Farmer Field Schools: Beyond Agriculture and Rural Development By Alma Linda. C. Morales-Abubakar

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Farmer Field Schools: Beyond Agriculture and Rural Development By Alma Linda. C. Morales-Abubakar"

Transcription

1 1 P a g e Farmer Field Schools: Beyond Agriculture and Rural Development By Alma Linda. C. Morales-Abubakar Over 55% of world s total and 70% of world s agricultural population live in the developing Asia- Pacific region. For these people, agriculture continues to be the means for inclusive and accelerated economic growth and livelihood security (APAARI, 2009). As such, the role of small farmers as producers of food and industrial raw materials, as consumers of goods and services, as managers of national resources and as citizens of their nations should not be taken for granted. Similarly, the contribution of smallholder agriculture on economic development and the importance of social, economic and cultural life on rural development should not be ignored. Farmers produce the food that feeds nations and yet, in many countries, they are at the bottom step of the food production ladder. Marketing systems generally do not work in their favour and farmers, often times, end up accepting whatever low price is offered for their produce. There are strategies that farmers can use to change this situation. They need to be able to analyze, understand and maximize their leverage regarding market factors. In many countries, debates often take place over issues that affect the livelihood of farmers. For example: the rights of farmers, access to land and water, decisions on cropping patterns, subsidies, and price supports. However, those who make decisions regarding these issues, do not always recognize or understand the interests of farmers. Farmers need to be able to understand the issues affecting their livelihood and participate in the debates on these issues to ensure that their interests are protected. Similarly, technologies are often times promoted to farmers, most of which are not developed with the goal of improved farmer welfare but for profits for those who develop and push the technologies. Farmers need to be able to select technologies that benefit them and contribute to overall food production. They must also be able to transform and evolve any chosen technology to fit the specific ecological and economic conditions relevant to them (FAO, 2002). One example that comes to mind was the introduction of the Green Revolution over four decades ago. The Green Revolution assumed that the productivity of small-scale farmers could be raised with better access to certain inputs and a set of prescribed instructions. The top-down extension of packages - pesticides, chemical fertilizers and seeds of new varieties - did not give farmers the knowledge they needed to make adjustments to their location specific conditions. While results were initially positive, the push of input packages and simplified messages de-skilled farmers and caused serious problems due to environmental degradation. In many regions around the world, production risks were increased,

2 2 P a g e yields declined and local biological diversity was dangerously reduced. While these problems were happening, there was an IRRI research that showed that farmers abilities can make a difference on increasing production. The survey showed that with innovation and adaptation of technologies farmers could increase their yields (Pingali, 1990). In the late 70s and mid 80s, pesticides were promoted as a standard government crop protection method for controlling Brown Planthoppers. Although resistant varieties were developed, these quickly lost resistance to the insect pest because of continued pesticide use. Research established that pest resurgence and resistance caused by indiscriminate pesticide use resulted from loss of ecosystem services necessary to keep BPH populations in check. This highlighted the need for farmers to understand the ecological principles underlying the rice field agro-ecosystem rather than simply being advised to use pesticides. The new thinking that farmers could be experts at farming emerged and FAO designed a new approach for training farmers (FAO, 2002). The first step towards designing Farmer Field School approaches were taken in the Philippines in By 1989, the first FFSs were implemented in Indonesia - as a response to the BPH problems. Policy support - such as a Decree on training field workers in IPM, the banning of broadspectrum insecticides and subsequent elimination of subsidies for insecticides (Oka, 1991) - boosted IPM and FFS implementation in Indonesia. Over two decades since then, Farmer Field School approaches have been applied and are currently in use for training farmers and programme development in 90 countries all over the world, among others, on: Sustainable crop intensification (in a wide range of crops including cotton, tea, coffee, cacao, pepper, vegetables, small grains, and legumes) Agro-biodiversity and genetic resource management Managing water, soils and fertility and crop nutrition Conservation agriculture Fisheries and animal husbandry Health, nutrition, child care, HIV-Aids Climate Smart Agriculture Post Harvest Farmer Life Schools Farmer Water Schools Farm Business Schools A 2012 World Bank publication on Strengthening Agricultural Extension and Advisory Systems highlights that FFS are particularly suited for learning complex management skills, like natural

3 3 P a g e resource management, diversifying production and accessing markets to increase rural incomes (Swanson and Rajalahti, 2010). The FFS is a process and not a goal. It brings farmers together to carry out collective and collaborative inquiry with the purpose of initiating community action in solving community problems. Field Schools aim to: Empower farmers with knowledge and skills to make them experts in their own fields Sharpen farmers ability to make critical and informed decisions that render their farming profitable and sustainable Sensitize farmers into new ways of thinking and problem solving Help farmers learn how to organize themselves and their communities A key lesson we have learned from implementing field school programmes for over two decades is that only a sustained effort combining elements of de-mystified science and technological improvements, nonformal education, local organization, alliance building and advocacy will last (FAO, 2002). The case of the organic chilli growers in Cambodia is an example. IPM FFS alumni participate in continuing participatory training programmes on production planning, organic production; farmers have formed and are now officially registered as a Cooperative; the farmers group works with a certification body, government technical line agencies and private sector that promotes/advocates organic production. The case of the community education programmes on pesticide risk reduction in Vietnam is another example. Local leaders, health workers, pesticide sellers and FFS alumni farmers participate in continuing participatory training programmes on various topics on pesticide risk reduction and moving into other topics, as demanded by farmers like conservation agriculture; various stakeholders are engaged in community actions to reduce pesticide risks - youths prepare posters, women set up disposal bins; advocacy has resulted in local policies and enforcement of these policies - shops have been closed that do not comply with regulations. Both examples started with an initial FFS. The success of IPM movements and broader and more varied FFS programmes demonstrate that there are crucial elements or factors for success, among others, such as: a strong technical/scientific entry point - whether it is about integrated pest management, rice breeding, marketing, chickens, or nutrition a flexible, learner-centered approach to educating farmers, communities and other stakeholders (e.g., researchers/scientists, private sector, public sector, others)

4 4 P a g e a common vision (where does the group want to be in a certain period of time) a Champion or Champions committed to the mission of the group (somebody to lead the group and advocate for the cause of.for example, safe food, non-toxic environment, equitable distribution of water, etc.) a supportive environment (in terms of government policies bans on pesticides and removal of subsidies as in the IPM case in Indonesia. It could also be infrastructures for example, if one is working on water sector restructuring programmes. It could be guaranteed markets - if the programme is on contract farming.) a coordination system and clear roles among a wide - and expanding - composition of stakeholders/institutions The evolving roles of an expanding composition of stakeholders and institutions as a factor of success of field school programmes is very important. A Farmer changes from a Dependent Farmer (who simply follows instructions and accepts technologies TO a Group Farmer who exchanges views and experiences with other farmers TO an FFS Farmer who learns to observe, analyze and decides; experiments with new ideas; learns from his own experiences TO an Interdependent Farmer who has capacity to solve his problems whenever he can; actively generates, adapts and extends innovations and links well with other farmers. A Facilitator evolves from simply being an Extension Worker who teaches farmers TO a Non-formal Extensionist who encourages group learning activities and uses non-formal training methods TO an FFS Facilitator who uses experiential learning methods; facilitates farmer field experimentation and ecological analysis; gives holistic education in production management TO a Farmers Group Facilitator who follows up Field School graduates; coordinates inter-group activities; and encourages farming community activities. A Programme moves from a Project-led FFS testing tools and with a quality check system TO Alumni/Post-FFS with regular, continuing group meetings; looking at cropping approaches; water management; exchanges among members TO Autonomous FFS Networks that are self-financed or autonomous; engage in continuous, planned knowledge generation activities TO a Farmer-led Development Programme that engages in community development activities; inter-group activities and self-promoting movements (Walter-Echols, 2004). The FAO Regional IPM/Pesticide Risk Reduction Programme works with networks of National IPM Programmes and partner CSOs in Asia. As a regional programme, member countries benefit from experience and information sharing - both on technical aspects and methodologies - that strengthens their

5 5 P a g e FFS programmes. Likewise, there are issues and challenges that can only or are best addressed on a regional basis - for example, invasive pest species (e.g., fruit flies) and diseases and the movement of pesticides through porous borders of neighboring countries. Fruit flies and pesticides, among others, know no boundaries and this is why FAO continues to support a regional programme. FAO recently concluded a Review of FFS Programmes aimed at developing guidelines for FFS programmes. The move was undertaken to address issues related to quality and assess current experiences and thinking on FFS approaches and the development/institutionalization of FFS programmes. While field school programmes have been successful there has also been many challenges and issues remaining that need to be resolved to improve field school programmes. Examples of these are maintaining the quality of Facilitators - this is important because the quality of FFS programmes depend on the quality of FFS Facilitators, continuously developing curricula to address the changing needs and emerging problems of farmers/communities, generating buy-ins for sustainability, mainstreaming field schools for institutionalization, policy development in favor of farmer education, pressure from industries. Solutions - like field schools - have to evolve from the communities. Like a rice seedling, the initial FFS is only the start of a long-term process and all the elements need to be in place to ensure a good harvest. The initial FFS provides farmers with basic skills in experimentation based on ecological principles, participatory training and non-formal education methods. When the foundation has been laid, farmers are better able to act on their own and to sharpen their observation, research, communication and organizational skills. The initial FFS sets in motion a longer-term process of learning and development of programmes and institutions. Learning - and knowledge - empower farmers and communities because they gain control over conditions that they confront on a daily basis. Field Schools empower farmers and communities. An IPM farmer from Thai Binh province, Viet Nam once said: Before IPM field schools we planted our rice and prayed that we might have a good harvest. Now we know that we can actually control many of the factors which influence our harvests. Empowerment is the principle that has influenced the design and implementation of farmer field schools. Educated farmers can make more effective decisions regarding agriculture and food production at the field level while proposing and promoting policies that reflect local reality and rural development. Farmer Field School Programmes - based on empowerment - can move farmers from being marginalized into a position where they can have better bargaining power vis-à-vis technical, political, market and social forces affecting sustainable ecological agriculture and rural development. Across Asia and other regions of the world, after more than two decades, farmer empowerment continues to be the foundation of FFS activities and programmes (FAO, 2002).

6 6 P a g e I would like to end with a short testimony of an FFS alumna from the Philippines that captures the philosophy behind field schools and its role beyond agriculture and rural development which is the development of lives and building nations.