DOCSLIB.ORG

Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: a Systematic Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: a Systematic Review Campbell Systematic Reviews 2014:6 First published: 01 September 2014 Search executed: October 2012 Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: A Systematic Review Hugh Waddington, Birte Snilstveit, Jorge Hombrados, Martina Vojtkova, Daniel Phillips, Philip Davies, Howard White Colophon Title Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: A Systematic Review Institution The Campbell Collaboration Authors Waddington, Hugh Snilstveit, Birte Hombrados, Jorge Vojtkova, Martina Phillips, Daniel Davies, Philip White, Howard DOI 10.4073/csr.2014.6 No. of pages 335 Citation Waddington, H, Snilstveit, B, Hombrados, J, Vojtkova, M, Phillips, D, Davies, P and White, H. Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: A Systematic Review Campbell Systematic Reviews 2014:6 DOI: 10.4073/csr.2014.6 ISSN 1891-1803 Copyright © Waddington et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Contributions The review was undertaken by Jorge Hombrados (JH), Daniel Phillips (DP), Birte Snilstveit (BS), Martina Vojtkova (MV) and Hugh Waddington (HJW). HJW and BS developed the study protocol. HJW led the quantitative effectiveness synthesis and compiled the overall systematic review report. BS led the qualitative synthesis of barriers and enablers. JH, BS, MV and HJW conducted the search, using EndNote reference management software. Decisions on inclusion for impact evaluation studies were made by JH and HJW, with conflicts resolved through discussion and consensus. Decisions on inclusion for qualitative impact evaluation studies were made by BS and MV, with conflicts resolved through discussion, with Philip Davies (PD) acting as an arbiter. Qualitative study coding was carried out by BS, MV, JH and DP, while critical appraisal and effect sizes estimation were undertaken by JH and HJW. Howard White (HW) and PD provided technical support. DP also undertook the portfolio systematic review reported in Appendix A, with support from Gracia Pacillo (IFAD) and HW. Editors for Editor: Sandra Jo Wilson this review Managing editor: Sean Grant Support/funding Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Potential conflicts We are not aware of any vested interest in the outcomes of this review, nor of interest any incentives to represent findings in a biased manner. Corresponding Hugh Waddington authors International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) London International Development Centre London WC1H 0PD E-mail: [email protected] Birte Snilstveit International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) London International Development Centre London WC1H 0PD E-mail: [email protected] ii Campbell Systematic Reviews Editors-in-Chief Arild Bjørndal, The Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway & University of Oslo, Norway Julia Littell, Bryn Mawr College, USA Editors Crime and Justice David B. Wilson, George Mason University, USA Education Sandra Wilson, Vanderbilt University, USA International Birte Snilstveit, 3ie, UK Development Hugh Waddington, 3ie, UK Social Welfare Nick Huband, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, UK Geraldine Macdonald, Queen’s University, UK & Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group Methods Therese Pigott, Loyola University, USA Emily Tanner-Smith, Vanderbilt University, USA Managing Editor Karianne Thune Hammerstrøm, The Campbell Collaboration Co-Chairs Crime and Justice David B. Wilson, George Mason University, USA Martin Killias, University of Zurich, Switzerland Education Paul Connolly, Queen's University, UK Gary W. Ritter, University of Arkansas, USA Social Welfare Jane Barlow, University of Warwick, UK Brandy R. Maynard, Saint Louis University, USA International Peter Tugwell, University of Ottawa, Canada Development Howard White, 3ie, India Methods Ariel Aloe, University of Northern Iowa, USA Ian Shemilt, University of Cambridge, UK The Campbell Collaboration (C2) was founded on the principle that systematic reviews on the effects of interventions will inform and help improve policy and services. C2 offers editorial and methodological support to review authors throughout the process of producing a systematic review. A number of C2's editors, librarians, methodologists and external peer- reviewers contribute. The Campbell Collaboration P.O. Box 7004 St. Olavs plass 0130 Oslo, Norway www.campbellcollaboration.org iii Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 9 AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS 12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14 Background 14 Objectives 14 Study selection criteria 15 Search strategy 15 Data collection and analysis 16 Results 17 Implications for policy and programmes 18 Implications for research 20 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS TABLES 22 1 BACKGROUND 26 1.1 Description of the problem 26 1.2 Description of the intervention 27 1.3 How farmer field schools are supposed to work 32 1.4 Why this review is needed 35 2 AIMS AND REPORT STRUCTURE 39 3 APPROACH 42 3.1 Study selection criteria 42 3.2 Search strategy 46 3.3 Data collection and analysis 48 4 RESULTS OF EFFECTIVENESS SYNTHESIS 57 4.1 Search results 57 4.2 Study descriptive information 58 4.3 Assessment of study validity 64 4.4 Meta-analysis results 78 5 RESULTS OF QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS 116 5.1 Search results 116 4 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org 5.2 Study characteristics 117 5.3 Synthesis results 129 6 INTEGRATED SYNTHESIS 142 6.1 Intermediate outcomes 144 6.2 Final outcomes 149 6.3 Diffusion to non-participating neighbour farmers 151 6.4 Authors’ conclusions 153 7 IMPLICATIONS 155 7.1 Implications for policy 155 7.2 Implications for programme implementation 156 7.3 Implications for research 158 7.4 Limitations of the review 160 7.5 Deviations from protocol 161 8 SUPPORT AND AUTHORSHIP 162 9 REFERENCES 165 9.1 Included studies of effects (review question 1) 165 9.2 Included qualitative studies (review question 2) 180 9.3 Studies excluded from synthesis 183 9.4 Additional references 209 APPENDIX A 216 Global project portfolio review 216 APPENDIX B 244 Example search strategy 244 Record of database searches 245 Record of internet searches 246 Journals handsearched 248 Reasons for exclusion of marginal studies 249 Data collection codes 254 APPENDIX C 257 Critical appraisal methods 257 APPENDIX D 265 Effect size calculations 265 Synthetic effect sizes 266 Meta-analysis of bivariate and partial effect sizes 266 APPENDIX E 269 Included effectiveness study descriptives 269 Detailed outcomes reported 280 APPENDIX F 287 5 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org Results of critical appraisal: impact evaluations 287 Results of critical appraisal: qualitative evaluations 295 APPENDIX G 296 Meta-analyses by programme name 296 Meta-analyses including all standard errors corrected for possible unit of analysis errors 299 Meta-analysis findings: additional analysis 306 APPENDIX H 311 Descriptive synthesis of findings from qualitative studies 311 6 The Campbell Collaboration | www.campbellcollaboration.org List of Figures and Tables Figure 1 Components of a farmer field school intervention ...................................... 28 Figure 2 Technologies incorporated in farmer field school curricula (percentage of projects) ...................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3 FFS curricula and complementary components .......................................... 31 Figure 4 Farmer field school hypothesised causal chain ........................................... 33 Figure 5 Coverage of farmer field schools in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) ...................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6 Cumulative number of farmer field school projects implemented .............. 36 Figure 7 Review process ............................................................................................. 41 Figure 8 Quantitative synthesis search results .......................................................... 58 Figure 9 Characteristics of programmes included in review of effects ...................... 63 Figure 10 Summary of risk of bias appraisal for effectiveness studies ...................... 66 Figure 11 Kernel density histograms showing farmer characteristics ....................... 74 Figure 12 Funnel graphs by outcome ......................................................................... 76 Figure 13 Knowledge outcomes for FFS participants and neighbours versus non-FFS comparison ................................................................................................................. 79 Figure 14 Knowledge outcomes for FFS participants by risk of bias status .............. 81 Figure 15 Pesticide use for IPM/IPPM FFS participants and IPM neighbours versus non-FFS comparison farmers .................................................................................... 86 Figure 16 Pesticide use for FFS participants and neighbours excluding high-risk-of- bias studies .................................................................................................................88 Figure 17 Beneficial practices adopted by IPM and other curricula FFS-participants ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adapting Agricultural Extension to Peacebuilding
    This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13428 Adapting Agricultural Extension to Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and the United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding ISBN Andrew Robertson and Steve Olson, Rapporteurs; National Academy of 978-0-309-25967-5 Engineering; United States Institute of Peace 62 pages 6 x 9 PAPERBACK (2012) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Adapting Agricultural Extension to Peacebuilding: Report of a Workshop by the National Academy of Engineering and the United States Institute of Peace: Roundtable on Technology, Science, and Peacebuilding 3 Extension Services in Fragile Societies xtension agents working in communities affected by conflict face challenges beyond those normally associated with their jobs. Conflict Emay have prevented them from acquiring the background, training, or motivation needed to do their job well. They may not have the resources needed to make agricultural improvements. The societal dividing lines cre- ated by conflict may limit the cooperative activities on which extension is based.
    [Show full text]
  • Farmer Field Schools-Beyond Agriculture and Rural Development
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and Agricultural Extension
    climate change and Agricultural Extension Building capacity for land grant university extension services to address the agricultural impacts of climate change and adaptive management needs of agricultural stakeholders Technical Report Series: Findings and Recommendations of the Climate and Corn-Based Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project Volume 3 of 5 ACKNOWLEDGeMENTS This document will be cited as: Wright Morton, L., L.S. Prokopy, J.G. Arbuckle, Jr., C. Ingels, M. Thelen, R. Bellm, D. Bowman, L. Edwards, C. Ellis, R. Higgins, T. Higgins, D. Hudgins, R. Hoorman, J. Neufelder, B. Overstreet, A. Peltier, H. Schmitz, J. Voit, C. Wegehaupt, S. Wohnoutka, R. Wolkowski, L. Abendroth, J. Angel, T. Haigh, C. Hart, J. Klink, C. Knutson, R. Power, D. Todey, and M. Widhalm. 2016. Climate Change and Agricultural Extension; Building Capacity for Land Grant Extension Services to Address the Agricultural Impacts of Climate Change and the Adaptive Management Needs of Agricultural Stakeholders. Technical Report Series: Findings and Recommendations of the Climate and Corn-based Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project. Vol 3 of 5. CSCAP Publication no. CSCAP-0192-2016. Design/Copyediting Lynn Laws March 2016 This document was produced as a part of two USDA-NIFA projects: The Sustainable Corn CAP project (officially referred to as the Climate and Corn-based Cropping Systems Coordinated Agricultural Project) is a transdisciplinary partnership among 11 institutions: Iowa State University, Lincoln University, Michigan State University, The Ohio State University, Purdue University, South Dakota State University, University of Illinois, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Wisconsin, USDA Agricultural Research Service – Columbus, Ohio, and USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA).
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Extension Educators' Perceptions Regarding the Teaching
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2001 Agricultural extension educators' perceptions regarding the teaching and learning processes as related to sustainable agriculture: implications for agricultural extension education Koralalage Sunil Upali Jayaratne Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Agricultural Economics Commons, Agricultural Education Commons, Agricultural Science Commons, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, and the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Jayaratne, Koralalage Sunil Upali, "Agricultural extension educators' perceptions regarding the teaching and learning processes as related to sustainable agriculture: implications for agricultural extension education " (2001). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 1048. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1048 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview & Importance of Agricultural Extension
    CHAPTER 1 Overview & Importance of Agricultural Extension Jeffrey Dwyer, Director of Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Karim Maredia, Director of International Programs, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Introduction With a growing population, shrinking land base, and emerging threats of climate change, agricultural transformation has become a high priority globally to enhance productivity and conserve natural resources. Global efforts are needed to address the pressing challenges of food insecurity, hunger, malnutrition, and poverty, as well as to protect livelihoods, enhance economic growth, and engage youth with due consideration to gender equity in the food and agricultural sector. Along with research and education, extension and outreach remain key pillars for global agricultural development and food systems. Several models of extension have been implemented globally to serve the farming communities (Kumar et al., 2019; Antholt, 1998; Torimiro & Igodan, 2019). These models increasingly include emphases on other aspects of life in agricultural communities such as health, mental health, and youth development, which benefit from both long- standing and trusted relationships and a community-based framework for service delivery (Dwyer et al., 2017). The Various Models of Agricultural Extension The term agricultural extension means different things to people around the world, and even within specific countries. In general, extension includes transferring information, knowledge, and technologies from research systems to farmers; advising farm families in their decision-making; educating farmers; and empowering farmers to be able to clarify and realize their goals. To a large extent, most extension programs are publicly funded, supported by local, state, and national governments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Farmer Field Schools in Adoption and Adaptation
    THE ROLE OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS IN ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION OF RECOMMENDED RICE PRODUCTION PRACTICES IN MVOMERO DISTRICT IN TANZANIA MSc (RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION) THESIS NYAMONGE KENYA LILONGWE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES BUNDA COLLEGE MAY, 2016 THE ROLE OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS IN ADOPTION AND ADAPTATION OF RECOMMENDED RICE PRODUCTION PRACTICES IN MVOMERO DISTRICT IN TANZANIA NYAMONGE KENYA BA. (Rural Development), Tanzania A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF DEVELOPMENT STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION LILONGWE UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES BUNDA COLLEGE MAY, 2016 DECLARATION I Nyamonge Kenya, do hereby declare that this thesis is a result of my own original effort and work, and that to the best of my knowledge, the findings have never been previously presented to Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources or elsewhere for the award of any academic qualification. Where assistance was sought, it has been accordingly acknowledged. Nyamonge Kenya Signature: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ i CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL We, the undersigned, certify that this thesis is the result of author‟s own work, and that to the best of our knowledge, it has not been submitted for any other academic qualification within Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources or elsewhere. The thesis is acceptable in form and content, and that satisfactory knowledge of the field covered by the thesis was demonstrated through an oral examination held on ……………………. Major Supervisor: Associate Prof. Charles Masangano Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________________ Supervisor: Associate Prof. Daimon Kambewa Signature: _____________________________ Date: _____________________________ Supervisor: Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Resolution # 18 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment
    RESOLUTION # 18 NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1 WHEREAS, New Jersey’s agricultural community is faced with a multitude of 2 challenges that threaten its viability and sustainability, including: Right to Farm conflicts; 3 taxation issues; wildlife damage; labor supply shortages; land use and environmental 4 regulation; rising production costs; and water-quality concerns; and 5 WHEREAS, New Jersey agriculture’s viability and sustainability are also 6 impacted by untapped market opportunities and limited access to innovations that would 7 enhance prosperity, stewardship potential and compatibility with other land uses; and 8 WHEREAS, given the economic impacts and public benefits of the agricultural 9 and food complex, not only in rural areas but also in the state’s urban and suburban 10 communities, the constraints on the industry impinge upon the assurance of food 11 security, nutrition and health, water quality and supply, environmental sustainability, 12 economic development, and the quality of life for all residents of the Garden State; and 13 WHEREAS, New Jersey’s status as the nation’s most densely populated state 14 means its environmental pressures exceed those of other states, and thus have raised 15 the environment to become a key quality-of-life issue; and 16 WHEREAS, this requires new policies and technologies that are effective in 17 maintaining the delicate balance between environmental quality and economic growth; 18 and 19 WHEREAS, the Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (NJAES) 20 provides a
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting Sustainable Extension Approaches: Farmer Field School (FFS) and Its Role in Sustainable Agricultural Development in African
    Promoting Sustainable Extension Approaches: Farmer Field School (FFS) and its role in sustainable agricultural development in African. Professor Chigozie Asiabaka Department of Agricultural Economic and Extension, Federal University of Techology P.M.B 1526, Owerri, Nigeria. Email: [email protected] Tel: 23483234669 2348037219323 Abstract This paper discusses the concept of Farmer Field School and its role in a multidisciplinary research agenda for sustainable agriculture in Africa. The FFS as a group learning approach builds knowledge and capacity among farmers to enable them diagnose their problems, identify solutions and develop plans and implement them with or without support from outside. The paper suggests that a multidisciplinary research agenda will not only aim at technology development but will also seek ways of stakeholder participation in technology development, validation and dissemination. It concludes that this approach will not increase agricultural productivity; but it will also lead to sustainable agriculture in Africa. Introduction Agricultural technology can be defined as any behaviour or practice that involves the interaction of individuals within the production system. From the time farmers decide what to invest in farming until they sell their product, they perform a series of actions that are the product they know and what they think is best. Agricultural professionals such as extensionists, and researchers are also equipped with knowledge that in turn leads them to believe in the effectiveness of particular farm practice or technology. Consequently, those practice and /or behaviours applied by both farmers and agricultural professionals constitute agricultural technologies (CTTA, 1992). In traditional research and extension linkage system, however, agricultural technology development and transfer (TDT) have tended to be largely based on a vertical one-way communication model with information flowing from research to extension and the role of extension is to transfer the information to the farmers.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Agricultural Extension Education Class Notes
    Fundamentals of Agricultural Extension Education Class Notes For B.Sc (Ag)1st Year 2nd Sem Compiled by Mrs. Aparna Jaiswal & Dr Surendra Kumar Rai Department of Extension Education College of Agriculture, Balaghat Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Jabalpur 482 004 (M.P.), India 1 Fundamentals of Agriculture Extension Education Dr. Sonam Agrawal Assistant Professor (Agriculture Extension) College of Agriculture Powarkheda, Hoshangabad, JNKVV(Jabalpur) Education word is derived from the Latin root ‘ex’ meaning out and ‘tension’ meaning stretching. Education is the process of facilitating learning or acquisition of knowledge, skill values and habits. Under education method we can includes teaching training discussion, directed toward research. Education take place them self as well as in front of instructor Education can take place in formal or informal settings and any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts may be considered education. Definition of Education Education is the process of developing capability of the individual so that they can adequately response to their situation. We can also define education as process of bringing desirable change into the behaviour of human being. Webster defined education as the process of teaching to develop the knowledge, skill, or character of the student. “Sociologist Rodney Stark declares that, Education is the cheapest, most rapid and most reliable path to economic advancement under present conditions,” Types of Education There are mainly three types of education, namely, Formal, Informal and Non-formal. Each of these types is briefly described below. (A) Formal Education Formal education corresponds to a systematic, organized education model, structured and administered according to a given set of laws and norms, presenting a rather rigid curriculum as regards objectives, content and methodology.
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging the Gender Gap in Agricultural Extension
    BRIDGING THE GENDER GAP IN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION by Marguerite Berger, Virginia DeLancey, and Amy Mellencamp 1984 Prepared for the Office of Women in Development U.S. Agency for International Development International Center for Research on Women 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20036 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper was funded by the Office of Women in Development of the U.S. Agency for International Development. The views expressed in the paper, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of USAID or ICRW. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Women in developing countries are actively involved in agriculture and urgently need assistance to improve farming practices, purchase more productive inputs, decrease their workloads, and improve the processing, storage, and marketing activities they perform. But despite their critical role in agricultural production, women have been virtually ignored by agricultural extension units. When women do receive visits from extension agents or attend extension training courses, they are frequently taught home economics and other subjects unrelated to their agricultural roles. Women active in agricultural production in developing countries generally fall into four categories farm owners or managers, farm partners, unpaid family workers, and agricultural wage laborers. This paper focuses primarily on women who are farm owners or managers in their own right, and on those whose share in decision-making, ownership, and labor indicates that they are more or less equal partners in farm management with their husbands or other family members. Women who are farm managers are the most logical candidates for direct contact with extension services; yet studies have shown that these women are less likely to have such contact than women partners in joint (male- female) managed farms.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Farmer Field School Still Relevant?
    NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 92 (2020) 100329 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/njas Is the farmer field school still relevant? Case studies from Malawi and T Indonesia Henk van den Berga,*, Jan Willem Ketelaarb, Marcel Dickea, Marjon Fredrixc a Laboratory of Entomology, Wageningen University, PO Box 16, 6700AA, Wageningen, the Netherlands b Regional Office for Asia and Pacific, Food and Agriculture Organization, Bangkok, Thailand c Plant Production and Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The capacity of farmers to adapt to changing environments is critical for sustainable, economically viable and Adult education resilient rural development. The Farmer Field School (FFS) was developed by FAO in the late 1980s to build Farmer field school farmers’ knowledge and skills for adaptive management. The FFS was subsequently implemented in over 90 Impact evaluation countries by a multitude of stakeholders. We conducted case studies in Malawi and Indonesia to answer con- Sustainable rural livelihoods temporary questions about the FFS, regarding its relevance at field level, its position in the institutional en- Rural development vironment, and its contribution to rural development. We show that the FFS remains relevant at field level, helping farmers to adapt their agricultural practices and livelihood situation to changing circumstances. Differences in institutional arrangements between the two countries highlight the importance of a coordinated support for the FFS. Long-term impacts were found at farmer and institutional level. This study provides insight into the FFS, regarding the causal factors of change, institutional factors, and the role in continued development.
    [Show full text]
  • Farmers Taking the Lead: Thirty Years of Farmer Field Schools
    Farmers taking the lead Thirty years of farmer field schools Farmers taking the lead Thirty years of farmer field schools Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2019 Required citation: FAO. 2019. Farmers taking the lead - Thirty years of farmer field schools. Rome Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-131569-9 © FAO, 2019 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non- commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services.
    [Show full text]