In the previous blog posts, I tried to highlight the importance of community participation in water management and, in the last one, I started reflecting on the most effective methods to enhance this aspects: which community participation formats can be introduced?
Among the solutions implemented by FAO, there are also Farmer Field Schools (FFS)
These are groups of farmers who, on a voluntary basis, weekly gather to:
-discuss about problems in land and and water management;
-exchange techniques drawing from their own experience to find solutions;
-learn good soil and water management practices, guided by the FFS facilitator*, and test them through field experiments;
-collectively monitor data, such as soil moisture, number of pests and beneficial creatures.
*The FFS facilitator is usually an extension worker or a previous participant of a FFS who has 'graduated', thus has attended meetings for the whole duration of the crop season.
I believe one important aspect to focus on is that sharing of local practices among farmers and learning of techniques presented by the facilitator are complementary aspects of information exchange.
Farmer presenting her results of field observations and agro-ecosystem analysis during weekly Farmer Field School sessions, Kendewa village, Anuradhapura District, Sri Lanka, 2002. Photo: Henk van den Berg
It could be interesting analysing FFS in view of the three main principles of IWRM: equity, efficiency and environmental sustainability, after recognising that land management -the main decision area of FFS- is strictly related to water use.
-Equity:
The aim of FFS is that of stimulating community members to participate in the decision making process about water and land management.
One of the strengths of these projects is that people participate on a voluntary basis.
Moreover, as I mentioned above, they also choose what are the main areas they want to learn about.
Also, exchange of local agricultural practices gives relevance to Indigenous Knowledge.
FFS enhances equal participation of community members in decisions within the school (but, indirectly, also in other situations in community life) through women's involvement and access to leadership roles; engagement in elections; collective funds management, which increases social responsibility.
Perhaps, the last point is one of the most important aspects to improve. As FAO (2006) reports, FFS members should be kept more updated about the financial situation and regularly involved in the discussion about budget.
The FAO document also points out the need to encourage self-financed farmers schools. Perhaps this can be achieved implementing microcredit systems, as microfinance management groups can have similar sizes and organisational structure of FFS.
-Efficiency:
FFS also intend to increase economic efficiency by enhancing agricultural productivity -measured in change in yield per hectare, returns to labour, returns to input- due to the introduction of more efficient techniques, change in land use (for example, diversification of crops) and increase in soil fertility.
However, cost-benefit analysis led by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) in 2014, registers that FFS are unlikely to be cost effective because of their high per capita costs, which can be offset only by a high adoption rate (the percentage of participants in the projects among all the sustained adopters).
It might be argued that the financial sustainability problem is actually an issue related to lack of access of information about FFS benefits to potential adopters. In this sense, the voluntary basis of these schools is disadvantageous only if communities do not have proper information about the project itself.
-Environmental sustainability:
Environmental objectives of FFS include: increase of biodiversity and water quality and decrease of pollution and soil erosion.
Beyond stated purposes of FFS, studies evaluating their environmental impacts are contrasting.
The above mentioned document of 3ie refers to an impact evaluation of FFS programs in Indonesia, which reports lack of their effectiveness in improving a better use of pesticides. On the other hand, other studies registering reductions in pesticides use are mentioned.
To sum up, FFS impacts are quite controversial; especially in large-scale assessment which lack data, as most analysis focus on specific case studies, as reported in a document for the International Fund For Agricultural Development (IFAD, 2011).
Perhaps the question if FFS are effective in general can be reframed as how FFS can be effective on a local basis, adapting characteristics of this learning tool to specific community features -for example, understanding which are the most suitable methods to engage community in FFS.
Sources:
Braun A., Duveskog D., (2011) The Farmer Field School Approach - History, Global Assessment and Success Stories Background paper for the IFAD Rural poverty report.
FAO (2006) Farmer field schools on land and water management in Africa - Proceedings of an international workshop in Jinja, Uganda, 24–29 April 2006.
http://www.fao.org/nr/land/sustainable-land-management/farmer-field-school/en/
Waddington, H., White, H., and Anderson, J. (2014). Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education. Systematic Review Summary, 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment