FARMER FIELD SCHOOL(FFS) - A VIEW

FFS IN TAMILNADU

• Introduction
• Model
• Organisation invoved

 

FARMER FIELD SCHOOL - A VIEW

Introduction
If I hear it, I forget it. If I see it, I remember it If I discover it, I own it for life

Farmer Field School (FFS) is non-formal educational activity.

All learning is a group activity and field based.

Empowers farmers to solve their field problems by themselves.

Fosters participation, interaction and joint decision making.

Farmers learn by carrying out activities through constant observation

The Farmer Field School is a form of adult education, which evolved from the concept that farmers learn optimally from field observation and experimentation. It was developed to help farmers tailor their Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices to diverse and dynamic ecological conditions

In regular sessions from planting till harvest, groups of neighboring farmers observe and discuss dynamics of the crop’s ecosystem. Simple experimentation helps farmers further improve their understanding of functional relationships (e.g. pests-natural enemy population dynamics and crop damage-yield relationships). In this cyclical learning process, farmers develop the expertise that enables them to make their own crop management decisions. Special group activities encourage learning from peers, and strengthen communicative skills and group building.

IPM Farmer Field Schools were started in 1989 in Indonesia to reduce farmer reliance on pesticides in rice. Policy-makers and donors were impressed with the results and the program rapidly expanded. Follow-up training activities were added to enhance community-based activities and local program ownership. Eventually, IPM Farmer Field School programs for rice were carried out in twelve Asian countries and gradually branched out to vegetables, cotton and other crops. From the mid-nineties onwards, the experience generated in Asia was used to help initiate IPM Farmer Field School programs in other parts of the world. New commodities were added and local adaptation and institutionalization of these programs was encouraged. At present, IPM Farmer Field School programs, at various levels of development, are being conducted in over 30 countries worldwid

These diverse programs have generated a variety of data on the impact of the IPM Farmer Field School. Such data generally are presented in project reports that have a limited circulation. Impact studies that are published in official literature tend to focus on specific aspects of impact. Impact studies varied in focus, approach, methodology and robustness. Some lack description of methods. The nature of impact studies typically varies with the developmental stages of programs. Pilot projects often compared pesticide use and yields or profits of field plots grown with IPM practices and those under regular farmer practice, to demonstrate the merit of the approach. More advanced projects evaluated the adoption of IPM practices, studied expertise or recorded the developmental impacts resulting from farmer empowerment.

Top

Principles

Basic Concepts

Doubtless there are many other programmes besides IPM field Schools which have succeeded to provide good educational results. Much of the field school ideas grew out of the traditions of literacy education and village-level basic health care. Similar programmes have been developed for soils, and livestock in other regions. The field Schools are not a new idea, just an effective idea that has been ignored by those caught in the system of top-down research message delivery and who too often turn a deaf hear to the conventional wisdom of farmers. Some farmer participants say that the IPM field Schools succeed because they provide basic scientific conceptual frameworks and knowledge in very democratically run field groups... and of course because farmers make more money with less inputs.
Below are basic concepts which are common to field Schools across many countries.

1. Adult non-formal education: Field Schools assume that farmers already have a wealth of experience, and knowledge. It also assumes that there may be misconceptions and bad habits learned during intensification programmes (e.g. little knowledge of natural enemies, basic fear of any insect that is seen in the field, etc.). Therefore the field Schools are oriented to providing basic agro-ecological knowledge and skills, but in a participatory manner so that farmer experience is integrated into the programme. For example, when observing in the field, facilitators will ask farmers what something is such as a natural enemy and ask who know what it might eat. Farmers give their response, and the facilitator adds his/her knowledge. If there is a disagreement between anyone, the facilitator and participants will set up simple studies to find the correct answer. In one field school farmers were discussing whether a certain lady beetle was a predator of pests or a pest of the plant. One farmer bet another on their choice. The facilitator showed how to put the lady beetle in a jars - one jar with pest prey and the other with leaves. The result was that the lady beetle ate the insects and the loser had to carry the winner around the village on his back! In fact there are both kinds of lady beetles but one type is ‘hairy’ and the other not. This was seen by the farmers.

2. Technically strong facilitator: The field school is usually initiated by an extension staff member of the government, farmers’ organization, or NGO. But in all cases the person must have certain skills. Most important is that the person is skilled at growing the crop concerned. In most countries, the extension staff have never grown crops ‘from seed to seed’ and most often lack confidence. For this reason, most IPM programmes have begun with training field staff in season-long courses which provide basic technical skills for growing and managing an IPM crop. Some people have called this the “Farmer respect course” in that field staff come to realise how difficult farming is, and why farmers do not immediately “adopt” their “extension messages”. Facilitation skills and group dynamic/group building methods are also included in this season to strengthen the education process in the field Schools. An uncertain trainer is a poor trainer. A confident trainer can say “I don’t know - let’s find out together” much easier when the inevitable unknown situation is encountered in the field.

3. Based on crop phenology and time limited: The field Schools and season long training for trainers are based on the crop phenology; seedling issues are studied during the seedling stage, fertiliser issues are discussed during high nutrient demand stages, and so on. This method allows to use the crop as a teacher, and to ensure that farmers can immediately use and practice what is being learned. Meeting on a weekly basis means that farmers are participating in a course for a whole season, but from an administrative/financial point of view, the same 40 hours as in an intensive one week programme. The educational benefits of meeting when problems are present (learner readiness), and on a recurrent basis have been studied and shown to be far more effective that intensive courses. Also the courses are delimited by the crop cycle. There is a definite beginning and end. The present system of many extension programmes of unending two week cycles removes focus, and excitement. field schools may extend beyond one season if groups agree, but rarely can be effective when less than the phenological cycle of the crop.

4. Group study: Most field Schools are organised for groups of about 25 persons with common interests can support each other, both with their individual experience and strengths, and to create a “critical mass”. As individuals, trying something new is often socially inappropriate (e.g. reducing sprays, cover crops), but with group support, trying something new becomes acceptable. The number of 25 is roughly the number that can comfortably work together with one facilitator. Usually these 25 are sub-divided into groups of five persons so that all members can better participate in field observations, analysis, discussion, and presentations.

5. Field School Site: The field Schools are always held in the community where farmers live so that they can easily attend weekly and maintain the field school studies. The extension officer travels to the site on the day of the field school

6. Building groups: One of the jobs of the facilitator is to assist the field school to develop as a support group so that participants can support one another after the field school is over. This is done by having elected officers (head, treasurer, and secretary), and group identity. The field school needs its own name - never the name of the founding organization! No hats, or shirts are given out. A budget may be prepared for this, but the group should make the design and have their own name on these. During the season, the field school includes group building exercises to build group trust and coherence. The field school may also include such activities as long-term planning (log frames), and proposal writing to find funding for activities groups decide to do together. Funding may come from a number of sources including from within the group itself, local shop owners, local governments, NGOs, or national programmes.

7. Basic science: Field Schools try to focus on basic processes through field observations, season-long research studies, hands-on activities. It has been found that when farmers have learned about basics, combined with their own experiences and needs, they make decisions that are effective. When farmers have this basic knowledge they are better clients for extension and research systems because they have more specific questions and demands. They also are able to hold these systems accountable for their output and benefits. And finally they are able to protect themselves from dubious sources.

8. Study fields [non-risk]: The field school has a small (usually about 1000 m2) field for group study. This is the core of the Field Schools. This field is essential for a field school because farmers can carry out studies without personal risk allowing them to take management decisions that they might not otherwise attempt in trials on their own farm. This provides farmers a way of testing a new method themselves before applying it to their own fields. It also allows for more interesting research topics such as defoliation simulations in which leaves are removed. The arrangement for this field varies based on local conditions. Some villages have communal lands that can be used for free, some villages may request on inputs, others areas may request compensation in case of lower yields in experiments, etc.. It is important to remember however that this land is to be maintained by the group - not by the facilitator alone - and is not a typical “demo-plot” as traditionally used in many programmes.

Top

Characteristics :

1. Farmers as Experts:  Learning by doing is the training approach used. Farmers learn by carrying out for themselves the various activities related to the particular farming practice they want to study and learn about. This could be related to annual crops, livestock/fodder production, orchards or forest management. The key thing is that farmers conduct their own field studies. Their training is based on comparison studies (of different treatments) and field studies that they, not the extension/ research staff conduct. In so doing they become experts on the particular practice they are investigating.

2. The Field is the Primary Learning Material: All learning is based in the field. The field is where the farmers learn. Working in small sub-groups they collect data in the field, analyse the data, make action decisions based on their analyses of the data, and present their decisions to the other farmers in the field school for further discussion, questioning, and refinement.

3. Extension Workers as Facilitators Not Teachers: The role of the extension worker is very much that of a facilitator rather than a conventional teacher. Once the farmer know what it is they have to do, and what it is that they can observe in the field, the extension worker takes a back seat role, only offering help and guidance when asked to do so. Presentations during meetings are the work of the farmers not the extension worker, with the members of each working group assuming responsibility for presenting their findings in turn to their fellow farmers. The extension worker may take part in the subsequent discussion sessions but as a contributor, rather than leader, in arriving at an agreed consensus on what action needs to be taken at that time.

4. The curriculum is Integrated: The curriculum is integrated. Crop husbandry, animal husbandry, horticulture, silviculture, land husbandry are considered together with ecology, economics, sociology and education to form a holistic approach. Problems confronted in the field are the integrating principle.

5. Trainings Follows the Seasonal Cycle:Training is related to the seasonal cycle of the practice being investigated. For annual crops this would extend from land preparation to harvesting. For fodder production would include the dry season to evaluate the quantity and quality at a time of year when livestock feeds are commonly in short supply. For tree production and such conservation measures as hedgerows and grass strips training would need to continue over several years for farmers to be able to see for themselves the full range of costs and benefits.

6. Regular Group Meetings: Farmers meet at agreed regular intervals. For annual crops such meetings may be every 1 or 2 weeks during the cropping season. For other farm/forestry management practices the time between each meeting would depend on what specific activities need to be done, or be related to critical periods of the year when there are key issues to observe and discuss in the field.

7. Learning materials are learner generated: Farmers generate their own learning materials, from drawings of what they observe, to the field trials themselves. These materials are always consistent with local conditions, are less expensive to develop, are controlled by the learners and thus can be discussed by the learners with others. Learners know the meaning of the materials because they have created the materials.

8. Group dynamics/team building:Training includes communication skill building, problem solving, leadership, and discussion methods. Farmers require these skills. Successful activities at the community level require that farmers can apply effective leadership skills and have the ability to communicate their findings to others.

Top

Major Steps in FFS Implementation

 Top

How FFS is Perceived?

The Process of FFS

I. Organization and management

Duration : Usually 4-5 hours
Learning: Through sub-groups
Session management: Host teams
Leadership: Elected representatives

II. Agro Eco System Analysis(AESA)

AESA is the cornerstone of FFS Approach. The purpose of using AESA is for farmers to learn to make regular field observations, analyze problems and opportunities encountered in the field and to improve decision-making skills regarding farm management. It helps farmers to make wise production management decisions, through analysis of relevant data collected from the field. By carrying out AESA regularly in the FFS, farmers develop a mental checklist of indicators to be observed when monitoring their farm practices.

AESA is a four-stage process

III. Experimentation

Comparative studies
Field studies e.g. insect zoos, soil texture etc.
Long term or short term

IV. Group dynamics

To develop team building skills, organizational skills, cooperation, planning etc.

V. Special topics

Build on existing knowledge 
Enable farmer interaction and sharing of information
Ensure demand lead information dissemination
Promote interaction between farmers, extension officers and scientists

VI. Typical FFS schedule

VII. FFS Graduation:

Occasion to recognize the time put in the FFS by the farmers and facilitators. Certificate awarded…….

Top

Training and Visit Comparision with Farmer Field School

Top

Limitation

Top

FARMER FIELDS SCHOOLS IN TAMILNADU

Introduction

The term “Farmer Fields Schools” came from the Indonesian expression Sekolah Lapangan meaning just field school. The name Sekolah Lapangan was created to reflect the educational goals; the course took place in the field, and the field conditions defined most of the curriculum, but real field problems were observed, and analysed from planting of the crop (rice) to harvest. Group decisions on the crop management could be evaluated at the end of season by measuring the yield. A field was established by the participants with a research study to compare IPM methods and farmer’s conventional methods. Pre- and post-tests were given, the same farmers and facilitators attended throughout the season, and graduation was based on attendance and learning performance. Graduation certificates were awarded to farmers. Thus, the Field School was a school without walls that taught basic agro-ecology and management skills.

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

During the 1970s it became increasingly apparent that pest resistance and resurgence caused by the indiscriminate use of insecticides posed an immediate threat to the gains of the Green Revolution. At the same time, research was being conducted that demonstrated the viability of biological control of major rice pests. However, gaps still existed between the science generated in research institutions and common farmer practice conditioned by years of aggressive promotion of pesticide use. Over the ensuing years, a number of approaches were tried to bring integrated pest management (IPM) to small farmers - particularly rice farmers - in Asia, with mixed results. Some experts claimed that the principles of IPM were too complex for small farmers to master, and that centrally-designed messages were still the only way to convince farmers to change their practices.

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

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

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

Indicative numbers from member countries of the FAO community IPM programme in Asia implementing IPM field schools (through 2000):

            An FFS initiative in Trichy area, Tamil Nadu, in 1997 helped farmers reduce their high input costs and increased the stability of cotton cropping systems through use of intercrops. Each FFS met for 23 sessions during the cropping season. They were able to eliminate chemical use in the IPM plots, compared with 8-10 applications in the FP plots, by using early sown cowpea as a border trap crop for pests, and castor to build up populations of beneficial insects. Farmers understood how the trap crop became a natural enemy breeding ground. Farmers had previously viewed pests from pulses as a problem, and used chemical applications on these crops. One of the major benefits of reducing the number of pesticide applications, apart from financial, was that women were saved hours of time previously spent hauling water from 3 km away for 10 applications by knapsack spraying. Since 60-70% FFS group members in cotton are women the benefits of reduced pesticides were very apparent.

Top

Model

Organisation Involved

Through Tamil Nadu Agricultural University::

 FFS on Cotton

During the year 2005-06,  700  farmer field school  were conducted in two season.  In Kharif  season 300 FFS  at Coimbatore, Erode, Salem, Dharmapuri, Theni, Vellore, Dindogul, Perambalur and Villupuram district and 400 FFS  in summer season at Dharmapuri, Krishnagiri, Salem, Madurai, Virudhunagar, Sivagangai, Ramnad, Tanjore, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam distict.

During 2006-07, Winter season 200 FFS were conducted at Coimbatore, Salem, Preambalur, Dharmapuri and Vellore district and in summer season, 200 FFS were conducted in NAmakkal, Erode, Theni, Virudhunagar, Thirunelveli, Ramnad, Tanjore, Thiruvarur and Nagapattinam district.

Due to the implementation of this scheme awareness was created among the farmers. As a result the quantity of pesticides used by the farmers has been reduced which resulted in reducing the cost of production of otton. Due to te use of organic inputs also the pest load was reduced. With regard to the yield levels there was a different of 1-2 Q/acre between FFS and non FFS field i.e. the yield was increased to 1-2 Q under/acre. Farmers get 15-20% higher price than the market price.

Through Department of Agriculture

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a broad ecological pest control approach aiming at best mix of all known pest control measures to keep the pest population below economic threshold level (ETL). The major components in this approach are to advocate cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical control of insect pests, diseases, weeds and rodents. Therefore, a season long training will be given to the Agricultural Officers for important crops such as paddy, cotton, pulses and groundnut. For effective implementation of IPM, Farmers Field School has to be started.

Being the pioneering State in the country, the IPM concept has been  well understood by the farmers especially through the Farmers Field School implemented in paddy and cotton . The object of this scheme is to maximise the production at a minimum cost and simultaneously obliviate the ill-effects like environmental pollution, pesticide residues in food, resurgence of pests etc.  The IPM concept is being emphasised also through Centrally Sponsored Schemes like Integrated Cereals Development Programme (Rice), Accelerated Maize Development Programme, Oilseeds Production Programme, National Pulses Development Project and Cotton Mini Mission II.   During 2001-2002, the following programmes have been implemented under IPM through Centrally Sponsored Schemes.

This approach is proposed to be continued  during 2002-2003.

During 2004-05 the following programmes are implemented under IPM through Centrally Sponsored Schemes.

This IPM approach will be continued during 2005-06 also.

IPM farmers field school in pulses

Farmers are trained for the adoption of IPM technology in field schools.   100 FFS have been organised to train farmers under IPM technology at a cost of Rs. 6.5 Lakhs in all districts except the Nilgiris The Integrated Pest Management Technology to combat pest and diseases was introduced in Tamilnadu through FAO Programme in late 80's and special thrust were laid to this concept through Farmers Field School approach. This season long training cum demonstration component involving 30 farmers in each training, created greater awareness among the farmers and being practiced in almost all the villages. Because of the large scale adoption of IPM technologies, the technical grade pesticide consumption which was annually around 10,000 MTs. a decade ago has come down to around 1300 MTs.

Through  TNAU KVK

Farmers Field School on ‘SRI’

Farmer Field School Programme on Rice was conducted by   KVK, Madurai in four villages namely Thindiyur Mettuneerathan, Mayandipatti and Kulamangalam of Madurai district. Participatory rural appraisal were carried out in these villages just before the cropping season i.e during June – July.  Particularly transect walk was conducted by incorporating all stake holders such as farmers, extension officials, input dealers, agricultural scientists, NGOs and seed certification agencies.  It was expressed by the farmers that the cost of production of rice is high and the productivity is low.  Among the various measures discussed in the focal group discussion to reduce the cost of production and to increase the productivity led to the introduction of ‘SRI’ by the scientists.

After realizing the need among the farmers, technical deliberation on SRI was made through SRI modules and LCD projection through on and off campus training programmes. A special seminar on SRI was organized in which the subject matter specialist drawn from various pioneering institutes such as TRRI, Adudurai and AC&RI, Killiculam participated and clarified the doubts of the farmers. In addition to the technical knowledge, to give confidence and conviction the successful farmers who had already taken up SRI narrated their experiences

Subsequently as scheduled, mat nursery was raised in the farmers field in which only 7.5 Kg of seed per ha was used compared to 75 Kg / ha followed by the farmers. The critical input like certified seeds and biofertilisers are supplied to the individual farmers and cono weeders are given to the groups to encourage them in SRI practices.

Farmers were advised to go for line planting with the interval of 25 x 25 cm by using ropes. However they expressed that the planting of young single seedlings is a laborious act involving more labour than normal planting and sought technical guidance from the scientists to reduce the labour cost involved in the line sowing. In this regard a rolling marker developed by the KVK, Madurai for line sowing was taken up to the farmers field. Similarly farmers are also finding difficulties in operating cono weeder. Now the steps are being taken up to over come the constraints. The cost benefit analysis of SRI is also being worked out. Further to popularise this concept mass media programmes are being organized at periodical intervals.

Through NGO KVK-MYRADA

Farmers field school in cotton

In 2008, FFS approach was  conducted in Eangattuthottam, Pudhupalayam, Thaneerpandal and Chellampalayam of Andiyurblock of Erode district. 100 farmers from four villages  were identified and 20 weekly sessions were held in various aspects of production and protection technologies. Through the implementations

Through Non Government Organisation

 BEST

BEST is an NGO having its operational area at ”Keeranur‘ of Pudhukottai district, being member of SCINDeA, (a network NGOs promoting slum area and  agriculture development work) have taken massive steps in popularizing the technology with the support from AME Foundation. In principle, it entered into an agreement with AME foundation for technical and partial fund support. It got trained its 30 staff members for 15 days period in SRI-Farmer Field School (SRI-FFS) mode and started its implementation in 15 villages through conducting SRI in FFS mode. During the field visit to their area while interacting with a woman farmer expressed SRI as good method to cultivate paddy as it has reduced the labour requirement, transplantation time, weed population etc.

AME Foundation

AME Foundation is a Non-Governmental resource organization. AME was born out of the concern for Sustainable Agriculture in 1982 in the Netherlands, and relocated in India in 1986. After being a project through several phases, it became an Indian organization, managed by a Board of Trustees, since 2002. AMEF is engaged in promoting livelihood improvements, of small and marginal farmers in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by enabling them to generate and adopt alternative farming practices, through capacity building activities and by associating local development agencies.The objective is to enhance sharing, learning, networking and celebrating our bonding. The central purpose of these activities is to share with other agencies and policy makers the unique experiences, which AMEF has gained in promoting sustainability in dry land farming, and expand our contacts.

Contact Address:
TIRUCHI: No.37, E.V.R.Road, K.K. Nagar, Tiruchirapalli - 620 021,
Tamil Nadu. Ph: 0431 2458726 & 2455408 Fax (pp): 0431 2450725
try_ametry@sancharnet.in / ameftry@amefound.org

In Tiruchi, summer ploughing and bund repair were the main activities taken up on the field followed by input assessment and mobilisation by farmer federations. Twelve sessions of the Farmer Field School (FFS) in Brinjal were completed at Nochium village of Perambalur district

AME Foundation being in Dharmapuri district of Tamilnadu has been actively involved in promoting SRI paddy cultivation through offering Modified Training of Facilitators (MToF) in FFS mode keeping SRI as core. Joining hands with network NGOs like MYRADA in Krishnagiri, Hosur, Dharmapuri and SCINDeA at Yelagiri hills AME promotes SRI paddy through offering innovating trainings. In  its recent training, offered SRI training in FFS mode by training the NGO staff members of 30 nos. from various parts of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry including  CWS supported NGOs.

Ongoing Plan of FFS in Tamilnadu

National Food Security Mission(NFSM)
Rice

In Tamil Nadu, NFSM - Rice Scheme is implemented in five districts viz. Nagapattinam, Thiruvarur, Pudukottai, Ramanathapuram and Sivagangai from 2007-08 onwards to enhance the area and productivity of Rice. Interventions like farmers' training through Farmers' Field Schools and publicity are undertaken. Under this programme, it is aimed to increase the rice area and production in these districts from the present level of 6.077 Lakh ha to 6.920 Lakh ha and to enhance the rice production from 13.518 L.MT to 45.852 L.MT during 2011-12.

Pulses

The NFSM-Pulses scheme is implemented in 12 potential districts viz. Coimbatore, Cuddalore, Erode, Nagapattinam,  Namakkal, Thiruvarur, Thiruvallur, Thoothukudi, Thiruvannamalai, Vellore, Villupuram and Virudhunagar. Under this scheme, incentives are extended for production and distribution of quality seeds, distribution of gypsum, micro nutrients, sprinkler sets, Integrated Pest Management Demonstration and Farmers Training. This scheme aims at to increase the pulses area from the present level of 4.32 L.ha to 7.36 L.ha during 2011-12 and to enhance the pulse production from 1.43L.MT to 4.78L MT. To increase the pulses production in Tamil Nadu by adoption of 2% DAP foliar spray twice and application of micro nutrients.

Sources::
http://www.encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com
http://www.jsysindia.org
http://www.fao.org
http://www.farmerfieldschool.net
http://en.wikipedia.org./wiki/Farmer_Field_school
http://www.tnpolicynotes.com
Book: Participatory Impact monitoring and evaluation of agriculture and rural development programme- M.J.Chandra Gouda

Top