty togrow chillies. He uses compostto help improve his soil.Iin Suryanih

This is the kitchen in BapakParijan’s house. He usesthe ashes from the cookingstove to enrich his soil. Helearned in his FFS thatwood ashes could be usedto create better soil,increase soil fertility, andfight pest and disease in hisplants. Nasiman

A creative farmer makes use of his land by planting mungbeans after rice. This yields beans and green fertiliser ismade from the leaves of the mung bean plant. These farmersare drying mung beans. Mafahir


• “The FFS opened my eyes. Becausemy family was able to analyse itsdaily needs and could determine howto try to fulfil those needs by, amongother things, using our yard for avegetable garden, we have been ableto improve ourselves. I learned aboutthese things in my FFS.”

• “Making use of used plastic bags andplastic ware as pots for plantingvegetables”

• The use of inter-cropping andorganic fertiliser.

• The use of open land and yards forvegetables and fish ponds.

• “Producing and using “bio-lahang”lowers our dependence oncommercially produceddecomposers.”

• “Before IPM, all farmers wereplanting certified seeds which wereunsatisfactory, now we produce ourown seeds which have better rates ofgermination and higher yields.”

• “The application of rice-fishpractices.”

This creativity has led to eitherdecreased costs or increased incomes,

while decreasing dependence onothers for inputs and meeting dailyneeds. Included in the examplespresented by the team as evidence ofthis are:

• “IPM and not using pesticideincreases our confidence in usingrice-fish culture. The fish will beable to survive. This increases ourincome.”

• “Our studies of SRI in which IPMand soil ecology principles areapplied show increased yield rates.”

• “Using cow urine to control oteng-oteng (a chrysomelidae beetle) incucumbers and mustard greens haslowered production costs.”

• “Composting of cheap and availableorganic materials to produce organicfertiliser is a way to overcome thehigh costs of chemical fertilisers.”

• “Producing and using “bio-lahang”lowers our dependence oncommercially produceddecomposers.”

The benefits from IPM activities arenot limited to only alumni, but areaccessible by all in a village. Examples

of this that were pointed out by the teamincluded:

• “Our irrigation ditches were causingproblems. For six years in a row,every rainy season there would beflooding. Our group organisedactivities to lobby local governmentfor repair of the ditches in 1998-1999. These activities resulted inrepairs being made (work organisedand completed by farmers). Therepairs have lowered flooding andfields that once couldn’t be plantedcan now be planted.”

• “The use of open land and yards forvegetables and fish ponds. This haslowered dependence on others forvegetables and increased incomes.Many who have not attended an FFSnow use these practises. This is justone example of how everyone in avillage has access to IPMknowledge.”

During the first workshop, the teamdeveloped a “Farmer PovertyFramework” of conditions that they feltarise because one is poor. According tothem, poverty leads to:

• Limited opportunities for learningboth for children and adults.

Produce your own seeds!In the bags are seeds thatI have saved. After westudied the problem ofseed quality, it turned outthat farmers can producehigher quality seeds thanwe can buy.IPM farmers are notanxious to buy fromothers. Sakiman Holil Ibu Uli is collecting rice husks. She uses the rice husks to

make compost and she also sells the husks for additional income. IinSuryanih

This photo shows that composted land is easy to prepare and youcan find lots of eels there. The tractor in the picture is workinga field that has been heavily composted over several years. Theboys are catching eels uncovered by the plough.Sakiman Holil

Our decomposer ismade from “lahang”(sugar palm sap), slicesof banana tree trunks,and water. Tirta Bumitested the decomposeragainst a productcalled EMBIO, which isquite expensive.Biolahang is the equalof EMBIO.Yakub Syah

TIRTA BUMI FARMER STUDY GROUP

Budiasih Village, Cikoneng Sub-district

Yakub Syah, Euis Holisoh, Alen Soleh and jarot Indralokaare members of the evaluation team


• Limited access to a balanced diet.

• Limited scope for work.

• Reduced living conditions.

• Decreased self-regard.

• Increased discrimination.

The framework can be used todetermine whether and in what waysCommunity IPM activities have affectedor could affect these conditions. Thedata show that FSGs and communityIPM support a wide variety of activities,from farmer research to advocacy. Thedata also show how these activitiesaffect the conditions identified in the“Farmer Poverty Framework”.

The major conclusion of the evaluationteam was that IPM has helped toalleviate poverty in their villages.Besides this major conclusion, theevaluation team concluded that therewere some definite benefits in doingthis study both for them and potentiallyfor their village:

• “We learned how to use a cameraand this is important because we cancontinue to document the IPMactivities in our village.”

• “We have analysed and summarisedour data and now have a document toshow other people in our villages, aswell as being able to tell them what wediscovered about the impact of IPM.”

• “We have been able to discover whatis being done in the village becauseof IPM and can describe the impactof IPM on poverty in the village.This is important for at least tworeasons. We can evaluate ouractivities and improve them. We canraise the awareness of othersregarding the importance of IPM inthe alleviation of poverty.”

• “We understand the characteristics ofpoverty, its causes, and what arisesbecause of poverty. This will help usto discuss poverty with others andfind ways to alleviate poverty.”

• “We will be better able to provideleadership in the village related topoverty because the study hasmotivated us to follow-up onactivities that have had the greatestimpact on poverty in the village. Thestudy has increased our awareness,confidence and determination.”

�

John PontiusFIELD Alliance. P.O. Box 53, PhnomPenh, Cambodia.Email: [email protected].


References

- Freire, P. 1989. Education for criticalconsciousness. New York: Continuum.

- Bartlett, A. 2000. IPM as an entrypoint for sustainable livelihoods.Available: www.communityipm.org.

- Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C.and Turton, C. 1999. Sustainablelivelihoods in practice: Earlyapplications of concepts in ruralareas. Natural Resources PerspectiveNo. 42, Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, London, 1999. Available http://www.odi.org.uk/nrp/42.html

- Jackson, E.T., and Kassam, Y., (eds)1998. Knowledge shared:Participatory evaluation indevelopment cooperation. WestHartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

I took this photo of a goat shed at the edge of therice field to show how farmers have made it easy tohave manure on hand to compost for their fields.Euis Holisoh

It used to be that farmers were told what to do by theextension worker. Now we have learned for ourselves how todo such things as reproducing trichoderma. It used to be thatonly the agriculture department lab made this.Euis Holisoh

The farmer in this picture is watering his plants with a mixtureof cow urine and water. Cow urine can keep away hama kutuhdaun. Urine replaces pesticide. Aleh Soleh

By not usingpesticides we cancreate a healthyagro-ecosystem.This makes itpossible forfarmers todiversify byraising fish incombination withrice or vegetables.Jarot Indraloka


Self-help groups (SHGs) forwomen living in the Terai ofEastern Uttar Pradesh are moving

beyond the usual SHG goal of helpingwomen improve their socio-economicstatus. These groups are also beingutilised to mobilise their members asagents of change and advocates for notonly gender issues, but also sustainableagriculture. Farmer Field Schools haveplayed an important role in the capacitybuilding aspect of this “greening”process, which has involved bringingtogether many different extension andsupport mechanisms.

Self-Help GroupsThe plains in the Terai region, at thefoothills of Nepal Himalayas, have goodrainfall and fertile alluvial soil. Themajority of farmers can be categorisedas small or marginal, with average landholdings of less than an acre (about 0.4hectare). Agriculture is the main sourceof employment and livelihood in thisregion.

The area has a feudal background with acaste-dominated society. Rural womenof the region have very limited access tocredit, information and extensionservices, in spite of their majorcontribution to agricultural activitiesand their ever-increasing responsibilitiesas their men migrate to the cities. Tohelp empower these women, GorakhpurEnvironmental Action Group (GEAG)initiated the formation of women self-help groups in 30 villages in Gorakhpurdistrict. Self Help Groups wereoriginally started in Bangladesh as aninnovative and “self help” approach tosavings and credit, and have provedeffective in empowering rural women.

The GEAG SHGs have grown fromthree groups in 1996, to a total of 310groups by mid-2002, withapproximately 4500 women members in30 villages. Most SHGs range in sizefrom 10-18 members and 73% of thesegroups belong to the category ofoppressed classes (Dalits) and small-marginal farming families. The groupmembers make a monthly depositranging from Rs. 10 to 20 (roughlyUS$0.20-0.40c). SHGs have theiraccounts in a nearby bank. GEAG has

The greening ofSelf Help Groups

Seema Tripathi and Shiraz Wajih

Prabhavati poses with the low cost composting model she developed

Pho

to :

Ram

esh

Sha

rma

ensured a commitment that these bankswill provide a loan to the SHGs of up to4 times their original deposit.

SHGs in a village federate themselvesto form a “Sangha”. This organisation isentrusted with the responsibility ofnurturing SHGs and making collectiveefforts for the development of village.The self-help groups and the federation,besides facilitating credit flow forconsumption and productive purposes,have played a pivotal role in creating aself-sustained agriculture productionsupport system.

Greening the groupsSHGs have been promoted not only asappropriate institutions to help womenimprove their socio-economic status,but also as a means to mobilise them asagents of change and advocates forgender issues and sustainableagriculture. GEAG has consciouslydeveloped the capacity of these groupsthrough a “greening” process, to equipthem with appropriate, sustainabletechnologies, conceptually as well astechnically. These “greened” SHGshave been working to promote anddisseminate LEISA techniques andpractices, and to establish self-sustained, community-owned extensionsystems. The groups have spearheadedthe ecological agriculture movementand become extension agents of greentechnologies.

So far, approximately Rs.1,200,000(roughly US$24,000) have been lent bythe bank and repayment is almost 100%.The savings and loans obtained are usedfor agricultural production activitiessuch as purchasing seeds, developingvermicompost, buying agriculturalequipment and marketing. This hashelped to ensure the women have directcontrol over these productive resources.

SHG Members adopting LEISApractices

LEISA Practice Number ofSHG Members

Bio-pesticide(cow urine, neem products,tobacco, ash etc) 3100

Composting (pit) 2500

Tree plantation 750

Vermicomposting 432

Liquid compost 528

Nadep compost 238

Seed treatment 940

Seed production 580

The major components of the greeningprocess are as follows:

Farmer Field Schools (FFS)To facilitate sharing of experiences,innovations, ideas and the disseminationof technical know-how on LEISAtechniques, FFSs have beenoperationalised. The FFS have gainedpopularity amongst farmers not onlyfrom the project villages but also fromother neighbouring villages. They arerun by experienced farmers, who haveextensive practical knowledge of thetopics covered. Occasionally, expertsfrom outside are also invited. Onaverage 40 farmers, mostly women,participate regularly in monthly FFSsessions. FFS are managed by theSHGs/Sangha, who also decide on theplace and topics, on the basis of the feltseasonal demand. There is one such FFSfor every five villages in the projectarea.


Agro Service Centres (ASC)In order to ensure the availability ofquality inputs such as seeds,vermicompost, bio-fertilisers, bio-pesticides, and treadle pumps (low-cost,manually driven pumps for irrigation),and to facilitate direct marketing ofthese inputs, Agro Service Centres havebeen established. These ASCs,established in the clusters of 5 villages,are controlled and managed by thewomen’s self-help groups. Soil samplesare also collected in these centres foranalysis in a small laboratoryestablished by GEAG. This laboratorymakes the necessary recommendationson LEISA approaches.

Master Trainers (MT)A number of interested farmers havebecome Master Trainers, after receivingintensive training in facilitationtechniques and communication skills.The Master Trainers are selected by theSHGs/Sangha, according to theirbackground expertise and the specificneeds of the area. As the MasterTrainers live in the villages, they arealways available and also ensureongoing interaction with SHGs.

There are usually two Master Trainersin each village, and they organiseregular training sessions in the villageaccording to the felt demand. TheseMTs are also invited by other NGOs andprojects to contribute their expertise.Tijia Devi, for example, an illiteratewoman farmer from Awadhpur village,was invited as a resource person fortraining sessions organised byCARITAS for its Project Managers inMadhya Pradesh. There are severalother examples where farmer MTs havehelped orient people towards, andconvinced them of the viability ofLEISA techniques using the examplesof their personal field experiences.

Extension System through theSHGsThe three major components of the“greening” process mentioned above areinter-linked and interdependent.However, there are also a number ofother support mechanisms linked to thisLEISA promotion system:

• Laghu Seemant Krishak Morcha(Small-marginal Farmers Forum):Farmers are unionising in this forumto advocate their interests andpromote LEISA, at village, districtand state levels.

• Farmer Interest Groups (FIG) andParticipatory TechnologyDevelopment (PTD): Farmers withspecific needs, problems andinterests (such as landless farmers,

vegetable growers, seed producers,livestock farmers) are beingorganised to facilitate more focusedinterventions and linkages. TheseFarmer’s Interest Groups are formedby members from different SHGswho share a common interest. Non-SHG farmers who share the sameinterest are also welcome. In theSardarnagar area they are involved inseed production and collectivefarming, while in Campierganj mostof the interest groups are involved invegetable growing and livestockrearing. The FIGs are also developedaround common problems such aspest and fertility management, andfinding solutions throughparticipatory technologydevelopment.

• Demonstration farms: Farmershave taken the lead in developingtheir own farms. These are integratedwith households and livestock andfunction as demonstration models ofLEISA farming.

• Experimentation site: GEAG hasprovided land where farmers canexperiment, take risks and innovate.

• Awareness Group: Selected womenfrom different SHGs, as well asinterested men, have come togetherand formed a cultural group topromote LEISA through localculture, for example, through streetplays.

• Soil Health Laboratory: Throughthe SHGs, farmers can get their soilsamples tested in the laboratoryestablished by GEAG and getnecessary advice.

Looking aheadExtension of LEISA practices throughwomen Self-Help Groups has beeneffective and meaningful. It has ensuredthat women have access to information,techniques, institutions and the means toexperiment with new techniques.Women are able to do better within theirrecognised roles through the skillsacquired and the confidence gainedduring this process. At the same time,gender-mainstreaming efforts haveenhanced their position and contributedto their emancipation. They are nowable to unionise and advocate for theirrights in a traditionally male-dominatedsociety. Their enhanced control overresources and increased decision-making capacity, backed by the skillsthey have acquired, have given ameaningful dimension to low-external-input agriculture in the area. Theadoption of LEISA practices hassignificantly reduced the use of high-cost external inputs like chemicalpesticides and fertilisers, therebyincreasing the net gain to small andmarginal farming communities.

�

Seema Tripathi and Shiraz Wajih.Gorakhpur Environmental Action Group,P.O. Box 60, Gorakhpur 273001 India.Email: [email protected]

LSKM

Lab FIG/PTD

Experi-mentationSite

Demo

FarmsAwarenessgroup

The SHG extension system

FFS MT

ASC

SHG/Federation

Participants preparing for a field demonstration at a Farmer Field

Pho

to :

Far

rukh

Kha

n


Since it began in 1989, the majorityof participants and facilitators inthe successful Indonesian IPM

FFS programme have been men. Someefforts have been made from thebeginning of the programme to includewomen, but with limited success. Whilethere are now more women trainers andwomen participants involved in IPMFFS than in the beginning, evaluationsof the IPM Network still indicate thatthe experiences of women in IPM FFSare different of those of men. Many ofthe women engaged in IPM felt “there issomething missing”, something that hasnot been understood or addressed. Theywanted to see a move from “women’sinvolvement” to gender equality.

Going one step furtherAs a result of the ongoing perceptionthat FFSs in Indonesia are still notgender equal, a special programme isnow being introduced into IPMactivities. This programme is firmlyrooted in the participatory approach andaims to make all those involved in IPMFFS aware of what genderdiscrimination is, and why and how itoccurs.

Gender field schools

Mansour Fakih

This requires a supportive policyframework, as well as a commitmentfrom the programme staff to integrategender issues. The National IPMFarmers Association stated its supportand established a policy framework forthe programme in 2001, providing thenecessary framework for the firstNational Gender Workshop.

The first National Gender Workshop,organised by farmers, concentrated ondeveloping a strategy, a plan ofactivities and a curriculum that wouldsupport a wholly participatory approachto mainstreaming gender into IPM FFSactivities. At the same time, farm-leveldiscussions were initiated. Farmersinvolved in IPM FFS agreed to take partin gender training and curriculum-building activities, as well as to collectinformation on gender issues that couldlater be discussed and analysed.

A core team was recruited from amongstwomen facilitators who wereexperienced in FFS and interested ingender issues.

A gender-training curriculum was setup, using the FFS approach, to

introduce and explore the concept ofgender inequality in rural communities.The curriculum focused on the actualincidences of gender injustice andsought to inventorise the social andpolitical factors underlying genderinequality. Strategies for effectivelycollecting information on gender issuesand clarifying what gender inequalitymeans at farm level were discussedextensively, and farmers were given akey role in collecting data and indeveloping family case studies. Farmersenthusiasm for the initiative resulted ina strong process of farmer-initiatedknowledge development and genderanalysis.

Key questions

Farmers and the core team of facilitatorsmet in field-based provincial anddistrict workshops, where theydeveloped tools that could be includedin the first curriculum. During theseworkshops, insights were gained intohow to raise gender consciousness inrural areas and within the IPM network.

Two key questions raised during theseworkshops were: “Why do we want tointroduce gender into IPM?” and “Whatis in it for men?” The answer to the firstquestion revealed the depth andcomplexity of the gender inequality.Women responded in direct andemotional terms. “We are second-classin our own culture” and “We are justfollowers”. They showed they were wellaware of the fact that discrimination

In 1990-91, during the first cycle of the National IPM programme,it became clear that women had more limited access to andopportunity to benefit from IPM training than men. In addition,Indonesian women often feel less competent than and inferior tomen, which can hamper their active involvement in training.

This had serious implications for the IPM programme. Womenmake up 50% of the farm labour force in Indonesia, and in ricegrowing areas such as Central Java, agricultural tasks are sharedequally between men and women. Not only are women involved intransplanting, weeding, routine observation of the crop, supplyingfood to hired labourers, harvesting, threshing and selling theharvest, they also have the important task of managing thehousehold money.

In addition, a significant number of women head farm householdsin Central Java, either because their husbands are migrant labourersor because they are alone. Women with a lower socio-economicstatus are heavily represented in the female-headed householdgroup. In general, they have low levels of education and tend to beoverlooked in development programmes.

The fact that women farmers in Indonesia are often “screened out”of FFSs is a direct result of the inclination of local officials toautomatically select male heads of households for IPM training.They also tend to select men from high and middle - incomegroups. This not only prevents women from participating in IPMFFSs, it also means there is little “trickle over” of knowledgebecause men in these socio-economic groups often do not farmthemselves – they usually hire labour – and they have very littlecontact with women of lower socio-economic status.

Domestic and educational factors also play a role. Women havehousehold tasks that make it difficult for them to consistently

Towards a gender sensitive approach

follow weekly FFSs for an entire session. In some sections ofIndonesian society, women feel less competent than men and thiscan inhibit them in group learning situations. For example, inCentral Java, it was found that when women were selected for FFSsthey participated actively in all activities except those involvinggroup presentations.

Women are not deliberately excluded from IPM training. As oneofficial put it “I just never thought about the issue”. No specificattention had been given to identifying the social conventions andcultural practices that limited women access to agriculturaldevelopment programmes until, in 1989, the National IPMprogramme and the local NEO IPM programme, coordinated byWorld Education, developed a training preparation process thatspecifically addressed the issue. Gender analysis and needsidentification were carried out with farm communities and villageofficials and by 1995, results showed that in all parts of Indonesiawomen’s participation in IPM FFS had increased by an average of15%.

The National IPM programme concluded that women’sinvolvement in

IPM FFS could be enhanced by a training preparation process priorto the FFS, strengthening the role of farmer trainers and extensionofficers, and emphasising women’s leadership development. After2001 and on the bases of these experiences, policy was initiatedthat lead to the development of Gender Field Schools.

Source: Fliert, E, van de and Proost, J. (eds.), 1999. Women and IPM: cropprotection practices and strategies, KIT, Amsterdam, 1999.Email [email protected]


was accepted as normal because womenwere regarded as second-class people.The question “What is in it for men”was answered during the course of theworkshop. Participants concluded thattackling gender issues did not imply anattack on men’s status, but could have adirect benefit for the family andcommunity by strengthened women’sconfidence, self-esteem and status.Exploring problems in the context ofgender inequality also opened the wayfor effective solutions.

In discussing gender inequality,workshop participants made a cleardistinction between the biologicaldefinition of sexual difference and thesocio-cultural concept of gender thatincluded culture-specific roles such asthe male breadwinner and the femalehomemaker.

FFS for gender - Gender FieldSchools

The participatory approach chosen forintegrating gender in the IPMmovement places farmers, both men andwomen, at the centre. It is a long-term,process-oriented activity. Farmers usetheir own experiences to identify whatexactly gender inequality anddiscrimination meant to them and theyuse these insights to make adjustmentsto their own IPM programme. Themembers of the core gender team alsobecome the facilitators working with thefirst farmers groups on gender.

Gender Field Schools have become thebasis for efforts to “mainstream” genderin the IPM network in Indonesia.Participants follow five basic stepstowards a more in-depth understandingof gender issues in their community.

• The first step is gender training, toraise awareness of gender issues andenable farmers to conductparticipatory gender research.

• The second step is data collection.The farmers use their training toidentify gender issues in the farmershousehold and community andcollect data on these issues. The datacollected are grouped into fivecategories: access; participation;control; benefit; burden and level ofviolence.

• The third step is the GenderAnalysis. The facilitator helps thefarmers analyse the data collected.Farmers come to understand the waylocal perceptions of gender affectwomen’s lives.

• The fourth step is to plan for actionto reduce and eliminate the identifiedinequalities between women andmen.

• The fifth step is monitoring andevaluation. The evaluation helps toidentify the activities that willincrease women’s access to, controlover, and benefits from the IPMprogramme, and expand women’sparticipation in the IPM farmersorganisations, programmes andprocesses.

The development of core groups topioneer the process of gendermainstreaming in the IPM networks isconsidered crucial in the process. Tostart with, the farmer communities to beinvolved in Gender Field Schoolexperiments are carefully selected. Forthe time being, eight GFS groups havebeen started, all of them with farmersgroups that have previously beeninvolved with FFS for IPM. The GFSare farmer-run and farmer-financed.

After a GFS is conducted, a FarmersFamily Crisis Centre (Tim PembimbingKeluarga Petani-TPKP) is established.The Centre is located in the IPMfarmers community. It is hoped that theCentres will help to lower divorce rates,and minimise domestic violence andother forms of discrimination againstwomen. So far, eight such Centres havebeen established.

Lessons learntFrom the experiences of the farmersIPM network in trying to integrategender into their developmentprogramme, it is clear that if suchinitiatives are to be successful, farmersmust be fully involved and the farmingcommunities participating in the GenderField Schools experiments must becarefully selected. It is also importantthat the farmers have prior experiencewith FFS. Other lessons learnt include:

• Integrating gender into developmentprogramme cannot be induced fromoutside. It requires a process led by

farmers themselves, both men andwomen.

• Gender mainstreaming needspolitical will and the commitment ofthe leadership of the IPMprogramme. A strong effort andappropriate mechanisms are neededto integrate gender into the nationalIPM structure, and into the activitiesof the National IPM FarmersAssociation.

• Gender mainstreaming is a processof education, research and action.Capacity building is thereforeessential. Capacity building supporthas been provided to the farmers toconduct gender data collection andfor the creation of an informationsystem, through a participatoryapproach. The capacity buildingprocess should include enablingfarmers to establish their own vision,mission and strategies, as well as theorganisational structure formainstreaming gender.

Conclusions

So far, the efforts to mainstream genderhave increased the capacity of the IPMfarmers networks to integrate genderinto their policy, planning andmonitoring. The IPM project staff haveincreased their awareness about theirroles in the gender mainstreamingprocess. The experiences gainedthrough this process of gendermainstreaming can contribute not onlyto the FAO-IPM project, but also toother groups who are pioneering thefield of gender equality in rural areas.

�

Mansour FakihInstitute for Social Transformation (INSIST),Sekip Blok T No. 7, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.Email: [email protected]


Group dynamics excises in a gender field school in Clamis District, West Java

Pho

to :

FIE

LD


The effectiveness of Farmer FieldSchools often depends on theirfinancial sustainability. This

article looks at several innovations forfinancially sustainable FFSs that weredeveloped by the East African Sub-regional Pilot Project on IntegratedProduction and Pest ManagementFarmer Field Schools, and are nowbeing taken up by a number of otherFFS programmes. The cornerstone ofthese innovations has been the evolutionof an initial grant system (semi-selffinanced FFSs) into an educationalrevolving fund (self-financed FFSs),supported by the proceeds ofcommercial plots that are managedalongside the study plots. Involvingfarmers right from the start has beencrucial in successfully implementingthese innovations.

Semi-self financed FFSThe semi-self financed FFSs wereinitiated in 1999 with the introductionof the grant system, in which farmergroups wrote simple proposals forgrants to run their FFSs. Figure 1provides a flow chart of steps in thedevelopment of a semi-self financedIPPM FFS. Step One is for a group tosubmit a proposal in response to anannouncement that grants are available.Grant forms include guidelines andapplication forms for groups. Currently,IPPM FFS grants require that the grouphave three officers (Chairperson,Treasurer and Secretary) of which atleast one is a woman (in mixed gendercultures). Groups must have a multi-signatory savings account and agree torecord keeping and audits, and the grantmust be used for at least one high valuecrop and a food crop. The group mayalso include other topics such as IPPMfor poultry. An indicative budget isprovided for partial guidance, but it isalso stated that extension staff should bepaid based on officially published rates,although these can be negotiated. Thegrant form provides space forbackground, justification for grant andactivities, work plans and budget, andshould include the signatures of allgroup members as well as the localagriculture officer.

Once the grant is approved, Step Two isto transfer the grants to the groups.

Towards self-financed farmer

field schools

James Robert Okoth, Godrick S. Khisa and Thomas Julianus

Typically this is a combination ofmaterials and cash or cash alone.Materials such as flip-chart paper,crayons and other stationary are morecheaply available (or only available) inlarge cities, so it is more efficient toprovide some materials. Cash isprovided in at least two instalments overthe season, depending on the length ofthe FFS (for example, annual crops areusually 4-5 months, soil and perennialcrops are 12-18 months). The size of thegrant for IPPM FFSs is typicallyUS$100 to US$400 per season of study.The grant reporting must includebookkeeping, maintaining receipts andaccepting an audit. Grants can in somecases be transferred electronically toaccounts, and in other cases they areprovided in cash. In many cases theopportunity to handle and control fundshas led to increased ownership withfarmers providing co-financing as well.

In Step Three, payments to field schoolfacilitators are made directly by thefield school group at pre-agreed rates. Ifthe facilitator lacks technical skills, is apoor facilitator or even hasinappropriate social skills (arroganceand top-down approaches are leadingproblems), the group may “release” or“fire” the facilitator – and this hasindeed been known to happen.

Facilitators receive important feedbackfrom this! If the facilitator does notshow up or shows up in aninappropriate state (for example, drunkor late), the group can withholdpayment. On the other hand, thefacilitators usually receive payment onthe day they travel – a far bettersituation, they feel, than filling outpaperwork and waiting for a delayedpayment, as is typical of most extensiontravel allowances. Groups may alsorequest that information on specialtopics such as soils, nutrition, orenvironment be delivered by specialisedstaff, in which case they use the grant topay transport for the specialist.

IPPM FFS participants also arrangetheir own field study plots (as shown inStep Four in Figure 1). The study plotsare typically 0.2 to 1 ha. in size, andinclude various educational features –such as comparison trials between IPPMand conventional practices, fertilitymanagement methods, and new varietytesting. Groups in Western Province,Kenya were the first to begin the“commercial plots” which are largerfields that the group manages togetherin order to raise more funds. Thesegroups converted the “snack” budgetline to field inputs to get started. Thishas now been institutionalised and it isrecommended that all groups havecommercial plots. The landarrangements depend on localconditions and include the use of village

Farmers conducting field observations on groundnuts

Pho

to :

Jam

es O

koth

Figure 1. Semi-self financed fieldschool with capital provided by

grant and group proceeds reinvestedinto group activities.

Field studies, field days,graduation and

“commercial plot”

FFS facilitator

Local sponsoring groupor new FFS members

Education grant from Fund

1. Grant proposaland reporting

2. Grant in form ofcash and material

not availablelocally

4. Materials,labour, fields

5. Proceedsreinvested in

group activities

3. Transportallowance


land, as well as donations from largerlandowners and the sharing of cropproduce with owners. It is theresponsibility of the participants toprovide the land and the labour for boththe study fields and commercial plots. Itis the responsibility of the facilitator toprovide a profitable educational activity,including bringing in socially importantissues such as HIV/AIDS, women’sreproductive health, and soil fertilitymanagement.

In Step Five, proceeds from the FFSplots are re-invested in the groups ownaccount. This has now become possiblebecause all grant-recipient FFSs musthave their own accounts and means ofmanaging them. The funds are used bythe group for further study, and thepurchase of animals or other activities.Each group is also requested to assist intraining one other group, and farmer-ledfield schools are quite successful.

As a result of this grant process, groupshave shown a very high level ofownership of the FFS process. ManyFFSs enjoy a high level of matchingfunds, material inputs provided by thecommunity and participants, anddisplay an increasing ability to managefunds and activities on their own.Groups become more independent ofextension services, and they are alsobetter partners for the extension services– even though many extension servicesstill have difficulty seeing this. Theprocess of applying for grants, makingwork plans and budgets, organisingfields, paying facilitators and managingfunds, enables groups to organisethemselves to continue on their own.Although FFS grants are intended tosupport a group for a set time period,many field school participants go on todevelop longer-term associations due tothe cohesion, trust and joint fund-raisingability developed during the FFS period.The grants provide capital to groups andcatalyse new ways of working together.Case studies from various beneficiarysemi-self financed groups indicate thatif well guided, the groups are able torecover the whole grant after a coupleof seasons. As a result, self-financedFFSs are emerging, where the grant hasbeen transformed into an educationalrevolving loan.

Self-financed FFSAlthough semi-self financed IPPM FFSspartially solve at least one issue some ofthe problems of maintaining thesustainability of farmer groups,extension officers need a new set offunds each season to keep theprogramme expanding year after year.Thus, new ideas have been sought byIPPM facilitators and farmers, resultingin the self-financed model. The basicdifference between this model and the

semi-self financed FFS is that the groupis the recipient of revolving funds,rather than a grant. The loan-requestinggroup must agree – by group contract –that they will return the operationalcosts of the IPPM FFS to the revolvingfund. The concept is similar torevolving seed funds, in which onekilogram of seed provided at thebeginning of the season is repaid withone or more kilograms of seed at theend of the season. In the case of self-financed field schools, operational costsare pre-financed and the group returnsthe operational fee at the end of theseason through funds raised in the fieldplots and educational fees.

The model allows very resource-poorfarmers to participate, as they are ableto help generate funds for the FFS fundby contributing their labour during partof the season. It is conceivable andperhaps even more effective, thatinstead of cash repayment, farmerscould replenish the fund with in-kindcontributions.

Operational guidelines are currentlybeing developed on the best way toimplement the educational revolvingfund, taking into consideration keyconcerns like the security of therevolving fund from local “leakage” andthe problem of payback during droughtor flood. The second issue is moreproblematic, but it is felt that eitherfarmers will have to pay witheducational fees, or the repayment couldbe reduced in proportion to typical yieldlosses seen in the field. The rationale forthe guidelines is the need to come upwith an operational framework that canblend into the existing structures such asFFS networks, the extension system,political structures and civil

organisations with minimum overheadcosts. So far, the FFS networks providethe most suitable structure for handlingthe revolving fund.

A major concern is the issue ofreputation. The model requires thatfarmers trust the knowledge andteaching ability of IPPM facilitatorsbefore signing the contract.Unfortunately, the top-downprogrammes of the past have givenmany extension systems a poorreputation, so this may be a very seriousproblem. Retraining of extension staffinto IPPM facilitators with technicaland facilitation skills has helped, but thefarmers long-term experiences withextension services may be difficult toovercome.

One positive development is theincreasing interest of local governmentsand some NGOs in the approach, to theextent of committing some of theirmeagre funds to sponsoring theestablishment of FFSs. As a result, theFFSs are recognised as a major channelfor community development. Similarly,rural micro-finance institutions are alsousing the FFSs as an entry point forgroup loans. In Uganda, Village Bankshave been established by private sectorpromotion centres in the three pilotdistricts, where the FFSs are able to buyshares and acquire simple loans. Thesame Centres provide financialmanagement skills to the groups. InKenya some farmers have began pullingtogether resources and funding FFSactivities, the so-called self-sponsoredFarmer Field Schools. This level ofconfidence in the FFSs indicates a verybright future, which will bestrengthened more by the self-financingapproach.

�

James Robert OkothFAO Uganda, P. O. Box 421 Kampala,Uganda.Email: [email protected]

Godrick S. KhisaIPPM FFS Programme Kenya, P. O.Box 917, Kakamega, Kenya. Email:[email protected]

Julianus ThomasIPPM FFS Programme Tanzania.Email: [email protected]


Reference

Gallagher, K.D. 2001. Semi-Self FinancedField Schools and Self Financed FieldSchools: Helping Farmers Go Back toSchool in IPM/IPPM. Unpublished report,prepared by Kevin D. Gallagher based on thework of an IFAD support programme.

Figure 2. Self-Financed Field School withcapital provided by revolving fund. The

group reimburses the fund at end of season.

Field studies, field days,graduation and

“commercial plot”

FFS facilitator

Local sponsoring groupor new FFS members

Education grant from Fund

1. Loan proposaland reporting

2. Loan inform ofcasha nd materials

not availablelocally

4. Materials,labour, fields

5. Proceeds backto FFS

6. Revolving fundreimbursed with

proceeds from thefield and individual

educational fees

3. Transportallowance


Since 1997, Farmer Field Schools(FFS) have been developed inIndonesia for Integrated Pest

Management (IPM) in five tree crops -cashew, cocoa, coffee, pepper and tea.Applying the FFS approach to IPM forperennial tree crops has required severaladaptations, including changes incontent and duration of the FFS, and inthe methods employed in Agro-Ecosystem Analysis (AESA). Thisarticle is based on our experiences withthe IPM Smallholder Estate Cropproject (IPM-SEC project) and theSUCCESS Project to control CocoaPodborer (CPB).

Adapting to perennial ecosystemsThe five tree crops mentioned above areperennials. Tree age before complete

FFS for tree cropsJames Mangan and Margaret S. Mangan

renewal varies from crop to crop andeven from farmer to farmer, butaverages around 20 years. The riceecosystem, where the FFS approach wasdeveloped, undergoes destruction andhence catastrophic change duringharvest. But the perennial ecosystemremains fundamentally unaltered,particularly in the case of continuouslyharvested crops like cocoa, whichproduces fruit throughout the year andcashew, which has three flushes peryear. Tea also grows leavescontinuously throughout the year. Ofthese five perennial tree crops, only one- coffee - can be said to have asignificant period during which noflowering and fruiting takes place. Thismeans that any pests are presented withtwo conditions not present in an annual

crop like rice or cotton: a continuousfood supply and a dependable habitat.

As a consequence, certain mechanicalpractices are not possible withperennials. One example is the practiceof “ploughing down” after a clearharvest, which results in the drasticreduction of a pest, for example riceyellow stemborer in China or cottonpink bollworm, through destruction ofits food supply and habitat.

Pest difficultyThe “natural” condition for perennialecosystems is one in which the pest isalways present in the cropping system.Some tree crop pests are difficult, othersless serious. Each crop requires its ownobservation techniques, its own cultural/mechanical practices, and has its ownparticular pests and diseases. The mostdifficult pests, such as Cocoa Podborer,spend all of their larval life inside thefruit to be harvested, invulnerable tonatural enemies and pesticides whilethey are inside. Leaf eaters are a less

Some IPM constraints and opportunities for various tree crops

IPMmethod

CASHEW

COCOA

COFFEE

PEPPER

TEA

Conservation Augmentation of “Classical” Biocontrol Mechanical/ Cultural Use of pathogens forof predators natural populations of (introduction of exotic methods for pest control biological controland parasitoids predators and predators and parasitoids

parasitoids to control introduced pests)

Excellent control of Lawana sp., Augmentation of Pruning and cutting back Trichoderma can control rootMachaerota rostrata (both Flatid Aphanomerus sp., an egg canopy so trees do not rot; Synnematium canHomopterans) and Cricula parasitoid of Machaerota touch each other prevents control Flatid pests; Beauvariatrifenestrata by natural enemies; rostrata, may be possible expansion of Helopeltis attacks Helopeltis.good control of Helopeltis byweaver ants and spiders andother natural enemies

CPB has too few natural Some possibility of control Continuous flowering and Trichoderma can controlenemies; good potential for of CPB by release of fruiting means there is no Phytophthora; Beauveriacontrol of Helopeltis and Trichogramma spp., and seasonal die-off of CPB. bassiana 725 can beApogonia with weaver ants; Goryphus mesoxanthus, Pruning, sanitation, bagging effective against CPB;encouraging black ants but no functioning pods, frequent harvesting Beauvaria attacks Helopeltis.(Dolichoderus spp.) may insectaries and fertiliser diminish CPBreduce Helopeltis and CPB

Coffee Berry Borer (CBB) has Complete seasonal harvest Simultaneous flowering and Beauvaria bassiana 615 canfew natural enemies. Zeuzera prevents establishment of fruiting has not resulted in a be effective against CBBcoffea, a branch borer, has CBB parasitoid Cephalonomia CBB die-off; little is knownparasitoids and some predators. stephanoderis, first introduced about alternative hosts duringWeaver ants may provide some in 1989. Ample populations of the fallow period.protection against CBB, but there Coccinelid Curinus, introducedare as yet no experimental in 1986 to control jumping liceresults on this. in the lamtoro bean now limits

green and white scale in coffee.

Lots of jumping spiders and Use of green cover crop, Within Indonesia, the parasitoid Pruning of affected branches Trichoderma canrobber flies; a parasitoid Arachis pintoi, to provide Spathius piperis may need to can help control the branch control PhytophthoraSpathius piperis can control refuge for beneficials be introduced to certain islands borer, Lophobaris piperisthe branch boring weevil like Bangka, where it has notLophobaris; as aresult disease, been observed to occur.not pests, is the main problem.

Loopers are parasitised by Cutting out bushes infected Ganoderma can beTachinid and Ichneumonoid by Ganoderma controlled byparasitoids, but there is not a pseudoferreum, trenching Trichoderma; Beauveriavery rich range of spiders around infected area and attacks Helopeltis.feeding on Helopeltis. applying sulphur


serious problem (except on tea). Thereare two reasons to reassess theseriousness of tree crop pests. First, weneed to know the true pest impact if weare to figure out mechanical orbiological controls. Second, we need toovercome the tendency of pestprotection bureaus to exaggerate thedanger of minor pests, as this can distortthe decisions resulting from weeklyAESA.

Ecological IPM began with rice, whosepests all have a rich array of naturalenemies, both aquatic and terrestrial. Bythe start of the FAO IPM Programme, asubstantial body of research alreadyexisted on the role of natural enemies inthe control of the chief rice pest, BrownPlanthopper. Compared with rice, verylittle research on the ecosystems ofperennial crops has been done inIndonesia. Tree crops also lack theaquatic element of the rice ecosystem,which provides many beneficial insectsand spiders. More research is needed onthe habits and biology of the mostimportant pests and beneficials - butlack of research cannot prevent us fromproceeding with IPM control methodsthat work.

AESA in high trees and vinesAESA includes observation of pests,natural enemies, neutrals such asdetritivores, disease, and plant nutrition,which should all be taken into accountwhen making a decision on pestmanagement. In rice, this observation iscarried out weekly in ten randomlyselected spots (hills) throughout thefield. It involves the entire rice plantfrom roots to the tip of the flag leaf.Each tree crop, however, requires itsown approach to AESA and its ownfrequency of observation. Pepper andcoffee usually undergo AESA once intwo weeks, whereas cashew, cocoa, andtea require weekly observation.

Tree canopies are also much moredifficult to observe than rice plants.Some cashew trees grow to more thanten meters high. Some coffee canopiesare two-tiered. Ladders are required forAESA on cashew, high coffee, andpepper vines. This also entails some risk- during training, one facilitator traineefell from a tree.

More complete canopy observationusing a ladder should be carried out onone tree in every three, but this is just arule of thumb. Budding branches incashew, fruits in coffee and cocoa, andleaf condition must be observed,especially for disease. Roots requireinspection for fungus or nematodes. Inthis way, AESA delivers moreinformation about the ecosystem thanany scouting method for simplycounting pests.

Adjusting the FFS training seasonIn the SUCCESS Cocoa Podborer(CPB) project, the content of the FFSwas changed radically in order to dealwith a single pest. The FFS format waschanged to emphasise knowledge of onemajor pest and the cultural methods thatwill best control it, instead ofknowledge of the entire crop ecosystemthrough AESA. This adaptationinvolved shortening the FFS to justseven meetings, five of which werefield-learning meetings. In terms ofcontent, four cultural methods forcontrol of CPB were emphasised:frequent harvesting; pruning to open thecanopy; adequate use of fertiliser; andcrop sanitation. These changes were inlarge part driven by donor desires toreach all Sulawesi Cocoa farmers withthe new technologies.

In perennial agro-ecosystems, there aresolid reasons for doing full seasontraining for IPM: ecosystem changescan be followed throughout the cropseason, including the outcomes of pest

simulation experiments. However, a fullseason for coffee, including all culturalpractices, would be a whole year long ifall methods were done in season. This isfar too long and costly to be practical.Other crops do not need such a longseason. In the IPM-SEC project, astandard FFS length of six months wasdecided upon for bureaucratic andbudgetary reasons, and this is adequatefor all crops. Duration was set at 20sessions for all FFS, regardless of theduration from flowering to harvest.

Assessing the trade-offs

Each crop has its own particular pestsand diseases, and requires its ownobservation techniques and cultural/mechanical practices. Adjustments andchanges in the FFS approach had to bemade accordingly.

The FFS approach of involving farmersin participatory field learning activitiesremains a powerful one. In adapting theapproach, however, a number of trade-offs are involved. In the case of theSUCCESS project, the adaptationsmeant exchanging open-ended fieldexperimentation – the classic FFSapproach – with teaching a few specificmechanical methods for pest control.The impact of training is still positiveand effective, but other consequences ofthese tradeoffs need to be evaluated.

�

James Mangan andMargaret S. Mangan.Email: [email protected]


Coffee (two level) Cashew (older tree) Cacao (pruned to reduce CPB)


FFS have been very effective inmaking farmers understand andgain confidence about various

technologies and practices of farming.The approach makes them observe andthink critically while working on theirown lands. They also appreciate theinvolvement of the family members invarious activities like land preparation,compost making, seed selection, sowing,weeding, IPM, harvesting, seed storageand also animal husbandry activities.Importance of bio-diversity like treecropping, inclusion of animal husbandryfor better utilization of natural resources,labour relationships and management arewell understood when the FFSparticipants visit others participant’sfields. New challenges and issues thatarise are better understood while theparticipants work in groups and sharetheir experiences. Importantly, it is notonly agriculture technologies, but alsoother issues of rural areas like health,education, food habits, lifestyles andfinancial resource management can belearnt more easily and effectivelythrough this approach.

Generally, FFS consists of a groupinvolving both men and womenwherever possible or separate groups ofonly men and only women with thecommon interest to study together, thevarious aspects of rural issues andchallenges, on a weekly or a fortnightlybasis. Even SHGs (Self-help groups)and youth clubs canparticipate and also conductFFS on their own aftergetting adequately trained.FFS conducted on farmers’fields not only attracts menand women peasants buteven their children who joinin large numbers. With myown experience, theparticipants will be happierin the fields than in theclassrooms.

FFS is facilitated byexperienced persons withpractical insights. Graduallya core group of farmer‘master trainers’ should bebuilt up. Involving localexpertise like retiredagriculture extensionofficers can be effective aswell as cheaper if they can

stay around FFS, available at times ofnecessity. The dependence on highlypaid extension official will beminimised. Since most of the operationshappen at the participants’ land, it is veryeasy for a farmer to practice what helearns at FFS. FFS not only providesinformation on technologies, but enablesworking on their own lands withemphasis on action, observation,understanding and assessment anddecision making. Learning by practicingis very important than learning byreading.

How to promote ownership, benefitsharing and sustainability of thisprocess? The self-help groups or thefarmer associations or the youth clubscan identify a commonly agreed learningprocess involving various aspects of thecrop management on a specific field.Local ‘master farmers’ could guide thelearning process along with NGOs andthe Government.

FFS should have trial plots ranging from2 to 4 hectares, where they can practicevarious systems like rain harvest, soiland water conservation, tree cropping atthe edges, agro-forestry, animalhusbandry, bee keeping, sericulture, foodprocessing and marketing etc. Similarlythey can lease in village, communitylands or even private lands on cropsharing basis. To begin with, the selfhelp group or the youth club may obtain

The Narayana Reddy Column

a grant of two lakh rupees. Later on, theycan be made self sustainable either byreinvesting up to 60% of the benefitsback to FFS or by the memberscontributing little amounts on a weeklyor fortnightly basis to build up arevolving fund. Alternatively, seedscould be lent to the needy farmers duringthe sowing season and collect 50% ormore seeds on such lendings andestablish their own seed banks which canbe a resource for FFS.

Besides financial stability, building up anempowering process both for theparticipants and the facilitator isnecessary which calls for imposing fullfaith in the capacities of each other.Transparent budgeting and maintenanceof accounts accessible to participants isalso essential. The FFS is everyone’s‘asset’ and the approach can be moreeffective than the one directed by anygovernment or external agency.

�

L. Narayana ReddySrinivasapura, Hanabe P.O.,Doddaballapura Taluka,Bangalore Rural District,Karnataka 561 203Ph : 76-51360

Learning by Practicing


Farmer Field Schools: From IPM toplatforms for learning andempowerment. Users’ perspectiveswith agricultural research anddevelopment. 2003. 83 p. CIP-UPWARD, Los Baños,Laguna, Philippines. ISBN 971 614 0231.

This publication features highlights ofthe International Learning Workshopon Farmer Field Schools: EmergingIssues and Challenges, held inIndonesia on 21-25 October 2002. Itsynthesizes global experiences in FFS,derived from 30 case and thematicpapers, as well as the outputs of thesmall-group and plenary discussions.The key lessons, issues and challengescover the following: 1) Adaptation ofFFS from rice IPM to other crops,systems and constraints; 2) Applicationof FFS for research and development,training and extension, and otherlearning purposes; 3) FFSinstitutionalisation, scaling-up and policydevelopment; and 4) FFS monitoring andevaluation. This publication is the first ina series of workshop outputs, which alsoinclude a volume of papers and a CD-ROM documentation of the activity.To obtain a copy of the publication,contact Dr. Dindo Campilan,[email protected] or visitwww.eseap.cipotato.org/upward.

From farmerfield school tocommunity IPM:Ten years of IPMtraining in Asiaby Pontius J, DiltsR, Bartlett A.2002. 106 p. FAOCommunity IPMprogramme. FAOregional office for

Asia and the Pacific, 39 Phra Atit road,Bangkok 10200, Thailand /www.fao.or.th/Publications;[email protected];[email protected]

This is a comprehensive account ofintegrated pest management (IPM) as afarmer-centred and local need-responsiveapproach, developed on the rice farms ofSouth-east Asia to tackle the risks arisingfrom the excessive pesticide usepromoted by the Green Revolution. TheFAO programme owes it success to thepioneering Farmer Field School (FFS)approach that was first tried withIndonesian paddy farmers in early 1990,and has since become a model for farmereducation in Asia, several parts of Africaand Latin America. More than 2 millionrice farmers in Asia have taken part inover 75 000 farmer field schoolsbetween 1990 and 1999, boosting theiryields and incomes, cutting down the useof chemical pesticides and improving the

SOURCES

ecological health of their fields. Aboveall, it has given them greater control overtheir livelihoods and greater confidenceto face up to new challenges.

The publication includes step-by-stepinstructions on organising and runningfarmer field schools, along with detailedcase studies of farmer field schools inSouth-east Asia and several personalexperiences of farmers who have gainedfrom the programme. A separate sectionoutlines the IPM programme activities inBangladesh, Cambodia, China,Indonesia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and VietNam.

Making farmers better decision-makers through the farmer fieldschool by Rola AC, Provido ZS,Olanday MO, [et al]. 1998. 28 p. ISBN971 560 013 1. Regional Center forGraduate Study and Research inAgriculture (SEAMEO), College, LosBaños, Laguna, Philippines. SEARCAwww.searca.org/SEARCA/publications/books3.html

Farmer Field Schools (FFS) wereestablished to introduce farmers todiscovery-based learning in dealing withpest management in particular, and goodcrop management in general. Theirultimate goal was to improve farmer’sdecision-making abilities to cope withboth biotic and abiotic stresses. Thispublication describes a village-level casestudy in the Philippines that measuredthe educational, economic, andefficiency impacts of the FFS. This four-season study compares decision-makingbetween FFS graduates and non-FFSfarmers. (WR)

New ways of developing agriculturaltechnologies: the Zanzibar experiencewith participatory integrated pestmanagement by Bruin GCA, Zeeman F.2001. 167 p.

ISBN 90 6754 624 0. WageningenUniversity and Research Centre.Technical Centre for Agricultural andRural Cooperation (CTA),

PO Box 380, 6700 AJ Wageningen, TheNetherlands / [email protected]

This work shows that FFS can functionin an East African context if certainconditions are met. See the review inissue 18(1).

Facilitating sustainable agriculture:participatory learning and adaptivemanagement in times ofenvironmental uncertainty by RölingNG, Wagemakers MAE. 1998. 318 p.ISBN 0 521 58174 5. Department ofCommunication and Innovation Studies,Wageningen Agricultural University,Wageningen, The Netherlands.Cambridge University Press, TheEdinburgh Building, Cambridge CB22RU, UK.

This still-impressive information sourceexamines the implications of adoptingmore ecologically sound agriculturalpractices, at the level of both individualfarmers and large-scale agro-ecosystems.The emphasis is on human and socialaspects, learning through participatoryapproaches, and appropriate institutionalsupport and policy structure. Examplesfrom around the world are provided.(WR)

Farmer field school for integratedcrop management of sweetpotato; fieldguides andtechnical manualby Fliert E (van de),Braun, AR. 1999.101 p. ISBN 929060 216 3.International PotatoCenter, RegionalOffice for East andSoutheast Asia andthe Pacific (CIP-ESEAP), PO Box 929, Bogor 16309,Indonesia, UPWARD.

Highly fluctuating prices and a weakbargaining position provide littleincentive for sweetpotato farmers toproduce high yields. Nevertheless,comparison of yields and profitsobtained by farmers in Indonesia showeda tendency for farmers who producedhigher yields to earn higher profits. Thissuggests that farmers can increase profitsby increasing their yields through bettercrop management, and by learning toestimate what the yield is likely to bebefore entering into negotiations with atrader. How can farmers knowledge andskills be developed so that they canimprove their crop management andbusiness capacities? This book gives ananswer to this question. Integrated CropManagement (ICM) is presented as analternative way to tackle theseconstraints, and FFS as a way of learningabout ICM. Approximately one third ofthe field guides and the technical manualdelve into crop protection topics,including numerous full colour photos,suggested training exercises and datarecording forms, brought together bycartoon-style drawings. This publicationis available in English, Indonesian,Spanish and Vietnamese, and the Englishversion can be downloaded from theESEAP ICM-Training Resourcehomepage at www.eseap.cipotato.org/Training-resources.htm

Learning integrated crop managementfor sweetpotato 1997. CD-Rom withvideo. International Potato Center,Regional Office for East and SoutheastAsia and the Pacific (CIP-ESEAP), POBox 929, Bogor 16309, IndonesiaUPWARD. http://www.eseap.cipotato.org



This video examines commonconstraints faced by Indonesian farmerswho grow sweetpotato. It was producedto promote ICM to sweetpotato farmersand to motivate them to attend ICMfarmer field schools.

Participatory technology developmentfor agricultural improvement:challenges for institutional integrationby Lizares-BodegonS, Gonsalves J [etal]. 2002. 110 p +CD-Rom. ISBN 1930261 06 3.InternationalInstitute of RuralReconstruction(IIRR), Y.C.JamesYen Center, Biga,Silang, Cavite,Philippines /www.iirr.org;[email protected], ETC Ecoculture.

This workshop report focuses on theinsights, lessons and recommendationsderived from formal presentations,analysis of cases, poster sessions, smallgroup discussions, and individualcontributions. The workshop aimed atthe institutionalisation of PTD in thefollowing settings: research institutions,civil society actors such as farmerorganisations and NGOs, extensiondevelopment agencies, and multi-stakeholder platforms. Each of thesesettings has a chapter in the report withissues, lessons and recommendations onPTD. The annexes provide abstracts of19 case studies from all over the world,as well as the PTD framework.

The workshop report is also available onCD-Rom, which is useful. It is a pity thatthe CD-Rom contains only the basic textof the report and one chapter of a relatedstudy. IIRR missed an opportunity toprovide an extensive information sourcewithout much effort. (WR)

Farmer field school on integrated soilmanagement: facilitator’s manual.1998. 218 p. Farmer-CentredAgricultural Resource ManagementProgramme (FARM), FAO-RAP,Maliwan Mansion, Phra Atit Road,Banglumpoo, Bangkok 10200, Thailand/ [email protected].

The Farmer Field School (FFS) approachon Integrated Soil Management (ISM)has been successfully experimented withat field sites in China, Philippines,Thailand and Vietnam.

This facilitator’s manual was developedon the basis of these experiences. Theobjective of the manual is to assistfacilitators by providing a basicframework and materials on FFS-ISM.

The training materials can help farmersto make their own decisions, to organisethemselves and their communities, andto create a strong working network withother farmers, extension workers andresearchers. The manual is meant forfield-based extension officers, farmerleaders and field-level developmentworkers and their trainers and co-ordinators. It contains a large number ofFFS-ISM exercises on general FFS-related topics and a selected range of soilmanagement topics. (CR)

Way out of the woods: learning how tomanage trees and forests by Mele Pvan (ed). 2003. 143 p. ISBN 1 87269167 6 : EURO 50.-. Marnix Book store,Nederkouter 109, B-9000 Gent, Belgium/ [email protected]

This book is an account of how thesuccess of forestry and agroforestryprojects in three countries (Nepal, Kenyaand Bolivia) depends on understandingbiological, social and cultural diversityand applying this knowledge to meet theneeds of rural people. “Way out of thewoods” explores the roles that scientistsand rural people play in finding a way tosustainable management of trees andforests. New ideas come from existingknowledge articulated with the help ofresearchers or local facilitators. Thisknowledge illuminates the path out ofdarkness, the metaphorical place in thewoods, where the ability to see forwardand beyond the trees is restricted. Thesolutions to sustainable management liein using local and scientific knowledgeand the case histories show how simpleapproaches can provide new solutions toold problems. An important lesson is thatthis can only take place if actors trusteach other and communication betweengroups is open. Profit of the sales of WayOut of the Woods is directly invested inthe Centre for Agro-Ecology andDevelopment, the Nepalese NGO whocontributed one of the chapters of thebook. More information on theiractivities can be found at http://www.alternatives.org.np/

The group promoter’s resource book:a practical guide to building rural self-help groups by Groverman V, Cook J,Thomas G (eds). 1994. 112 p. Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO), Viale delle Terme diCaracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy.

This resource book is now available inelectronic version, in English, French,Spanish and Arabic. It shows how grouppromoters can help men and women inrural communities to join together andwork to improve their income and livingconditions. It presents a participatoryapproach in which group promoters playa key role. Their task is to help the poor

to form sustainable self-help groups andundertake income-generating activities.http://www.fao.org/sd/2001/PE0303_en.htm

IPM farmer field schools: a work inprogress by Quebral, NC. 2002. 54 p.University of the Philippines, Los Baños,4031 College, Laguna, Philippines.

This publication is based on a Philippinestudy that centred on the transfer of riceIPM principles to coconut ecosystems.The 15-month study had threeobjectives: to identify some of theconstraints to institutionalising the IPMfarmer field school approach, to adviseon the social and technological issuesarising from the FFSs, and to testresearch and extension methodologiescompatible with IPM concepts. Thereport provides an evaluation of theproject with an overview of constraintsand recommendations to overcome them.(WR)

23rd ICRA trainingin interdisciplinary team work forparticipatory rural development

January 12 - July 23, 2004(English, Wageningen, the Netherlands)

January 19 - July 30, 2004(French, Montpellier, France)

ICRA offers an experiential learningprogramme for professionals working inrural development. The programmefocuses on designing interdisciplinarydevelopment and research activities forsustainable development.The programme consists of the followingelements:

• 10 weeks - knowledge acquisition,workshops including a field exercisein the Netherlands

• 16 weeks - interdisciplinary teamwork to conduct a professionalassignment for a Client Institute in theSouth on a specific problem andformulating plans for future action

• 2 weeks - exchange of results of theprofessional assignments, individualaction plans and evaluation.

Requirements: PhD/MSc, 2 years relevantworking experience after last degree, ageunder 40.

The full cost is EURO 29 500 includingall travel, accommodation, tuition, fieldcosts and allowances.

A limited number of fellowships areavailable for candidates from developingand transition countries.

Deadline for applications is 1 October2003. Applications for fellowships shouldbe received before 1 July 2003

For further details and application forms,please contact: ICRA

P.O. Box 88, 6700 AB Wageningen,The Netherlands

e-mail: [email protected] web site: http://www.icra-edu.org

SOURCES



WEBSITES

Community IPM websitehttp://www.communityipm.org/index.htmThis site includes many very usefuldocuments and teaching materialsrelated to Farmer Field Schools. It wasoriginally created as an activity of theFAO Programme for Community IPM inAsia. The site is being maintained as anarchive of information relating to thegroundbreaking work carried out bygovernment agencies, NGOs and farmergroups that were associated with theFAO Programme. The Community IPMwebsite is managed on the principle of“information for all”, meaning thatanybody can visit the site and downloadthe content.

CGIAR task force on Farmer Partici-patory Research for Integrated PestManagement (FPR-IPM)http://www.ciat.cgiar.org/fpr-ipm/inicio.htmlA forum for people and institutionsinterested in fostering farmer participa-tion in research and development ofIntegrated Pest Management. Visit thefile library to download the FPR-IPMproposal and documents contributed bythe FAO-Intercountry Rice and Veg-etable IPM, CIP/CARE, UPWARD/CIPand ISNAR. These include case studies,evaluations of impact and press releases.If you have case studies or otherdocuments relevant to farmer participa-tory research for IPM or other ap-proaches to sustainable agriculture, sendthem to be posted in the file library.

ECOPORThttp://www.ecoport.org/

This Internet portal provides resourcesand databases on ecology, includinginformation about pests. There is a lot ofinformation available though it is notorganised in a very user friendly way.

Navigate this site via the columns on theleft.

Soil Productivity Improvementthrough Farmer Field Schoolshttp://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/farmspi/default.stm

The Land and Water DevelopmentDivision of FAO has just launched thisweb site on Soil Productivity Improve-ment (SPI) through Farmer FieldSchools (FFS). It provides informationon FAO’s pilot programme on SPI-FFS.Specifically, it aims at promoting theexchange of information and experienceson the development and implementationof FFS for enhancing and sustaining soilproductivity. The site is targeting thoseinvolved in developing participatory orFFS land management and conservationprogrammes, resource persons andsenior extension officers as well asagricultural development specialists.

IPM forumhttp://www.cabi-publishing.org/IPM/links.htm

This CABI site provides a wealth inlinks and background material on IPM,included teaching material.

The Communication Initiativehttp://www.comminit.comThis website aims to improve strategiccommunication thinking on developmentissues, expand dialogue, debate andreview of key communication issues andprogrammes. The work of The Commu-nication Initiative is primarily in supportof communication practitioners indeveloping countries, management staffin local, national and international socialdevelopment organisations - includingNGOs, government, bilateral aidorganisations, foundations and academicinstitutions

Capacity Development Re-source Bookhttp://magnet.undp.org/cdrb/This resources book presentsthe lessons from four decadesof technical cooperation -andthe fundamental changes thatUNDP has instituted tocapitalise on the potentialcontributions of capacitydevelopment. These processesare designed through facilita-tive and participatory ap-proaches, and they areresponsive and accountable tonational priorities and objec-tives. These characteristicsrenew the main goals of

development co-operation: long-termsustainability and an enabling environ-ment that facilitates human development.This document is available in English,French and Spanish (pdf) and also inEnglish, in html format.

Global IPM facility IPPM expertdatabasehttp://www.wisard.org/wisard/clients/ippm/index.htmThis is a directory of experts in Inte-grated Production and Pest Management(IPPM) from all over the world,including experts on FFS. This jointinitiative aims to enhance the access anduse of expert knowledge in local andintermediary organisations dealing withIPPM issues.

CM-Training Resource homepagehttp://www.eseap.cipotato.org/Training-resources.htmThis Integrated Crop Management(ICM) Training Resource for potato andsweetpotato is a compilation of trainingguides and modules developed within arange CIP projects. It contains bothtechnical background information on thevarious components of ICM, andmethodological guidelines for facilitat-ing farmer learning. These guides andmodules can be downloaded, modifiedand used as needed, provided thatreference is made to the originaldocument. The site is managed by a taskforce of the ICM Working Group.

Links for development change inNatural Resource Managementhttp://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/An on-line resource guide for thoseseeking to improve the use of collabora-tive and learning-based approaches.

Participatory Training and Extensionin Farmers’ Water Managementhttp://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/farmerwatertraining/default.htmThis site provides training material forparticipatory training in farmers watermanagement. It aims to provide tools tointroduce effective water managementtechnologies and practices, to putfarmers in charge in water management,and to establish effective supportservices. All the material can bedownloaded and is also available on CD-Rom. CD-Roms can be ordered by emailfrom [email protected]

Visit our website:www.ileia.org34 L E I S A I N D I A • M A R C H 2 0 0 3


Ancient roots,new shoots:endogenousdevelopment inpractice byHaverkort B, HooftK (van ’t),Hiemstra, W (eds).2002. 264 p.

ISBN 1 84277 3356. ETC/Compas, POBox 64, 3830 AB

Leusden, The Netherlands. Zed Books, 7Cynthia Street, London N1 9JF, UK /[email protected]

The present global problems of poverty,ecological destruction and loss ofcultural diversity call for innovativesolutions. Experiences indicate that thecultural identity and initiatives of localpeople can provide important keys tosustainable rural development. Thisbook describes the processes wherebythe present-day diversity of knowledgeand cultures has emerged. It presents anumber of field experiences of endog-enous development, or developmentfrom within, in Sub-Saharan Africa,Asia, South America and Europe.

By building on local needs andresources, innovative methodologieshave been developed to understand andexperiment with indigenous practices,and to find synergy with modernknowledge systems. The activitiesinclude identifying development niches,retaining benefits within local areas,maximising local control, and makingselective use of external resources. Witha good balance of theory and practice,this book can be immensely useful todevelopment practitioners, researchersand policy makers, especially in thefield of rural development, agriculture,natural resource management andhealth.

Silent invaders: Pesticides, liveli-hoods and women’s health by JacobsM, Dinham B. 2003. 342 p. ISBN 185649 996 0; GBP 14.95.

Pesticide Action Network (PAN),Eurolink Centre, 49 Effa road, LondonSW2 1BZ, UK / [email protected] ;www.pan-uk.org

This book brings together 30 casestudies and scientific papers that showthe effects of pesticides, particularly onfarming communities and agriculturalworkers. It gives details of pesticidehazards and explanations of the toxicitymanifested. It focuses specifically on thedangers they present to women. SilentInvaders shows the importance ofstudying impacts on both women andmen, taking account of gender divisionsof labour, of the imbalances in theeconomic and political realities ofwomen and men’s lives, and of the clear

physiological differences between thesexes.

The final section provides details aboutcommunity action to overcome pesticidehazards, ranging from community-basedpesticide monitoring in Indonesia,Malaysia, Korea and other Asiancountries, to the establishment of a freelocal health care centre for victims of theBhopal gas disaster, and to a successfulcommunity and trade union campaign inthe UK to have Linden banned. Thesection details practical strategies(including FFS) for sustainable agricul-ture that can help farmers manage pestswhile reducing their reliance onhazardous pesticides. Recommended(WR).

Planning for country : Cross-culturalapproaches to decision-making onaboriginal lands by Walsh F, Mitchell P(eds.). 2002. 203 p. Jukurrpa Books, POBox 2531 Alice Springs, NorthernTerritory 0871, Australia /[email protected].

Pictures and stories speak a thousandwords. This message emerges from thisvolume of experiences from centralAustralia. The editors have created awonderful reading journey with dozensof evocative pictures, striking photos andstories about well-tried methods. It isclear from their selection of experiencesand focused editing that both authors arethemselves skilled in participatoryplanning.

The book opens with a context-settingdescription of Aboriginal people incentral Australia. This helps the readerunderstand some of specific issues aboutthe Aboriginal context and implicationsfor planning. A section on participatoryplanning highlights key ethical ques-tions, such as misappropriation ofAboriginal information and Aboriginallanguage and “high English”. This isfollowed by a series of frequently askedquestions that are both thought provok-ing and practical.

Methods are also discussed in the book.The authors discuss conflicts, problems,and the considerable time and negotia-tion that are present in all multi-stakeholder participatory planningprocesses. The stories offer innovativesolutions to problems that many otherswill recognise from their practice. (IG)

Milk producer group resource book:a practical guide to assist milkproducer groups by Draaijer J. 2002.86 p. Food and Agriculture Organizationof the United Nations (FAO), Animaland Health Division, Viale delle Termedi Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy /www.fao.org

This book is part of a series of practicalfield guides produced by FAO for peopleworking in small-scale dairying in

developingcountries.Milkproducers canincrease theirincome andutilise theirskills andresourcesbetter if theywork ingroups. Itpromotes theorganisationof small-scale

milk collection and processing as asustainable, income-generating activityfor household food security. It also seeksto provide a means for improving thesafety, quantity and quality of milk andmilk products available for consumers indeveloping countries.

This book aims to play a role in povertyalleviation in developing countries, in agender sensitive and sustainable way.Participation is a key pillar of thestrategies promoted throughout the bookwithout gender, age, race, social class orany other bias. The intended readers are(future) leaders of milk producer groups,extension workers, project staff andgroup promoters who are working to setup milk producer groups, and thosedeveloping already existing groups atvillage level in rural areas.

Traditional use and availability ofaquatic biodiversity in rice-basedecosystems; 1. Kampong ThomProvince, Kingdom of Cambodia byBalze, T, Balzer P, Pon S. 2002. CDRom. ISBN 92 5 104820 7. Food andAgriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO), Viale delle Terme diCaracalla 00100 Rome, Italy /www.fao.org;[email protected]. (TraditionalUse and Availability of AquaticBiodiversity in Rice-basedEcosystems no 1).

This CD-Rom contains the report andannexes of a case study of Tonle Sap (theGreat Lake) ecosystem and ricefieldfisheries in Cambodia. More than 100aquatic species (fishes, reptiles,amphibians, crustaceans, molluscs,insects and plants) collected in rice fieldsand used daily by rural households arepresented. The species descriptions andphotos are linked to information oncollection tools and methods, uses andtraditional knowledge. In conclusion, theauthors caution against measuresthreatening aquatic organisms such aspesticide use, clearing of flooded forestsand destructive fishing tools, and outlinepromising approaches for the sustainablemanagement and use of this rich aquaticbiodiversity.


BOOKS

Visit to Central

America

In November 2002, Teresa Gianella,Editor of LEISA Revista deAgroecologia, and Anita Ingevall,

Director of ILEIA, travelled together inCentral America. The purpose of the tripwas to present the LEISA Revistamagazine to the region and to makecontacts for future information exchange.Teresa and Anita had the opportunity tomeet and discuss with farmers, techni-cians and NGO representatives in ElSalvador, Honduras and Guatemala.

Here we only have room for a briefaccount of one of our visits in Guate-mala. We also have other stories to tellfrom our visits in Guatemala, ElSalvador, and Honduras. We have fondmemories of all our visits and promise toshare more of our experiences in futureLEISA magazines, and on our web sites.

Visit to the coffee farmers assisted byIJAT’ZCoffee is the most important agriculturalproduct for the Mayan farmers on theslopes of San Lucas de Toliman, threehours from Quetzaltenango in Guate-mala. Coffee has been grown inGuatemala since the 18th century, butover the past few decades it has beenpromoted intensively as an export crop,with packages of inputs and technologyprovided to farmers to increase theiryields. Unfortunately, these technologieshad negative effects on the agro-ecosystem and on farmers health. Overtime, yields declined and higher inputs ofagro-chemicals were required tomaintain production.

In San Lucas de Toliman we meetGuillermo Campa, Germán Xep Ajcalonand Inocente Jacinto, some of the Mayanfarmers who are involved in IJAT’Z.IJAT’Z started as a reaction to theproblems the farmers were facing.German tells us that when he became illfrom the pesticides he was using, hestarted to think that there must beanother way of farming. He alsoremembered older people telling himabout the traditional Mayan agriculture.German decided to try and find moreinformation. He got in touch with a fewof the oldest farmers who still remem-bered the old ways and started toexperiment on his own.

More than ten years later, IJAT’Z hasbecome a training and promotion centrefor the local farmers association, wherethey share their experience in ecologicalcoffee growing with other members ofthe association. Our hosts were all localfarmers, who are available to provideadvice and training to other farmers whowish to grow ecologically, particularlyorganic coffee.

We were able to visit the coffeeplantation of one of the participatingfarmers. The coffee was growing in theshade of a variety of fruit trees. Betweenthe coffee and fruit trees grew a variety

of green manure crops, as well as plantsfor erosion control and for increasingwater retention. Minimum tillage is alsopracticed. The farmers said that theirvision was to create “a forest of food”.Guillermo pointed out that managementis one of the most important aspects offarming “One must be very conscien-tious about pruning, incorporating greenfertilisers, maintaining the plant coverand managing pests”.

The number of coffee farmers adoptingecological methods is increasing, notonly because of the health benefits butalso because it improves their economicsecurity. Diversified crops ensure foodsecurity for their families, and agro-chemical free coffee can be sold at betterprices. The elimination of agro-chemicals in the area also means lesspollution in the water courses. To makethe change to ecological farming, thefarmers associated through IJAT’Z drewup their own project proposal and

obtained the assistance of a small grantsprogramme (SGP-GEF-UNDP) inGuatemala.

The initiative taken by these farmers hasnot been an instant success – theircommitment and persistence in innovat-ing has carried them through a numberof difficulties and it is finally starting topay off. We were very impressed by theircommitment and enthusiasm.

Thank you…We are grateful for the co-operation ofall the technicians and NGO staff whowelcomed us and gave us the opportu-nity to gain valuable experience ingetting to know the rural areas of CentralAmerica, the hazards and challengesthey deal with and their progress. Specialthanks to the farmers who made time tosee us during their very busy workingday.

Teresa Gianella-EstremsAnita Ingevall

Themes for the

LEISA-India

Vol. 5,3 September 2003

Access to and control over resourcesMany different systems and arrangements determine who has access to andcontrol over natural resources like land, water, trees, grazing, manure etc., and

under what conditions. Systems of access and control change and evolve over

time and range from formal to informal, from traditional to new, from

collective to private. This issue of LEISA India will try to bring into focus

some of the practical aspects of these different systems and arrangements. We

invite you to share your experiences.

Deadline for contributions is 31st October 2003

Vol 5, 4, December 2003

Rehabilitation of degraded land

This issue of LEISA India will deal with practices that contribute to

maintaining productive soil and rehabilitating land that has been degraded.

Please contribute your experiences, ideas and solutions.

Deadline for contributions is 31st October 2003

Visiting a coffee plantation with IJAT’Z farmers

Documents

LEIS A fileLEISA March 2003 Volume 5 no. 1 Farmer Field Schools have proven to be a very effective tool for promoting farmer learning and empowerment. In particular, they encourage