K.D. Gallagher
Kevin Gallagher, Ph.D is an integrated pest management (IPM) specialist with FAO's Plant Protection Service/Global IPM Facility at FAO headquarters in Rome; e-mail: kevin.gallagher@ fao.org
This article provides a brief overview of Farmer Field Schools (FFS), which are designed to provide farmers with on-the-job training in environmentally friendly plant protection and soil fertility management methods through integrated production and pest management (IPPM). IPPM methods can increase both production and profits and play a major role in poverty alleviation. FFS activities aim to bring together a group of farmers regularly in a field. Courses are hands-on and practical. They provide structured learning exercises that allow farmers to combine local knowledge with scientific ecological approaches, using the field itself as a teacher. IPPM-FFS programmes have been established in more than 40 countries across Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Programmes d'études communautaires pour la gestion intégrée de la production et de la lutte contre les ravageurs: écoles pratiques d'agriculture
Le présent article donne un bref aperçu des écoles pratiques d'agriculture (FFS) qui ont pour but de fournir aux exploitants agricoles une formation sur le tas dans le domaine de pratiques respectueuses de l'environnement concernant la protection des plantes et les méthodes de gestion de la fertilité des sols, et ce, grâce à la Gestion intégrée de la production et de la lutte contre les ravageurs (IPPM). Les méthodes IPPM sont censées accroître à la fois la production et les gains, jouant un rôle majeur dans la lutte contre la pauvreté. Les FFS ont pour but de regrouper périodiquement des groupes d'exploitants agricoles sur le terrain. Les cours dispensés sont simples, pratiques et basés sur des exercices structurés. Ils permettent aux agriculteurs de joindre leurs connaissances locales aux approches scientifiques et écologiques et d'apprendre directement sur le terrain. Des programmes IPPM-FFS ont été établis dans plus de 40 pays d'Asie, d'Afrique et d'Amérique latine.
Programas de estudio comunitarios para la producción y lucha contra las plagas integradas: escuelas de campo de agricultores
En el presente artículo se describen brevemente las Escuelas de campo de agricultores (ECA), que tienen por objeto impartir a los agricultores capacitación sobre métodos de protección de las plantas y ordenación de la fertilidad del suelo inocuos para el medio ambiente (Producción y lucha contra las plagas integradas (PLPI). Los métodos de PLPI pueden aumentar tanto la producción como los beneficios y desempeñan una función importante en el alivio de la pobreza. Las ECA tienen por finalidad reunir periódicamente a un grupo de agricultores en un campo. Los cursos son de carácter directo y práctico. Constan de actividades de aprendizaje estructurado que permiten a los agricultores combinar los conocimientos locales con sistemas ecológicos científicos, utilizando el propio campo como lugar de enseñanza. Los programas de las ECA y la PLPI han sido aplicados en más de 40 países de Asia, África y América Latina.
The problem of pollution caused by pesticides and fertilizers has long been
recognized by the member countries of FAO, and is a major area of focus in the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED, also know as
the Earth Summit) Agenda 21. Constraints to addressing and solving these issues
are numerous and include lack of access to non-polluting technologies; policies
that promote excessive use of inputs; and inappropriate decision-making by farmers
themselves. Many farmers lack basic knowledge and information on the proper
use of fertilizers and pesticides, do not appreciate their impact on health
and non-target species, and often overuse products - usually to their own economic
disadvantage.
Proper crop cultivation using a wider variety of environmentally friendly plant
protection and soil fertility management methods can increase both production
and profits, thereby playing a major role in poverty alleviation - especially
for small-scale farmers using scarce cash resources uneconomically (Kenmore,
1996). Such methods and technologies are referred to as integrated production
and pest management (IPPM).1 They require better ecosystem management
concepts and skills - and therefore farmer education - in order to be implemented
profitably.
IPPM educational field programmes focus on growing a healthy crop in healthy
soils, improving field-level management decision-making and, in general, assisting
farmers to reach a higher level of IPPM expertise. Such programmes are not "message-based",
but rather concentrate on basic ecosystem management principles which can then
be applied to the local conditions and to problem solving over time.
IPPM programmes have promoted a field course called Farmer Field Schools (FFS).
The FFS training method was first developed by the FAO-assisted Indonesian National
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Programme in 1989, and was inspired, in part,
by previously developed programmes for literacy and primary health care. The
concept behind an FFS is that groups of farmers meet on a regular basis in a
field to do practical structured learning exercises that allow them to combine
local knowledge with scientific ecological approaches (Settle et al.,
1996). All courses are very hands-on, practical and field-based, with few or
no lectures and using the field itself as a teacher.
FFS activities are a response to and an evolutionary step within the training
and visit (T&V) framework. Instead of using the T&V demonstration plot/field,
which was managed by extension staff, the FFS site (a field in the community)
is managed directly by the farmer group as a study field where structured learning
exercises and experiments are carried out by the farmers themselves (Box).
The extension officer's role has evolved from that of a primary knowledge source
to that of the facilitator of knowledge creation. He or she no longer has to
have all the answers, and the "messages" of extension are not centrally
contrived but, instead, relate to locally relevant problems emerging from the
FFS study field. The FFS methods have transformed farmers from recipients of
information to generators and manipulators of local data (Mangan and Mangan,
1998).
The FFS participants (usually about 25 people) meet regularly throughout the
season, from pre-planting to harvest, to learn about agro-ecology and to decide
how to manage the studied crop or crops. For field crops, this involves weekly
meetings and, for orchards, monthly meetings. In addition, the FFS curriculum
also includes team building and organizational skill development activities.
FFS are essentially activities carried out by community-based study groups and
are similar to other community-based study programmes operating worldwide. Examples
of community programmes include the Netherlands' village agricultural study
programmes, in which local farmers organize study groups; Danish folk high schools,
in which the public has study opportunities on various outdoor topics; and the
Study Circle and Adopt-a-Stream movements which are organized groups focusing
on specific study topics. In many cases, the FFS study group will continue for
more than one season. The groups may continue to study one crop, refining their
skills and seeking new approaches and information on particular subjects, such
as a deeper knowledge of soil fertility management or community-level management
of certain social pests (e.g. rats or whiteflies). In other cases, groups may
decide to continue meeting on a regular basis without a specific study plan
(Ooi, 1998).
FFS activities either strengthen existing groups or lead to the development
of new groups. It is important to be clear, however, that FFS are activities
carried out by groups and are not intended to be lasting organizations themselves.
The members of water users', youth and religious groups, etc. may all decide
that carrying out an IPPM-FFS together will improve their own group's or community
programme's skills and organizational capacity.
Structured learning activities
|
Sustainable livelihood approaches emphasize the larger development agenda,
which includes building not only technical skills, but also group, community
and policy dimensions. The FFS approach represents a major shift away from traditional
extension approaches and takes into consideration these other dimensions of
development.
Perhaps the most important aspect of this shift is the move away from technology
transfer or message delivery through training to a participatory and educational
approach. This has enabled research results and ecological concepts to be combined
with indigenous knowledge (ecological, social and economic) to give local communities
greater ownership of extension or educational processes, including greater control
over their content, methodology and quality (Dilts, 1999).
A major shift is also occurring towards building community-level institutional
capacity. Farmers are no longer mere "contact targets" for T&V
extension staff, but meet for the benefit of the farmers' group as a whole.
Although crops, soil and water resources are managed by farmers, whose individual
knowledge and skill will determine how well they do, some decision-making aspects
are determined by neighbours or greater communities which apply peer pressure
to the farmers. Community issues often lead to poor decision-making, such as
needless spraying or "cosmetic tillage". The group focus of FFS activities
allows community efforts to provide positive outcomes.
Individual farmers' decision-making at the community level is also influenced
by the interaction of higher-level environmental, social and economic interests.2
It is therefore essential that IPPM activities do not only focus on basic individual
economic gains but also address social and organizational issues. For IPPM to
have an impact on poverty alleviation, both the technical and the social approaches
need to be stressed. The new emphasis given to sustainable livelihoods by international
agencies is in many ways a recognition that the development process requires
looking beyond simple cost-benefit analysis of individual technologies and towards
a wider range of benefits and capital formation.3
Finally, IPPM programmes are concerned with the policy dimensions of sustainable
livelihoods. Pesticides and fertilizers are heavily regulated in many countries,
owing to their polluting and dangerous characteristics as well as their perceived
importance for national food security. Pesticide and fertilizer policy issues
are thus an important element of IPPM programme development. Too often, however,
policy issues are not related to or based on farmers' field experience and knowledge.
As part of the FFS process by which farmers become better organized, their field
experiences, results and needs can be more clearly voiced and more widely heard.
While the positive results achieved to date indicate that IPPM is a significant
step forward towards more environmentally friendly production and pest management,
several questions still need to be addressed within IPPM. From a technical point
of view, better plant and pest management technologies need to be developed
in the field. For example, many of the production and pest management products
and methods being used in the organic agriculture sector are less polluting
and more effective for long-term soil and ecosystem management.4
In addition, there are significant social issues to be studied. Key among these
is how development is to become community-focused. Can groups coalesce around
IPPM-FFS methods - which are basically an extension entry point based on bugs
and production - and move towards addressing wider community issues such as
health and education? Will IPPM-FFS and similar programmes help groups make
the leap to greater local action? Will the move towards decentralized government
and greater local accountability mean that locally organized farmers' groups
become more effective development partners? What is certain, is that there is
a need for greater commitment, on the part of governments and development organizations
(including agricultural extension programmes), to community-level development,
the environment and "cleaner" technology.
To extend IPPM, there is also a need to find sustainable community-level funding
through various methods (Van de Fliert, Pontius and Roling, 1995). These range
from earmarked taxes on pesticides and fertilizers, based on the "polluter
pays" principle (and used by local government for farmer education), to
more straightforward publicly funded adult education initiatives. The latter
would include sustainable agriculture, literacy and life skills for farmers.
Another area of concern is how to maintain lower-cost information flows on improved
technology after FFS or other community study programmes finish. IPM/IPPM programmes
have found that such problems are more easily solved when organized community
groups become active partners in their own development process.
1 IPPM is new term being developed by African and Latin American programmes in order to move beyond the notion that integrated pest management (IPM) activities focus primarily on pests.
2 See the Community IPM Web site at: www. communityipm.org
3 See the Sustainable Livelihoods Web site at: www.livelihoods.org
4 See the Organic Materials Review Institute Web site at: www.omri.org
Dilts, R. 1999. Facilitating the emergence of local institutions: reflections from the experience of the Community IPM Programme in Indonesia. In Role of institutions in rural community development: report of the APO study meeting, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 21-29 September 1998. Tokyo, Asian Productivity Organization.
Kenmore, P.E. 1996. Integrated pest management in rice. In G.J. Persley, ed. Biotechnology and integrated pest management. United Kingdom, CAB International. p. 76-97.
Mangan, J. & Mangan, M.S. 1998. A comparison of two IPM training strategies in China: the importance of concepts of the rice ecosystem for sustainable insect pest management. Agriculture and Human Values, 15(3): 209-221.
Ooi, P.A.C. 1998. Beyond the Farmer Field School: IPM and empowerment in Indonesia. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Gatekeeper Series No. 78. London, IIED. (Paper originally presented at the International Conference of IPM - Theory and Practice, Developing Sustainable Agriculture, Guangzhou, China, 15 to 20 June 1998.)
Settle, W.H. et al. 1996. Managing tropical rice pests through conservation of generalist natural enemies and alternative prey. Ecology, 77(7): 1975-1988.
Van de Fliert, E., Pontius, J. & Roling, N. 1995. Searching for strategies to replicate a successful extension approach: training of IPM trainers in Indonesia. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1(4): 41-63.
