Chigozie C. Asiabaka 1, J. G. Mureithi 2, Michelle E. Owens 3. Owerri, Nigeria

Transcription

1 Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Methodology Development of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) for Scaling Up the Adoption of Integrated Nutrient Management Technologies and Information Chigozie C. Asiabaka 1, J. G. Mureithi 2, Michelle E. Owens 3 1 Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Federal University of Technology Owerri, Nigeria ccasiabaka@yahoo.com 2 KARI-NARL, P.O. Box 14733, Nairobi, Kenya jmureithi@africaonline.co.ke 3 FAO Regional Office for Africa, P.O. GP 1628, Accra, Ghana michelle.owens@fao.org Abstract The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach was adopted as one of the methodologies to scale up promising agricultural technologies developed by two Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) projects; the Soil Management Project and the Legume Research Network Project. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had earlier promoted the FFS approach in the coastal and western parts of Kenya to scale up agricultural technologies with promising results. Consequently, researchers in the two KARI projects began using this approach during the long rainy season in early Unfortunately, the frameworks to assess the impact of this approach on farmers adoption behaviors were lacking. A six-day workshop was held in March 2002 with the following objectives: a) to expose participants to the basics of participatory monitoring and evaluation, b) to design jointly and develop participatory tools for internal monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of FFS as an approach for up scaling adoption of technologies, and c) to impart participants with analytical and reporting skills for participatory measurement and evaluation. A total of 35 participants attended the workshop. The workshop began by an introduction of the basic concepts and principles of participation, monitoring, and evaluation. The participants were then divided into groups for brainstorming sessions aimed at first identifying the PM&E measurements/outcomes and the indicators. After days of brainstorming and participatory activities, the measurements and indicators were identified by each group. The identified measurements and indicators were harmonized in a plenary session. Techniques and tools for participatory monitoring and evaluation of FFS using the harmonized measurements and indicators were then developed. The methodology is now being used in the field. This paper discusses the mechanics followed in addressing the workshop objectives and also discusses the relevant measurements/outcomes, indicators, and tools for PM&E of the different stages of the Farmer Field School (FFS) process. 76

2 Introduction The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) as a national agricultural research organization contributes to the national goals of ensuring food security, poverty alleviation and environmental protection (KARI, 2000) through raising agricultural productivity and incomes on a sustained basis by technology generation and dissemination in close cooperation with farmers, extension staff, and other stakeholders. In particular, KARI emphasizes on generating technologies, which are appropriate to small-holders, are gender sensitive, and take into account the existing local knowledge. Due to the declining agricultural production and rising levels of poverty and food insecurity, KARI is keen to demonstrate the relevance and potential impact of its technologies on the livelihoods of the ultimate beneficiaries, the farmers of Kenya. The dissemination of technologies is basically the responsibility of the public extension service and other extension service providers, including non-governmental organizations and the private sector (Muchena and Gicheru, 2001). Given the need for increased adoption of technologies by the farming rural communities, KARI has been adopting various approaches to strengthen the working relationships with other development agencies to enhance the dissemination of agricultural technologies and information. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) is one of such approaches that are currently being used by KARI. Others include Farmer Participatory Research (FPR), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Participatory Learning and Action Research (PLAR) and Agricultural Technology and Information Response Initiative (ATIRI). The FFS was chosen because it has been used successfully in some Asian countries e.g. the Philippines and Indonesia (Pontius et al., 2000) to promote integrated pest management technologies for rice production. The FFS is a participatory approach that uses non-formal adult education methods based on experimental learning techniques and participatory training methods (Miagostovich et al., 1999, Asiabaka et al 2002). The FFS approach shifts from targeting farmers with pre-set extension messages towards building on and improving the farmers capacity to analyze their farming systems and practices, and to develop and test possible solutions that address their prioritized needs, combining local and scientific knowledge. The FFS approach emphasizes learning by doing. The learning process takes place in the field and is normally designed to last for a full growing/cropping cycle. This enables farmers to participate fully in implementation of all components of the technology from planting to harvesting. The learning process accords farmers an opportunity to observe and reflect the merits and demerits of the technologies and thereby make informed decisions of whether to adopt them or not. Farmer field schools are not new in Kenya; the first ones were established in following the original model promoted by FAO in Indonesia. As those in SE Asia, most FFS centered on integrated pest management (IPM) on various crops, with many focusing on vegetable and poultry production. In 1996, the FAO's Special Program for Food Security initiated FFS in the western Province of Kenya in Kakamega, Bungoma, and Busia Districts and later schools were initiated at the Kenyan coast (Khisa, 2000). The schools in western Kenya have been reported to increase crop yields by up to 3 times and reduced chick 77

3 mortality from 80 to 20% (Abate, 2000). In Kenya, FFSs have been led mainly by extensionists and have been used to train farmers on only one technology. KARI S Farmer Field School Pilot Project The FFS pilot project commenced in March 2001 and aimed at incorporating the FFS approach in the Soil Management Project (SMP) and Legume Research Network Project (LRNP) of KARI. The SMP and the LRNP were initiated in 1994 to combat soil fertility decline in smallholder farms in Kenya. The SMP was implemented through two KARI Centers; the National Agricultural Research Center at Kitale and the Regional Research Center at Kisii. The SMP adopted the farmer participatory research (FPR) approach to implement research activities so that farmers and other stakeholders could participate actively in technology development and transfer. In addition to decline in soil fertility, farmers identified lack of suitable crop varieties and livestock feed as important constraints limiting smallholder agricultural production that the project needed to address. The LRNP was began as a legume screening network to primarily screen suitable green manure legumes in eleven sites spread across the country from 15 m to 1900 m asl. The Network expanded its activities to include coordinated studies in legume residue management, evaluation of legume green manure as a component of integrated soil management and livestock feeding studies based on selected legumes. The first phase of these projects ended in year 2000 after being on the ground for six years. At the end of the phase about ten technologies were identified as being ready for scaling up (i.e., wide-scale dissemination in neighboring villages and regions with similar agro-ecological characteristics to the study sites). These technologies were: Improved preparation, management and use of organic manures to improve soil fertility. Different combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers for maize, finger millets, forages, and vegetables (kales and cabbages). Soil-improving green manure legumes. Low cost soil conservation structures. Bean varieties tolerant to beanfly infestation and root rot. Food legumes other than beans for intercropping with maize. Suitable forages for waterlogged soils. High yielding forage species for milk production. Suitable crop varieties for different agro-ecological zones. Plant extracts for control of crop pests. The FFS approach was one of the scaling approaches adopted by the two projects to disseminate the technologies. Others included a conventional group extension approach and Farmer Research committees (FRC) as dissemination agents. It was adopted on a pilot basis for three years beginning in March 2001 by five KARI centers: Kitale, Kakamega, Kisii, Embu, and Mtwapa 78

4 Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of the FFS approach KARI embraces the need for an elaborate and systematic planning, monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) system to generate information to show the impact of its activities at different levels (KARI, 1998). In most instances, there is a high proportion of the planning of the PM&E process but with very little internal evaluation taking place. KARI is currently emphasizing the need for participatory planning, monitoring and evaluation so that there is ownership of the process by the research managers, scientists, development partners, extension, other agricultural service providers, and the ultimate beneficiaries - the farmers. This calls for mechanisms of involving the key players in internally identifying and agreeing on the various performance indicators to be used in the monitoring and evaluation process. Therefore, the need to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the FFS approach in scaling up adoption of agricultural technologies could not be over-emphasized. Unfortunately, tools/frameworks to do so were lacking or those available were limited in scope. A methodology development workshop on PM&E of FFS was organized primarily to develop those tools. The major objective of the workshop was to design jointly and develop participatory tools/frameworks for internal monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of FFS as an approach for scaling up adoption of technologies. Methodology The workshop began by an introduction of the basic concepts and principles of participation, activities that encourage participation, meaning of participatory monitoring and evaluation, differences between conventional monitoring and evaluation and participatory monitoring and evaluation. Other topics covered were the concept of measurements and indicators, methodologies /techniques/tools for PME data collection, analysis, reporting skills and PME data use. The concepts were discussed in plenary sessions and all misconceptions/misunderstandings were cleared during the question and answer sessions. The participants were then divided into groups for brainstorming sessions aimed at first identifying the PME measurements/outcomes and the indicators. After brainstorming and participatory activities, the measurements and indicators were identified by each group. The identified measurements and indicators were harmonized in a plenary session. The next stage was to develop the methodologies, techniques and tools for participatory monitoring and evaluation of FFS using the harmonized measurements and indicators. Adopted definition of PM&E Participation was defined as the process by which people become involved in their own development. It can be described as the voluntary involvement of people in self determined change. Participation includes joint planning, management and implementation, sharing benefits and monitoring and evaluation. PM&E requires the involvement of people in, deciding what areas to monitor, selecting the indicators for monitoring and evaluation, designing data collection systems, collating and tabulating data, analyzing the results and using PM&E information/data for their own use. Therefore, PM&E improve people s efficiency and effectiveness in what they do and increase awareness and understanding of factors which affect their situation, thereby increasing control over the development process. 79

5 The following section presents the harmonized measurements/outcomes and indicators and the tools/frameworks for PM&E. An attempt was made to match the harmonized outcomes, indicators, and tools to the different stages of the FFS process. 1. Collection of baseline information Results/ Output Baseline line information gives the current situation of farming and farming systems and is important for future assessment of the impact of the approaches/technologies. Participants brainstormed during the workshop and identified the following key areas to be covered in a baseline study. Conventional methodologies for collecting baseline information can be used to collect information on the identified areas. Economic : Production levels, income levels, ownership of assets, poverty, economic improvement household food security, mechanization Socio-cultural : Group cohesion, gender participation, standard of living, wealth, learning Technological : Adoption, facilitation skills, communication skills, sustainability, post harvest handling, condition of the produce, capacity building, networking (linkages), access to credit, marketing Environmental : Conservation of resources, afforestation, pesticide use Political : Leadership potentials Accountability : Bank accounts, Record keeping, planning forums 2. Village immersion This is an activity whereby the facilitators of the planned FFS enter into a community. They hold a series of meetings with the local opinion leaders and local administrators in which they explain the objectives and goals of the anticipated activities. They also explain the roles of the facilitators, what they can do and what they may not do. They also discuss what is expected of the community. This is all done with a view to solicit their support in forming the FFSs. The main measurement/outcome of this activity is that the opinion leaders are sensitized on the goals and objectives of forming the FFS and hence are supporting the formation of the schools. that this outcome has been achieved include the following. Number of schools formed Number of times opinion leaders participate in the FFS activities Number of times opinion leaders have invited FFS members to their meetings e.g., chief s Baraza Number of times opinion leaders have scheduled their activities on FFS days Number of times opinion leaders have been called upon to resolve conflicts in FFS 80

6 3. Ground working With the assistance of the of opinion leaders, facilitators convene an open meeting with members of the community. In the meeting, the facilitators with assistance of opinion leaders explain the objectives and goals of the anticipated activities. They also explain the roles of the facilitators, what they can do and what they may not do. They also discuss what is expected of the community and the facilitators (leveling of expectations). The site(s) for the school(s) is/are chosen and farmers willing to enroll in the respective school(s) are enlisted. Table 2. Outcomes and indicators of ground working. Outcomes/measurement Farmers sensitized on the objectives of forming FFS Farmers enrolled in FFS FFS sites selected Number of farmers that expressed willingness to enroll in FFS Number of farmers that later joined FFS Number of farmers who dropped out of FFS Number of farmers whose expectations were met Number of farmers who enrolled in FFS Number of FFS formed Number and names of selected sites 4. Day one of FFS In day one of the school, the school leadership is chosen as well as the norms and rules governing the school. The FFS concepts and objectives / goals are spelt out to the enrolled participants. The types of records kept by the school are also spelt out. Outcomes and indicators for day one of FFS are presented in Table 3. 81

7 Table 3. Outcomes and indicators of day one in school Outcome/Measurement 1. School register developed and used 2. FFS concept and objectives understood by farmers 3. School leadership put in place 4. Host teams and slogans formed 5. FFS days for meetings identified 6. Procedures for sharing benefits agreed 7. Norms and rules of FFS established Daily roll call Percentage attendance ( % of those enrolled Number of farmers fined for lateness Number of farmers expelled for lateness Number of farmers approved for graduation Number of farmers aware of objectives of FFS Number of farmers who can explain FFS concepts Number of farmers who can explain FFS process List of the names of elected officials Date of election Tenure in office of elected officials List the names of the slogans of host teams Number of host teams formed Names of meeting dates Time of meetings Farmers knowledge of mode/method of sharing benefits accruing from FFS Availability of rules and norms 5. Setting up participatory technology demonstrations (PTDs) In this stage, plots are laid out and planted with options of the technology to be scaled-up. A farmer practice plot is included for purposes of comparisons. Participation of farmers in planning, laying out and planting the technological options including their participation in the management of the plots enhances their ability to experiment and fosters farmer-to-farmer communication by collecting, interpreting, and sharing of the PTD results. The outcome and indicators for this stage are technology specific and Table 4 just gives an example. Table 4. Example of outcome and indicators of the PTD Measurements (outcomes) Demonstrations established Plot size Date(s) of input(s) acquisition Date of planting Seed and fertilizer rate by plot Type of feeds and amount used Number of livestock houses available Type of livestock houses available Number of records kept by type 82

8 6. Running the FFS: The monitoring of PTDs using the agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA) approach In setting up the AESA, the participants look at the interface between a crop and its physical environment. Farmers interpret the performance of the crop in relation to the physical environment. They collect data, process them and present them to the class. Based on the results, decisions are made on their next course of action. Table 5 shows some of the expected outcomes and indicators of the AESA approach Table 5: Expected outcomes and indicators of an AESA exercise Measurements (Outcomes) AESA chart prepared Availability of AESA Charts Farmers can collect data from the Number of farmers who can demonstration identify diseases and pests Number of farmers who can assess the extent of damage by pest/disease Measurement made and recorded on AESA chart, e.g., plant height, weight, insect damaged leaves. Farmer process data from AESA Result of processed data presented in plenary Comparison of demonstrations made by farmers Decisions and/or recommendations made by farmers on future activities 7. Running FFS: Facilitation of the FFS Number of farmers who can process data Number of farmers who can present results and frequency of plenary presentations Number of farmers who can make comparisons among the demonstration Number of times consistent decisions /recommendations made based on results and curriculum This involves the weekly routines of the FFS. It starts with prayers, roll call, taking of the AESA and presentations, and finally decision on the next course of action by the host team. The lesson of the day and / or special topic is presented by the facilitator(s). Table 6 gives some outcomes and indicators for facilitation of the FFS. 83

9 Table 6. Outcomes and indicators of facilitation of FFS Measurements (outcomes) Knowledge of lesson of the day Content of lesson of the day Method of presentation Length of preparation Understanding of the subject taught Quality of facilitation Number of farmers practicing skills learned Type of topic facilitated Method of presentation Timeliness of topic Length of presentation and feedback mechanism from farmers 8. Special topics covered in the FFS Households have many objectives that need to be met. They could be productive e.g., food production, or social, e.g., disease control, or physical, e.g., water provision. These objectives if not met may adversely affect the performance of a FFS. On certain occasions, the FFS members may demand special topics addressing such objectives. In most cases, this special topic is unrelated to the lesson of the day for a particular FFS but nonetheless important. Table 7 gives some outcomes and indicators for special topics. Table 7. Outcomes and indicators for special topics Measurements (outcomes) Special topics covered Special topics covered Type of special topics Number of special topics covered Method of presentation of the topics Time of presentation of the topics Number of FFS farmers practicing the skill(s) Number of non-ffs farmers practicing the skill(s) 9. Field day hosted by the FFS This is an open day for exchanging messages/ information about technologies demonstrated to the wider community with the intention of increasing diffusion and a possibility of enhancing adoption. Table 8 gives some outcomes and indicators for field days hosted by the FFS. 84

10 Table 8. Outcomes and indicators of field days Measurements (outcomes) FFS technologies demonstrated FFS farmers shared learned knowledge to the community FFS members get feedback from community Number of exhibitions presented Number of invited guests Number of participants in attendance Number of institutions participating Number of prizes awarded Type of exhibitions presented Number and types of messages shared Record of speeches Documentation done, e.g., photographs, video taped messages, etc. record questions and answers 10. FFS exchange visits Exchange visits are made to other FFS in similar or other different AEZs and socioeconomic settings. They could also be made to other places of particular agricultural interest. The purpose of the exchange visit is mainly to broaden the visitors horizon in terms of how other farmers manage their resources, given their circumstances to meet their farming aspirations. During such visits other unintended benefits may occur through personal interactions and observations such as conflict resolutions among FFS members. Table 9 gives some outcomes and indicators for exchange visits. 11. Group cohesion and group dynamics Group cohesion is critical to successful completion of any FFS. This is fostered by good leadership and facilitation as well social activities that cement the group together. Table 10 gives some outcomes and indicators for group cohesion and dynamics. 12. Graduation of FFS. At graduation, those farmers who have successfully gone through the season long FFS training and have met the group s norms and conditions for graduation are given certificates. Some of them can facilitate new FFS with the same PTDs. Table 11 gives some outcomes and indicators for graduation. 85

11 Table 9. Outcomes and indicators for exchange visits Measurements (outcomes) Linkage between schools established FFS farmers exposed to other technologies, skills, and farming systems Farmers exchange knowledge on leadership Number of visits made Number of FFS farmers who made visits Number of visits received into FFS Number of FFS linkages Number of linkages established *Type of messages and information exchanged *Method of funding visits (whether group or farmer-sponsored) *Skills practiced as a result of exchange visits. Number of new approaches of resolving conflict Table 10. The outcomes and indicators of group cohesion in FFS Measurements (outcomes) Group cohesion/dynamics strengthened Types of conflicts encountered Methods of conflict resolutions Frequency of conflicts Number of farmers dropping out from school Number of poems, drama, songs etc Number of FFS related messages in the folk media etc Number of income generating activities Table 11. Outcomes and indicators of the FFS graduation Measurements (Outcomes) Recap what was learned during the season-long school Certificates and prizes awarded for successful participation in school awarded Action plan for way forward *Number of poems, songs and dances with FFS messages *Chart displaying promising technologies and their performance Number of farmers who participated (in attendance) Number of farmers who graduated Number of certificates awarded Number of prizes awarded - Record of action plan 86

12 11. Post-FFS evaluation: Assessment of FFS graduands one year after graduation This assessment aims at establishing the value of FFS in diffusing knowledge/ technologies, how acquired knowledge contributes to the welfare of farmers, and how FFS enhances farmers experimentation skills. Table 12. Outcomes and indicators post-ffs graduands Measurement FFS technologies diffused Number of non-ffs farmers practising the technology Number of farmer led FFS formed Number of other groups (e.g., CBOs) formed Knowledge learned retained Number of farmers remembering the basics of lessons on technologies taught Number of farmers remembering the basics of lessons on special topics taught FFS technologies adopted Type of technology adopted Number of FFS members practising FFS technologies Number of FFS members a practising special topics Number of non-ffs members practising FFS technologies Changes in levels of production Production before FFS (kg, liters, etc) Production after FFS Changes in levels of income Income level before FFS Income level after FFS Changes in food security status Months of food deficit before FFS Months of food deficit after FFS Standard of living of the graduands improved Number of graduands with access to good drinking water Number of graduands with access to better quality food Number of graduands with access to good health Number of graduands with access to good housing Number of graduands with access to better clothing Number of graduands with access to basic education Graduands ability to experiment enhanced Number of farmers comparing different practices/ interventions in their farms Types of practices/interventions in those farms 87

13 Conclusion The PME methodology tools that were developed are being used in the field by workshop participants to test their relevancy, efficiency and usefulness. The workshop was an initial process to develop PME tools, which will not be complete, until the tools are tested in the field and fine tuned using the field experiences. A workshop is planned to review experiences and make necessary modifications. However, a few conclusions can be drawn from the process so far. a) The participants understood and appreciated the difference between PM&E of a process as opposed to monitoring and evaluating impacts of a project or a technology. b) The workshop helped in bringing to the fore the key steps of FFS approach and made it possible in identifying those that could be combined in PME exercises. c) The multi-disciplinary team of scientists appreciated their role in PM&E which many thought, before the workshop, that PM&E was to be used by socio-economists only. Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge the financial support we have received from the Rockefeller Foundation. We are indeed grateful to Dr. Ruben Puentes of RF New York and Mexico and Dr. John Lynam of RF Nairobi for technical support they have given the pilot project from its inception up to now. References Abate A.N Farmer Field Schools as a participatory research/extension methodology. Paper presented in the 2nd Scientific conference of the Soil Management and Legume Research Network Projects th June 2000, Mombasa, Kenya. Asiabaka C.C., Mureithi J.G., Murithi F.M., and Wamuongo J.W., Report of Participatory monitoring and evaluation methodology workshop of the Farmer Field School approach for scaling up the adoption of INM technologies and information. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. Pp 66. KARI, Improved livelihood through appropriate agricultural research and technology. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Strategic Plan , pp 28. KARI, Working paper on Institutionalization of a harmonized planning, monitoring and evaluation System in KARI. KARI Working Paper Series. Working Paper No. 1, 1998, pp 11. Khisa G.S., Output of the intensive training of trainers course on Farmer Field Schools, Mabanga Farmers Training Center, Bungoma District, February 13-23, Mweri B.M. and Khisa G.S., Report of the Training of Trainers course on Farmer Field School methodology for KARI s soil management and legume research network 88

14 project held at Utafiti hall, Egerton University, Kenya, March 12-17, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. PP 71. Miagostovich M., Anderson J. and Sukwong S., Farmer Field School in integrated crop management. Rural Learning Networks. Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC), pp 10. Muchena F.N. and Gicheru T.G., Institutional and policy frameworks on soil fertility and productivity. Paper presented during the Consultative Workshop on Soil Fertility and Land Productivity Initiative for Kenya st July Pontius J., Dilts R. and Bartlett A. (editors), From Farmer Field Schools to Community IPM. Ten years of IPM in Asia. The FAO Program for Community IPM in Asia, P.O. Box 1380, Jarkarta 12013, Indonesia, pg