Wageningen University - Department of Social Sciences
M.Sc. Thesis Communication and Innovation Studies
Kul Prasad Tiwari
Supervisor: Dr. Annemarie van Paassen; Communication and Innovation Studies, University of Wageningen, Author: Kul Prasad Tiwari Contact: [email protected] , [email protected]
Registration number: 711224836010 Degree: Master of Science (M.Sc) MSc-programme: Management of Agro-ecological Knowledge and Social change (MAKS) Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Specialisation: Communication and Innovation Studies, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
Title: Institutionalization of Farmer Field School (FFS): A Farmer-centred Learning and New Paradigm of Innovation, Case Study of Nepal
Supervised by: Dr. Annemarie van Paassen, Communication and Innovation Studies, University of Wageningen, the Netherlands
Date: August 2009
ii
TABLE OF CONTENT List of Tables and Figures...... vi Abbreviations...... vii Acknowledgements ...... viii CHAPTER ONE...... 1 1. Introduction...... 1 1.1. Background...... 1 1.1.2. FFS approach of extension ...... 3 1.2. Statement of problem...... 4 1.3. Research Objectives...... 5 CHAPTER TWO ...... 6 2. Theoretical framework...... 6 2.1. Normative description of FFS...... 6 2.1.1 Origin and global status of FFS...... 6 2.1.2. Five Key principles of FFS ...... 7 2.1.3. Basic elements of FFS...... 8 2.1.4. FFS from different perspectives...... 9 2.2. Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) ...... 13 2.2.1. Concrete Experience (CE) ...... 14 2.2.2. Reflective Observation (RO)...... 15 2.2.3. Abstract conceptualization (AC) ...... 15 2.2.4. Active Experimentation ...... 15 2.3. Innovation System Framework (ISF) ...... 16 2.3.1. Some features of innovation system...... 17 2.3.2. Main concepts of ISF ...... 18 2.3.3. Actors and their roles ...... 18 2.3.4. Attitudes and practices...... 18 2.3.5. Patterns of interaction ...... 19 2.3.6. Enabling environment ...... 20 2.4. Research Questions ...... 21 CHAPTER THREE ...... 22 3. Methodology...... 22 3.1. Research Area...... 22 3.2. Research units...... 22 3.3. Data collection techniques...... 23 3.3.1. Focused group discussion...... 23 3.3.2. Participant observation...... 24 3.3.3. Informal and semi-structured interview ...... 24
iii
3.3.4. Documentary data...... 24 3.4. Sampling techniques...... 24 3.5. Data analysis ...... 25 CHAPTER FOUR ...... 26 4. Execution and effect of FFS ...... 26 4.1. Research Area...... 27 4.2. Execution of FFS ...... 28 4.2.1. Preparation of FFS learning ...... 29 4.2.2. Experimental learning session...... 31 4.3. Adoption of knowledge and practices ...... 34 4.4. Continuity of knowledge generation...... 37 4.5. Dissemination of learnt knowledge ...... 38 4.6. Concluding remarks ...... 41 CHAPTER FIVE ...... 44 5. Institutionalization of FFS approach at local level ...... 44 5.1 Actors and their roles ...... 45 5.1.1. FFS graduates and FFS groups ...... 45 5.1.2. Farmer facilitators’ association ...... 46 5.1.3. Public Extension (DADOs) ...... 47 5.1.4. Non-Government Organization (INGO)...... 47 5.2. Attitude and practices of actors ...... 47 5.2.1. FFS Graduates and FFS groups ...... 47 5.2.2. Farmers facilitators’ associations...... 48 5.2.3 Public extension (DADOs)...... 50 5.2.4. Non-Government Organization (INGO)...... 52 5.3. Pattern of interaction...... 52 5.3.1. FFS groups...... 52 5.3.2. Farmer facilitators’ associations ...... 53 5.3.3. Public extension (DADOs)...... 54 5.4. Enabling environment ...... 56 5. 5. Concluding remarks ...... 59 CHAPTER SIX...... 61 6. Institutionalization at the higher level...... 61 6.1. Actors and their roles ...... 61 6.1.1. Public Extension (DOA, PPD) ...... 61 6.1.2. Research (NARC)...... 62 6.1.3. Non-government Organizations (INGO)...... 62 6.1.4. FFS facilitators’ organization (TITAN)...... 62
iv
6.2. Attitude and practices of the actors...... 63 6.2.1. Public extension (DOA, PPD, RADs)...... 63 6.2.2. Research (NARC)...... 64 6.2.3. Non-Government Organization (INGO)...... 66 6.3. Pattern of interaction...... 67 6.3.1.National Coordination Committee (NCC)...... 67 6.3.2.Regional Coordination Committees (RCCs)...... 68 6.4. Enabling Environment...... 69 6.5 Concluding remarks ...... 71 CHAPTER SEVEN ...... 73 7. Conclusion and recommendations ...... 73 7.1. Relevance and limitation of theories...... 73 7.1.1. Experiential learning Theory (ELT) ...... 73 7.1.2. Innovation System Framework (ISF) ...... 74 7.2. Institutionalization status of FFS approach ...... 76 7.3. Recommendations ...... 77 7.4. Limitation of research...... 79 References ...... 81 Appendix...... 85
v
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: A Comparison of the assumptions of Pedagogy and Andragogy ...... 10 Table 2: Comparison of Transfer of Technology Model (TOT and FFS as a new approach ) ...... 11 Table 3 Research units and method of data collection ...... 22 Table 4 List of IPM-FFS investigated (Kathmandu) ...... 28 Table 5 List of IPM FFS investigated (Tanahun) ...... 28 Table 6 : FFS established by DADOs in different year (before and after project) ...... 51
Figure 1: FFS from different lenses ...... 9 Figure 2 : A.D. Kolb's Experiential learning cycle...... 14 Figure 3: Conceptual framework of innovation system...... 18 Figure 4: Map of Nepal indicating research districts ...... 27 Figure 5:Research districts (Kathmandu and Tanahun) ...... 27 Figure 6: Building of community IPM-a model for institutionalization FFS...... 45
vi
Abbreviations
AA Agriculture Assistance AC Abstract Conceptualization AE Active Experimentation AESA Agro-ecosystem Analysis) BHP Brown Plant Hopper BPPA Block Production Program Approach CATC Central Agriculture Training Centre CE Concrete Experience CIP-UPWARD International Potato Centre –Users’ Perspectives With Agriculture Research and Development DADO District Agriculture Development Office DCC District Coordination Committee DDC District Development Council DOA Department of Agriculture FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FPR Farmer Participatory Research GDP Gross Domestic Product GON Government of Nepal ELT Experiential Learning Theory FSR&E Farming System Research and Extension INGO International Non-government Organization IPM Integrated Pest Management IRDP Intergraded Rural Development Project ISF Innovation System Framework JT Junior Technician JTA Junior Technical Assistance MOU Memorandum of Understanding NARC National Agriculture Research Council NARSC National Agricultural Research and Service Centre NCC National Coordination Committee NGO Non-Governmental Organization PLAA Panchayan Level Agriculture Assistance PPD Plant Protection Directorate PTD Participatory Technology Development RATC Regional Agriculture Training Centre RCC Regional Coordination committee RPPL Regional Plant Protection Lab SNIPM Support to National IPM-FFS Programme TCP Technical Cooperation Programme TITAN The IPM Trainers’ Association Nepal TOF Training of Facilitators TOT Transfer of Technology TOT Training of Trainers T&VS Training and Visit System UNDP United Nation Development Programme VDC Village Development Committees
vii
Acknowledgements Before selecting topic for M.Sc. thesis I was thinking about what could be an appropriate and suitable topic in the context of Nepal and related to my interested subject communication and agricultural extension. Among other different interesting topics, I was thinking to do thesis on FFS. I wanted to see what are actual effects and institutionalization of FFS as an extension approach. I was curious to see sustainability aspect of FFS because most of extension approaches which were practiced in Nepal couldn’t continue after projects were withdrawn. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Annemarie van Paassen who supported my initial idea of studying institutionalization aspect of FFS approach. I really would like to give sincere thank to Annemarie for her constructive and useful feedback to make this thesis a valuable product. I am indebted to her for constant encouragement, inspiration and invaluable advices during proposal writing, field work and finalising this thesis. I am always indebted to farmer facilitators of Kathmandu and Tanahun districts who gave me sufficient support while visiting IPM-FFS groups. Among them my special thanks go to Shuverna Shrestha, Bimala Karki, Balanani Maharjan, Laxmi Wagle, Bimala Poudel and Shova Koirala for their valuable time and tremendous help. I am really thankful to all FFS farmers, leaders of FFS groups and non-FFS farmers for providing me sufficient time during interviewing and focus group discussion. What a nice people you are? Without you my study was not possible. I want to give thank to Binod Hamal, plant protection officer of Plant Protection Directorate (PPD) and Dhan Bahadur Shrestha, Administration/Finance Assistance, FAO Support to National IPM Programme for giving me a lot of support and FFS related documents, maps, photos and reports. Binod Hamal, I would like to say thank you very much for your kind cooperation and providing me a lot of formation in the beginning and during data collection. I would like to thank to Dr. Binod Saha, FAO Coordinator Support to National IPM Programme and Dr. Suraj Pokharel, director of PPD for supporting and appropriate suggestions to conduct field work. I am very much thankful to Nalini Upadhaya, President of TITAN for providing documents related to FFS. Similarly, my thanks go to Ratna Kumar Jha for his kind cooperation during my research. Thanks to all my friends, MAKS-22, for our discussion and sharing of experiences not only during time of writing thesis but also for whole period of our course for wonderful interactive learning environment. My special thanks go to officials of District Agriculture Development Office (DADO), Tanahun and Kathmandu for their support during my field work. Finally, I am indeed indebted to my father, mother, brothers and sister for their great support and encouragement for my further study. My father was very much worried about whether I could meet him again or not due to his old age, 80, and his bad health condition. My special thanks go to my beloved wife, Sarita for her responsibility of taking care of son, Sidhant and Daughter, Martina in my absence. I really appreciate your support for my further education and constant encouragement.
Thank you all again.
Kul Prasad Tiwari August 2009
viii
Chapter One
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Nepal is an agricultural country as more than 65% peoples’ livelihoods and 38% of National Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is based on agricultural sector (MOAC, 2008). In this context, improvement of agriculture sector is indispensible for the development of country. Majority of people who are farmers are poor and have subsistence-based farming. Therefore, food security and poverty alleviation through agriculture sector is the main priority of the Government of Nepal (GON). For this purpose, locality based appropriate technologies is utmost importance for increasing the production and productivity of agricultural commodities and raising the living standard of poor farmers. Since establishment in 1951, Department of Agriculture (DOA) has adopted different extension approaches with an aim of educating, disseminating and providing technologies and information to the needy farmers. These extension approaches and programs were/are launched either with the support of donors or from government’s own resources. Extension approaches which were adopted in Nepal in different period of time and reasons of their discontinuity are as follows: First, traditional approach of extension is the oldest one which based on the Trickle down theory of diffusion. This model is termed as the linear adoption or diffusion model (Rogers, 1983; cited by Black, 2000). This approach of extension was prevailing all over the country before 1975. In this approach, the extension workers (JTs/JTA 1) had to select or identify the local progressive farmers (leader farmers) called Agricultural Assistants (AAs 2), who used to act as a contact point for introducing technologies in the communities. It was regarded that the rate of technology transfer was very slow in this approach. Because AAs were not active in disseminating the technologies as they had feeling that they were paid very poorly by the government. Likewise, this approach was considered very costly as government had to spent huge amount of money to AAs who were not regular staff of extension organizations (Basnayat, 1991). Due to ineffective in technology diffusion and costly, this method was rejected and other approaches were adopted. Training and Visit (T &V) approach of extension was introduced in Nepal in 1975 through technical and financial support of World Bank and UNDP (Basnyat, 1991) to make the extension services more effective. The Panchayat/Village Level Agricultural Assistants (PLAAS 3) or Contact Farmers were appointed on a yearly contract. First the extension workers used to carry new technology from the district level and then they used to handover such technologies to the PLAAs (Contact farmers) at the village level. After getting technologies and information by the extension workers, PLAAs used to deliver to other
1 Junior Technicians ( JTs) and Junior Technical Assistance (JTAs) are the extension workers, mostly work in the field level to provide extension services to the farmers. They are also called frontline extension workers. 2 AAs are progressive farmers (have more knowledge and experiences than the normal farmers) and for the time being appointed as field level contact point for disseminating the technologies and information. But they are not permanent government extension workers. 3 PLAAS were the progressive farmer, who were, in general, appointed as a contact farmers, on a yearly contract basis with remuneration of 300 (2.5 $) per month. They were not actually government employees.
1 farmers of the community. One of the critics of the T&V system was its high cost in the extension services: regular trainings to the extension workers, regular visit by the extension workers to the PLAAs. Besides this, PLAAs had low motivation because of low remuneration. Due to high cost, this approach couldn’t continue after the donor retreat. The Intergraded Rural Development Projects Approach (IRDPs) were brought into practice in Nepal since 5 th five year plan (in 1975) with assistance of different donors such as UK Gov. Grant Aid; ADB credit; UNDP credit; USA Gov etc. The majority of the extension support services of IRDPs were consisted of: seed, fertilizer, and plant protection materials and credits. The IRD is a quite complex and multidimensional model and the success of which depends on interaction of multiple factors and performance of different entities (USAID, online 4). The IRD projects rather costly and more time consuming as well. Thus these projects couldn’t be continued by the government’s own budget after the retreat of the donor supports. Farming System Research and Extension (FSR&E) was introduced in Nepal in 1977 by financial support of different donors. The special significance of the farming system approach was to generate low cost technologies right in the farmer’s fields. The assumption of this approach is that the farmers adopt and help to disseminate the technologies if they are generated on the farm with their active participation. The JTs, JTA, PLAAs and Tuki used to take the responsibly of providing technologies to the targeted farmers (Basnyat, 1991). The FSR was the responsibility of National Agricultural Research and Service Centre (NARSC) in general, whereas the responsibility of extension service was of DOA and DOA used to organize the extension system for spreading the technologies. There was very weak linkage between research and extension. Therefore, this system could not function as expected. That is why, after the projects were withdrawn by donors, unfortunately, this system also could not continue in the country. Tuki Approach of Extension was initiated in Nepal in 1977 by the Integrated Hill Development Project jointly undertaken by government of Nepal and Swiss Government. The Tuki system worked on assumption that the trained local farmers can be best utilized to improve the technical knowhow of the farmers and in delivery of improved agricultural technologies in the communities. The technology can be transferred faster if the promoters (local farmers) themselves become exemplar by demonstrating the potential technology in their fields. The government used to provide incentives to the Tuki based on amount of inputs they used to sell to the local farmers. The incentive to the Tukis was too high and this couldn’t sustain by the government’s own fund. Therefore, after the termination of project, Tuki approach was also disappeared. Block Production Program Approach (BPPA) was initiated in Nepal in fiscal year 1981/82 at the several cropping system research sites for providing necessary technical services to the farmers in a coordinated way so as to facilitate them to adopt the technologies generated through the work of cropping systems (Basnyat 1991). The program was implemented by government budget and simply intended to support the cereal crop production programme in specified potential districts. The extension services were basically of production materials such as inputs and credits. The assumption of this approach was that production and productivity could be increased to a greater extent if suitable production inputs and monitoring and supervision are provided to the farmers. But later on this couldn’t be attained due to many constraints especially of unavailability of manpower and limitation of budget. The programme couldn’t sustain in the long run due to high cost of providing production
4 Retrieved on 23 rd March, 2009 from: http://armenia.usaid.gov/upload/File/integrated-rural-development-usaid- armenia.pdf
2 inputs to the farmers. Of all extension approaches mentioned above were based on material support rather than strengthening the human capacity development. Therefore, after 1990 government introduced extension approaches which focused on human resource development to help farmers themselves to solve their own problems. Among these approaches, group approach and Farmer Filed School (FFS) approaches are major ones. Group 5 approach of extension was adopted in Nepal in 1992 in order to make the agricultural extension services more participatory, empowerment oriented and cost effective. The main concept of group approach is to “help people to help themselves” that is to say the farmers support each other in order to solve their local problems by their own resources (CATC, 2002). Group approach has been adopted all over to country and still continuing at present.
1.1.2. FFS approach of extension
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a crop protection program was adopted by Government of Nepal in 1990 in order to incorporate the IPM as an integral component of agriculture program to solve the farming problems. However, IPM-FFS 6 approach as an extension program was adopted in May 1997 in early rice (spring rice) after the outbreak of Brown Plant Hopper (BHP) of rice in Chitwan district. This program was started as a pilot program and was conducted through Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) of FAO under the Community IPM of Asian Region (PPD, 2008). Due to initial success of IPM-FFS programs, Nepal received additional financial support from the Government of Norway under the technical support of FAO Regional Community IPM (CIPM) of Asia for the duration of 1998 and 2002. During this period, IPM-FFS trainings were launched not only in rice but also in other commercial crops especially of vegetables. The focus of the program was to develop FFS facilitators as well as providing IPM trainings to the farmers of different parts of the country including different ecological regions (PPD, 2008). In the CIPM project period (1998-2002), all together 104 officer level, 35 Junior Technicians (JT) and Junior Technical Assistants level and 415 farmers’ level FFS trainers/facilitators were developed covering 54 districts (out of 75 districts) of nations. Additionally, in total 700 different FFSs both in rice and vegetables were established and approximately 20,000 farmers were participated in the experimental based IPM trainings (PPD, 2008). FFS is based on the concept of participatory extension approach (Hagmann and et al, 1999) and relies on discovery learning techniques (Miagostovich et al., 1999 cited by Simpson, 2002) which is a different paradigm than that of the top-down model of technology development and transfer. The IPM-FFS approach becomes very popular in Nepal owing to its different nature (participatory and interactive learning and collective decision making) than the earlier practiced top-down models of extension. Government also wanted to give more focus on the IPM FFS in the context of rampant use of chemical pesticides in the agriculture sectors. Additionally, farmers also showed interest involving actively in FFS approach. On the background of positive responses from the farmers and satisfactory impact of programs and owing to environmental and ecologically sustainable point of view, Government of Nepal (MOAC, DAO) viewed IPM-FFS approach as viable and appropriate method of extension for
5 A farmer group is a collection of 20-30 farmers and interacting with one another towards achieving a common goal. The members of farmers of a group generally have common interests, problem, involving in same farming and living in the same locality. 6 IPM is the technical/ecological approach to pest management (insect, diseases and weed) and FFS is the methodological approach to farmer experiential learning)
3 generation and dissemination of technologies with active client participation. Therefore, on the backdrop of earlier successes and high demand of IPM-FFS training by the famers and human health point of view Government of Nepal (GON) requested to the Government of Norway for financial support for further promotion of IPM-FFS approach in Nepal. Government of Norway accepted the request of GON and agreed to provide additional financial support for IPM-FFS program for the period of 2003-07 with the technical support of FAO. Subsequently, in January 2004, Support to National IPM-FFS Programme (SNIPM) was launched to augment coverage of IPM-FFS spatially and conducting FFS in different high value crops. According to Plant Protection Directorate (PPD, 2008) focus of the project was to institutionalize the IPM-FFS approach in the community level, mainstream the FFS approach in the government and other private organizations system and to develop the collaboration among the stakeholders for the promotion of FFS approach in Nepal. In a line with project vision and to support such mission, GON also recognized IPM-FFS an effective program and thus accepted this approach as one of the methodologies of extension. IPM-FFS approach had got priority in 9th (1997-2002) and 10th Five Year Plan (2002-2007) of Government of Nepal. National Agriculture Extension strategy (2006) of DOA has also given priority to IPM-FFS model. The IPM-FFS practices have got prominence not only due to its participatory and empowerment point of view but also because of its environmentally friendly and biodiversity conservation practices perspective. Based on the policies of GON and positive impact of IPM-FFS method, DOA, a responsible organization for implementing IPM-FFS related programs and fostering the approach, has declared IPM-FFS is one of the prioritized programs of extension services. Therefore, it has instructed and mandated to DADOs and other extension offices under its control DOA to include IPM-FFS related programs in their regular programs (personal communication with DDG of DOA, 2008). After the introduction of IPM-FFS program in Nepal, INGOS/NGOs and private organizations have also practiced this method so as to strengthen farmers’ capacity to solve their farming problems by themselves in the community.
1.2. Statement of problem In the beginning, IPM-FFS, a participatory and experiential learning method, was introduced in Nepal in order to solve epidemic problem of BHP in rice. After the initial successes in controlling the pests, FFS method was considered as the best alternative to the top-down method of extension and afterwards this method was accepted as one of the approaches of agricultural extension by MOAC. From very beginning, DOA had been getting financial and technical support from the donors especially of FAO and Norwegian Government for the promotion of IPM-FFS approach. The ultimate target of the projects were to institutionalize the IPM-FFS approach by integrating it in government system; establishing networking between the concerned organizations at national, regional and local level for collaboration; and establishing and empowering the IPM farmer organizations for sustaining the FFS learning activities in the local level. However, after 10 years of implementation of IPM-FFS approach in Nepal, it is still unclear about how much progress has been made and what is institutionalization status of IPM-FFS in the national and local level? So, in this context, it is become necessary to explore the sustainability status of FFS learning activities as supposed earlier. Therefore, statement problem of this research is to investigate effects and institutionalization status of IPM-FFS approach on the ground of continuation of learning activities and dissemination innovation in the community level, incorporation of IPM-FFS related programs 4 in government system (extension and research) and collaboration between other concerning actors for the promotion FFS approach.
1.3. Research Objectives
1. Assessing the kinds of learning and change process FFS approach has created at local level,
2. Assessing the level of institutionalization enabling context for continuation of FFS approach.
5
Chapter Two
2. Theoretical framework In this chapter, first I will give normative description about FFS: what is FFS, origin of FFS, global status and coverage of FFS. Additionally, I will focus on key principles of FFS, basic element of FFS and basic dimensions of FFS. Secondly, in the theoretical part, I will give description of the theories I have used in this research. In the theories, my focus will be on Experimental Learning Theory (ELT) which is based on the principle of adult learning developed by David Kolb (1984), its major components and why this theory is useful for studying FFS. As a second theory of this research, I will give insight of Innovation System Framework (ISF), reason of using this theory and different conceptual concepts of ISF.
2.1. Normative description of FFS FFS is a form of adult education based on the philosophy of experiential learning method, aimed at building farmers’ analysis, critical thinking, decision-making capacity and expertise (Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006). FFS as a platform of adult learning offers learners the opportunities to learn by doing and sharing, learn by involving in experimentation, discussion and decision making and ultimately collectively solving the problems (FAO, 2000). FFS as a participatory methodology of research and extension differs from the conventional practices of transferring technology generated from research via extension to the users. In FFS approach, there isn’t a question of delivering technologies to ultimate users by the extension rather farmers, who are the ultimate users of technologies, directly involve in the technology generation process and draw logical conclusions by their own direct experience and observation of technologies and decide whether to accept or reject the technologies (Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006). Therefore, FFS as a technology development methodology has transformed farmers from recipients of knowledge/technology to generators of knowledge (Madukwe, 2006). Concerning to FFS experiential learning and its effect, Gallegher (1998) states that “If I hear it I forget it, If I see it I remember it but If I discover it, I own it for life”. Additionally, FFS method is intended to allow convergence between local and scientific knowledge and aim to make farmers better decision-makers for the solution of local problems at the local level (Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006). FFS is also considered an approach of research and extension based on ownership, empowerment, and group discovery learning, systems approach, life education, self-help and self-propelling (CIP-UPWARD, 2003). However, it is important to understand that the core of FFS relates to broad underlying principles of participation and adult education. These principles can be applied in a variety of ways and lots of innovative FFS applications are coming out of the work of skilled facilitators (Gallagher, Braun and Duveskog, 2006). Long-term empowerment goal of FFS is to seek enable graduates to continue to expand their knowledge/technology generation and to help others learn and to organize activities within their communities to institutionalize the practices (Simpson, 2002).
2.1.1 Origin and global status of FFS
Originally, the FFS was developed in 1989 in the rice fields of Indonesia with a very specific focus on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) (CIP-UPWARD, 2003) to help farmers deal with
6 the pesticide-induced problem of rice brown plant-hoppers in irrigated rice (Braun and et al. 2006). Introduction of IPM was a reaction to second-generation problems of the Green Revolution, such as pesticide resistance, pest resurgence, and secondary pest outbreaks. The development of FFS as a methodological approach to IPM resulted due to failure of T&V as a teaching IPM through top-down approach of extension. The FFS approach assumes that farmers conduct experiment as experts, learn systematically, and value their own knowledge and apply the learnt principles, practices and skills in diverse conditions (Van den Berg et al., 2001 cited by Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006) in order to solve their local problems. Now, the original concept of FFS has gone far beyond IPM and has moved away from only focusing on rice. According to Braun and et al (2006) the spread of FFS is not only limited to agriculture, but it has been adapted for a wide range of crops including tree crops such as bananas, various high value crops for instance vegetables and fruits; industrial crops such as cotton, cocoa etc. Braun and et al (2006) further pointed that FFS curriculum and learning processes have been developed for the livestock sector, for example, dairying, veterinary care, poultry and integrated rice-duck systems, goat husbandry, aquaculture and fishing; for land productivity issues, for instance, land and water management, soil fertility, land degradation. Besides this, FFS also has expanded to a range of social and health issues, such as food security, HIV/AIDS and vector-born diseases through Farmer Life School and Junior Farmer Field and Life School. Moreover, the FFS has covered the environmental issues, such as water quality and forestry. FFS has also become stepping stones to build technical and social skills, and move to networks, federations and associations (Gallagher, Braun and Duveskog, 2006). Furthermore, geographical expansion of FFS is also rampant. The use of FFS tool has spread in Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Near East and North Africa, and Central and Eastern Europe. FFS tool has been used by more than 78 countries, in total. Therefore, global experiences of FFS are indeed rich and diverse (Braun and et al., 2006).
2.1.2. Five Key principles of FFS
(Adapted from Pretty, 1995 cited by Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006 ) 1. What is relevant and meaningful is decided by the learner/participants and must be discovered by the learner themselves. FFS approach assumes that learning flourishes in a situation in which teaching is seen as a facilitating process that assists people to explore and discover the personal meaning from the events or situation. 2. Learning is a consequence of experience. People learn by doing or directly involving in the activities. Learners become responsible when they have assumed responsibility and experienced success. 3. Cooperative approaches are enabling. Learners cooperate with other and/or learn with each other for fostering the learning process. As people invest in collaborative group approaches, they develop a better sense of their own worth. 4. Learning is an evolutionary process and is characterized by free and open communication, confrontation, acceptance, respect and the right to make mistakes. Evolution and adaptation to field realities and that there seemed to be no definite stop as to how far it would really go. 5. Each person's experience of reality is unique. As they become more aware of how they learn and solve problems, they can refine and modify their own styles of learning and action.
7
2.1.3. Basic elements of FFS
The concept of field School isn’t completely a new idea, just an effective idea because much of the field school ideas developed from the traditions of literacy education and village level basic health care program (Gallagher, 1998). The basic elements of FFS are as follows: The facilitator In the FFS learning process, the facilitators facilitate the process rather than teaching to the participants (Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006). The success of entire process hinges on capacity and willingness of the facilitators to drive the process in such a way that to encourage participants to direct their own learning processes (Luther and et al., 2005). The facilitators must have skills in managing participatory and discovery-based learning process as well as technical knowledge to guide the groups’ learning and action process (Braun and Duveskog, 2008). The facilitators should have good knowledge of the technical side. For example, in case of IPM-FFS, the facilitators ought to have knowledge in relation to pests and beneficial organisms, agronomic requirements for plant health etc. Methodological process of FFS is equally important to guide the group in productive directions and ensure a maximum rewarding learning experience. Importantly, the facilitators should have the knowledge of seed to seed or egg to egg of the selected learning topic or subject. If the facilitators don’t have command of the technical issues, learners’ may sense that facilitators do not know the material and they become frustrated and learning can’t be fruitful (Luther and et al., 2005). Moreover, learners actively involve learning and the learning process lead in the right directions if they find the activities useful and interesting. Therefore, the facilitators need to know how to make the learning interesting and inclusive (Luther, 2005). Furthermore, the facilitators should also have skills of group dynamic/group building methods to increase the group solidarity not only during the learning process but also after the completion of learning cycle (Gallagher, 2003). The curriculum The FFS curriculum follows the natural cycle of its subject and the subject can be crop or animal or soil or handicrafts etc. The cycle of school activities may be “seed to seed” or “egg to egg (Braun and Duveskog, 2008). As FFS cover all stages of crop development or event, thus it is called holistic approach of learning. The educational benefits of regular meeting are that when problems are present and/or seen they are tried to solve on the spot which is far more effective than the intensive theoretical courses (Gallagher, 2003). To make the learning more participatory and inclusive, curriculum of the topics should be chosen by the community and/or participants or participants need to be involved in the curriculum development process that is to say FFS learning should be based on basic needs of farmers (CIP-upward, 2003). The group A group of people with a common interest form the core of the FFS. The group may be mixed with men and women together, or separated depending on culture and topic (Luther and et al., 2005). Generally, the numbers of people in a group is about 25 and they should have desire of supporting with each other based on their experiences to create a critical mass (Gallagher, 2003). The learning group could be an established one (already exist group), such as self-help, women’s, or youth groups of local area or the group can be newly formed one. New group is formed based on common interests and nature of problems (Luther and et al., 2005).
8
The field The field schools are mostly established in the community where farmers live so that they can easily attend weekly meeting of schools and maintain the field school studies (Gallagher, 2003). FFSs are about practical, hands-on topics and thus in the FFS approach, the field is the teacher which provides most of the training materials like plants, pests, soil particles and real problems. Any new language learned in the course of the studies can be applied directly to real objects, and local names can be used and agreed on. Farmers are usually much more comfortable in field situations than in classrooms (Braun and Duveskog, 2008). Building groups The long tern vision of FFS concept is to assist the field school group to develop as a support group so that participants can support one another after the termination of field school. For this reason groups are formed and name is given to the groups with the interest of the participants. During the season long learning activities, group building exercises are conducted to build trust and strengthen the group cohesiveness (Gallagher, 1998). The group dynamics exercise also help farmers become more aware of group processes and the value of co-operation among with each other. This is important for the persistence of group after completion of FFS learning activities.
2.1.4. FFS from different perspectives
FFS is a participatory training approach that can be considered both as an extension tool and a form of adult education. FFS focuses on building farmers’ capacity to make well-informed crop management decisions through increased knowledge and understanding of the agro- ecosystem (Davis, 2006). Additionally, the FFS has not only been looked at from the angle of learning but also viewed it from the perspective of research platform, new way of extension, farmer empowerment and advocacy. Through FFS, farmers learn how to do; they learn how to become better farmers through an understanding of ecology. Farmers also learn about social dynamism and how to organize effectively for collective welfare.
An approach for empowerment
A form of adult Advocacy and lobbying education
New form of extension A platform to learn and generation of knowledge
(Adapted from CIP-UPWARD, 2003)
Figure 1: FFS from different lenses
9
Educational foundation of FFS The educational concepts of FFS are drawn from the adult non-formal education (Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). Adult education is based on the principle that learners already have some experiences and knowledge and these are integrated into the learning process. Gallagher (1998) mentioned that “adult education is more like to stirring an already full of cup of tea to blend the ingredients in a new way”. The FFS learning style fit with the experiential learning of D.A. Kolb (1984). When we look at definitions of learning given by Kolb “learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experiences” which is also fit to learning concept of FFS (Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). Kolb’s learning cycle is well known among practitioners of adult non-formal education. FFS begin with directly involving in the field activities. Participants collect data in the field (experience) and collectively analyse the data (Reflection ). The participants make use of their data to propose decisions for actions leading to a hypothesis (Generalisation & Abstract Conceptualisation ).The decision is then implemented (Active experimentation) (Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). This way of learning enables the learners to help others learn by applying the principles of field school and organizing the collaborative activities in their communities to institutionalize the process (Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). Malcolm Knowles mentioned about the adult education and he distinguished pedagogy (the art of teaching children) from something he termed as andragogy (the art of teaching adults) (Knowles, 1968 cited by Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). The adult education of FFS is an approach that exemplifies andragogy that is helping to the adults to learn.
Table 1: A Comparison of the assumptions of Pedagogy and Andragogy Key Assumptions Pedagogy Andragogy Concept of the 1. The role of the learner is by 1. The learners move from dependency learner nature a dependent one. towards increasing self-directedness 2. The teacher is expected to but at different rates for different take full responsibility for people and in different dimensions of determining what is to be life. learned, when it is to be 2. Adults have a psychological learned, how it is to be need to be self-directing. learned, and if it has to be learned. Role of learners’ 1. The experience learners 1. As people mature they acquire an experience bring to a learning situation increasing reservo ir of experience is of little worth. It may be that is a rich source for learning for themselves and others. used as a starting point, 2. Adults attach more meaning 2. The experience from which to learning they gain from learners learn is that of the experience than what they teacher, the textbook writer, gain from passive methods. etc. 3. The primary methods for adult 3. The primary techniques learning are experiential learning of teaching, accordingly, are transmitted techniques lectures, reading, etc Readiness to 1. People are ready to learn what 1. People become ready to learn learn society says they should learn, something when they experience a provided the pressure put on need to learn it in order to cope more them (i.e. fear of failure) are satisfyingly with real life tasks or great enough. problems.
10
2. Most people of the same age 2. The educator has a responsibility are ready to learn the same to help them discover their things. Thus, learning is to needs to know. follow a standard curricula with a uniform progression Orientation to 1. Learners see education as a 1. Learners see education as a learning process of acquiring subject- process of developing increased matter content, most of competence to achieve their full which they understand will be potential in life. useful only at a later time in 2. They want to be able to apply what they learn today to living more life. Thus the curriculum effectively tomorrow. Thus learning should be organised into experience should be organised subject-matter units which around capacity development follow the logic of the subject. categories. 2. People are subject-centred in their approach to learning. Source: Jarvis, 1987 cited by Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett (2000) FFS as a non-linear model of innovation Much of the learning in FFS happens within the framework of the extension and research agenda and thus FFS approach represents a major paradigm shift in agricultural extension and research (CIP-UPWARD, 2003). FFS method is totally different with ‘transfer of technology’ model of innovation which primarily focuses on the best technical means and transferring these means to the clients/farmers. FFS approach belongs to another paradigm that is non-linear model of innovation oriented towards helping farmers to be expert in experiment and good decision-makers and towards developing or adapting technologies that are acceptable to them and suitable to solve their problems. The FFS approach purposely aims to develop farmers more knowledgeable and empowered partners, or co-producers of knowledge (Gallagher, Braun and Duveskog, 2006). Table 2: Comparison of “Transfer of Technology” Model (TOT) and FFS as a new approach Transfer of Technology Farmer Field School (FFS) Definition of farmer End user of technology Expert/generator of technology Desirable practices Use of component technologies Management of the farm as an agro- to control target variables ecosystem so as to enhance its self- organization Learning required Individual adoption of innovations Group learning based on experimentation Assumed Diffusion of innovations among Based on spontaneous local dynamics autonomous scaling users started up by empowered individual up mechanism farmer, FFS group and alumni Facilitation required Extension: transfer of Knowledge Adult education: non-directive methods by demonstration, lectures, etc. that energize and foster discovery or experimental learning Institutional support Linear organization of science- Decentralized organization for human to-practice continuum so as to capital (develop expertise in the local level) allow uninterrupted flow of and provide resources to foster local technology from science to dynamics and farmer-driven FFS. farmer. Conducive policies Support for R&D and extension Support and finance for local dynamics and services. networking.
Subsidies on input use. Encourage farmer organizations and local research and development. Source: Röling and Wagemakers (1998) cited by CIP-UPWARD (2003)
11
FFS as means to Empowerment
FFS approach as a platform for both learning and empowerment (CIP-UPWARD, 2003). Empowerment means developing potentials that enable organised groups to identify and take advantage of existing opportunities (Narayan, 2002, cited by Kibwika, Wals and Musoke, 2009). FFS platform empower farmers via farmer groups’ organization, facilitate collective action, advocate for better policies, deal with markets, empower through knowledge of experimentation (CIP-UPWARD, 2003). Moreover , FFS seeks to empower people to solve local problems by fostering active participation, self-confidence, dialogue, joint decision-making and self-determination (Roling and Van de Fliert 1998 cited by Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). Knowledge is associated with empowerment. In the FFS learning activities, weekly meetings in the fields, where farmers improve on their observation, data analysis and decision-making skills. The self-reflection, critical thinking, decision making are the learners’ self-knowledge and release the learners from dependence on hypostatized powers (Habermas, 1971 cited by Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). The technical and practical knowledge the learners gain in the learning activities increase their confidence which is also a form of empowerment. Therefore, through experimentation the learners learn how to work together, become able to identify problems and able to solve local problems systematically (CIP-UPWARD, 2003). Through FFS experiential learning platform what farmers actually learn for empowerment are as follow (Adapted from CIP-UPWARD, 2003): 1. To strengthen the problem-solving capacity and skills in order to address the problems and identify opportunities that are important to them; 2. To generate and manage knowledge and understanding for their individual and community needs; 3. To strengthen critical thinking capacity and identifying options and risks in decision- making; 4. To enhance confidence in the learning process; 5. To enhance capacity to experiment, and to test and adapt principles, guidelines, and practices according to their interests. FFS is used as a process tool for empowerment not only by involving in a set of learning steps for improving farm production, productivity and sustainability but also empowering farmers via their collective forum whereby they can discuss exiting problems, share experiences and co-develop plans for future work for their welfare (CIP-UPWARD, 2003).
FFS for advocacy and lobbying
One of the functions of the FFS is also advocacy. FFS approach has been used to involve farmers in organizing research and analysing activities in an effective way that ultimately influences rural policy (CIP-UPWARD, 2003). By involving in the FFS learning process, farmers gain knowledge about their constraints, help to identify what policy issues should be addressed or what new strategies need to be devised to solve the prevalent problems. The acquired knowledge enhances their confidence and interests for advocacy and lobbying for addressing not only farm but also non-farm challenges/issues. The farmers in an organized form can demand and lobby for appropriate policies for support activities from the public and private organizations. However, according to Kibwika, Wals and Nassuna-Musoke (2009) for that the farmers too need to be able to self-organize and mobilize for share development goal. They require to have shared development agenda and
12 social energy. They further require awareness of their right and/or entitlements and then have to lobby, advocate and negotiate for services. The farmers should able to identify the type of services they need and their collective effort to lobby, advocate and negotiate for those services with service providers. Building and strengthening of farmers' organizations are essential strategies for the advocacy (CIP-UPWARD, 2003). Farmers’ active networking have great role to address and even change policies. For example, their involvement in the local representative bodies and different committees of research, extension, credit and quality control help for lobbying. The advocacy can be for local level to national level policies, related to health, related to issues of gender, concerned to the matter of livelihoods and governance etc.
2.2. Experiential Learning Theory (ELT)
In this part, first of all, I will give short insight why ELT is applicable to study the FFS and I will give details of ELT and major components: concrete experiences, reflective observation and abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. Experiential learning theory is a knowledge creation process through which new experiences are integrated into prior experiences and transformed into relevant, durable and retrievable knowledge suitable for use in the learners’ environment (Kolb 1984, Sheckley and Keeton 1997, Ndoye, 2003). Major focus of theory is the generation of new knowledge and application of acquired knowledge and behaviour in the real field. Educational focus of FFS is also that farmers already have some practical knowledge and experiences which is integrated into the learning process and finally better off farmers’ knowledge and increased confidence in farming in a new way. Therefore, experiential learning theory is suitable to study the learning process and activities of FFS. Additionally, the experiential learning theory is conceived as process but not as outcome that means process should be continued after completion of one cycle. The main emphasis of FFS is also that learning and sharing process among farmers need to be continued after the first and second round of FFS training in order to solve the constantly emerging farming problems. Therefore, use of Kolb’s learning cycle is relevant to study the FFS. The detail of Kolb Learning Theory is mentioned on the succeeding paragraphs: David Kolb developed Experiential Learning Theory particularly drawing on the works of John Dewey, 1910; Jean Piaget, 1970 and Kurt Lewin, 1951 (Wilson and Morren, 1990). Kolb’s learning theory is also called “The Kolb Cycle” or “The Learning Cycle” or “The Experiential Learning Cycle”. Although Kolb’s theory was developed predominantly for use with adult education, the theory has been acknowledged by academics, teachers, managers and trainers and have been using in their respective fields. Thus experiential learning has a broad range of application from classroom to laboratory learning and also to field level organized learning to coincidence learning (Etling 1993 cited by Robert, 2006). The ELT gives central role to experience in the learning process, therefore this theory differ with rationalist and cognitive theories of learning that tend to give primary emphasis to acquisition, manipulation and recall of abstract symbols. ELT also differs with behaviour learning theories because these theories deny any role for consciousness and subjective experiences in the learning process (Kolb, 1984). The Kolb’s learning cycle isn’t a model of what goes inside peoples’ head as they learn, but rather it assimilate the kinds of activities (feeling, watching, thinking and doing) people carry out activities as they learn (Wilson and Morren, 1990). Or in another way, experiential learning is not a molecular (simple or only one system) educational concept but instead it is a molar (whole system) concept describing the central process of human adaptation to the
13 social and physical environment. Therefore, it is also called as a holistic approach of learning as it involves the integrated functioning of the total organism – thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving (Kolb, 1984). The experiential learning theory is considered as process but not as product because concepts are derived from and continuously modified by experiences and knowledge is created through the transformation of reflected experiences. The ideas or thoughts are not fixed and/or don’t remain same for ever rather keep on changing with new experiences and interventions. Human activities need to keep on constantly changing to fit within the environment (Kolb, 1984). Experiential learning is also transaction between person and environment as environment determine the human behaviour. Environment has influenced for the use of learned practices. Therefore, only learned knowledge is not sufficient to bring change and/or apply but suitable environment (culture, people, and support) is also indispensible. Focus of ELT is not only learning but also internalization and dissemination of the learned practices and behaviour (Roberts, 2006). The Kolb’s learning cycle consists of four different stages of learning which are follows: Concrete Experience (CE) Reflective Observation (RO) on that experience, 1. Concrete Abstract Conceptualization (AC) experience 2. Reflective Active Experimentation (AE) 4.Active observation experimentation Kolb’s Experiential Cycle
Figure 2 : A.D. Kolb's Experiential Learning Cycle 3.Abstract conceptualization
2.2.1. Concrete Experience (CE)
Concrete Experience corresponds to knowledge by acquaintance or direct practical experience. The learners get practical experiences by doing and/or involving in concrete reality. Experience means exposure by which farmers would develop an awareness of the phenomenon (Roberts, 2006). According to Kayes (2005) concrete experience is phase of cycle for experiencing, feelings and emotions engaging with real world. The learners gather the information from different sources for knowing the phenomenon, event or problems in their own ways. This stage is also called as apprehension (Dewey, 1910 and Kolb, 1984 cited by Wilson and Morren, 1990) as it is a stage for collecting data for knowing the situation. Gaining experience is a personal subjective process that cannot be known by others unless the learners communicate. The individual learner have their own personal value, feeling, believe, trust and conviction over phenomenon. Therefore, there is ambiguity among the individual learners as they view and perceive same situation differently. Such personal and idiosyncratic assumption of the situation is put forth in the reflective observation phase for the clarification.
14
2.2.2. Reflective Observation (RO)
In this phase, the learners naturally reflect over their experiences perceived in the concrete experience phase. Observation allows learners to become aware of events as they occur and to engage in learning that create new meaning (Roberts, 2006). The reflective process is also accompanied and fostered through deliberate practice. Interpreting information is performed through a reflective practice that enhances adult capacities to improve their problem-solving skills as well as analytical skills (Ndoye, 2003). According to Wilson and Morren (1990) this is the people oriented and sensitive phase because the learners might have viewed the situation differently and have different perspectives over the events in the concrete experience phase. That is why the learners discuss over problems and try to make common view about the situation. The learners put forth their ideas, believes, values and judgement over the issues in a group discussion. Sometimes for clarification, they also observe the phenomenon; compare the beliefs, ideas and feelings acquired by different individuals for reaching on common ground. The learners look at whether collected data (personal values, ideas and judgement) are sufficient for a fuller understanding of situation or not. They attempt to sees whether information is valid for understanding situation or not. Finally, they come to collective reflection over the phenomenon. These reflections are then assimilated (absorbed and translated) into abstract concepts.
2.2.3. Abstract conceptualization (AC)
The phase AC creates concepts that integrate learners’ reflective observation into logically sound theories (Kolb, 1984). Similarly, Kayes (2005) states that AC involves in creating meaning out of the experience and make plans to guide future actions. In this phase the learners develop concepts (mental maps, models, concepts and framework) by logical analysis and/or in-depth reflection of experiences. These developed concepts are theories which have logical connection with the experiences gathered in the concrete experience phase. This phase is also termed as a comprehension, which is an objective social process and a tool of culture (Kolb, 1984). The learners build up socially and culturally meaningful words and images to convey understanding of situation and these symbols or images are objectively connected with the phenomenon that is have logical connection with the described situation. In this stage learners decide whether to accept or reject the learned practices based on underlying reason, concepts and relationship. If the learners feel that the derived concepts do seem to fit to reality and/or solve the existing problems, they go for active experimentation otherwise throw the concepts out and go for another round of gathering experiences, reflection and abstract conceptualization .
2.2.4. Active Experimentation
Active experimentation is the phase of using the developed theories in the real field in order to solve problems (Kolb, 1984) and/or putting the learned practices into action (Kayes, 2005).The learners adopt the learned practices and /or doing the experiment by arranging all necessary things based on logical conclusion in the conceptualization phase. Active experiment of learned practices depend on whether or not the generated concept is fit to the particular situation; whether the learners have confidence in conducting the experiment or putting the practice into action; whether the learners have feeling that the learnt behaviour solve their problems; help of other people for information, ideas and explanation etc (Wilson and Morren, 1990). The environment (culture, support of other people) has great role for the applying the learned skills and knowledge in the real fields.
15
Conclusively, the educational philosophy of the FFS rests on the foundations of adult non- formal education, and reflects the four elements of the ‘experiential learning cycle’ aforementioned proposed by Kolb (1984): concrete experience, observation and reflection, generalization and abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation. For example, in FFS experiential learning in rice, first the participants go to the field to collect data (experience) and gather in one place collectively to analyse the data (Reflection) . The participants think deeply, discuss with each other to logically define the certain event or problem, for example, reason of slow growth of rice plant is due to low dose of fertilizers (Abstract Conceptualization ). Finally, if the participants decide or logically conclude that slow growth of rice is due to low dose fertilizer they go for applying the fertilizer (Active Experimentation) (Pontius, Dilts and Bartlett, 2000). Experiential learning model helps learners to develop their analytical skills, critical thinking, and creativity and help them learn to make better decisions (Kenmore, 1997 cited by Feder Murgai and Quizon, 2004). Additionally, experiential learning allow adult to extend and apply their learning to the external world in order to face daily challenges and promote learning (Ericsson and Hastie 1994, Ndoye, 2003).
2.3. Innovation System Framework (ISF) In FFS approach, farmers actively involve in the knowledge generation process rather than receiving the knowledge solely produced by the researchers and/or delivered by the extension. Therefore, in FFS knowledge generation process, the role of the farmers is equally important as those of the extensioninsts and researchers and other partners. The FFS approach emphasizes more on to develop the farmers more knowledgeable and empowered partners, or co-producers of knowledge. In this case innovation system framework is an appropriate theory to gauge whether different actors such as extension, researchers, users and intermediaries are working collectively for generation and dissemination of knowledge. The use of innovation system framework is pertinent to study the FFS sustainability/institutionalization of FFS approach. As for the sustainability of FFS approach, there should be constellation of actors, their supportive attitude with each other, collaboration and networking and appropriate policy for its promotion. In-depth explanation of Innovation System Framework is described on the following paragraphs. Over the year, the concept of innovation has changed. The linear model of innovation, the original hypothesis, which is based on principle that innovations are developed by scientists, disseminated through extension and education and then put into practice by farmers, has become obsolete (Kline & Rosenberg, 1986; Röling, 1996; Rip, 1995 cited by Leeuwis, 2004). An alternative to linear model, non-linear model of innovation has emerged which has focused that innovation is based on the effective integration of knowledge and experience of scientists, clients, intermediaries and other related parties (Leeuwis, 2004). In this line, innovation system framework conceptualize that innovation is more systemic, interactive and evolutionary terms whereby networks of organizations, together with the institutions and policies that affect their innovative behaviour and performance, bring new products, new processes and new forms of organization (Nelson and Winter 1982, Freeman 1988, Lundval 1992; Edquist 1997 cited by Hall, Mytelka Oyeyinka, 2006). The innovation systems concept is attractive not only because it offers a holistic explanation of how knowledge is produced, diffused, and used but because it emphasizes the actors and processes that have become increasingly important in development arenas (World Bank, 2006) in order to make innovation more integrative and appropriate to the targeted actors, for example, not only to the users but also to consumers. Hence the systems conceptualisation of innovation marks a
16 sharp difference from earlier thinking of innovation as linear process of Research and Development (R&D) leading to technical and economic change (World Bank, 2006). Initially, the innovation systems concept emerged through policy debates in developed countries in the 1970s and 1980s. These debates centered on the nature of industrial production in the developed world and the analytical frameworks required explaining patterns of industrial growth. Later on this framework expanded in different sectors, and framework has been adopted as an analytical framework as guideline for science and innovation policy by numerous public organisations around the world (World Bank, 2006) so as to make the innovations effective and efficient by including the all concerned actors. A number of scholars have adopted the innovation system framework to study processes of socio-technical change (Hekkert and Negro, 2007). However, the innovation systems concept is relatively new to agricultural sector in developing countries; therefore it is increasingly suggested as a way of revisiting the question of how to strengthen agricultural innovation capacity (Hall et al. 2001; Clark et al. 2003; Hall 2005, cited by World Bank, 2006). 2.3.1. Some features of innovation system (Adapted from Hall, A. J. and Yoganand, B. 2004): 1. It focuses on innovation rather than technology/output/product. The concept of innovation is used in its broad sense of the activities and processes associated with the generation, production, distribution, and use of new technical and institutional, organizational, or managerial knowledge. 2. It conceptualize the research as part of the wider process of innovation and it helps identify the scope of the actors (including the public, private, research, enterprise, and technology-users sectors) involved and the wider set of relationships in which research is embedded. 3. It recognizes the importance of both technology producers and technology users, and recognizes that their roles are both context-specific and dynamic. It helps the users rapidly assess the characteristics of an innovation system in a particular context . 4. It recognizes that the institutional context of organizations, particularly the wider environment that governs the nature of relationships, promotes interests and shapes outcome of the system as a whole. 5. It recognizes innovation as a social system. In other words, it does not just focus on the degree of connectivity between the different elements/actors, but on the learning and adaptive process that make this a dynamic evolutionary system. 6. It is also a framework for analysis and planning. It can draw on a large body of existing tools from economics, anthropology, evaluation, management, and organizational sciences, and is not bound to any one disciplinary convention. Owing of the all above mentioned characteristics, the innovation system contrasts with the conventional approach or linear model of innovation. Instead, it recognizes the importance of supporting systems and emphasizes over diversity in approaches and practices between the concerning actors. Therefore, it is concerned with establishing relationships and processes that will strengthen future technology and innovation outcomes. The advocates of this approach suggest that its use for the evaluation and planning of agricultural technology development and promotion activities is a useful way to build locally adapted, collective operational capacities where such institutional concerns can be monitored and sustained (Biggs and Smith 1998; Biggs and Matsaert 1999; Hall 2003; cited by Hall and Yoganand, 2004).
17
2.3.2. Main concepts of ISF
Innovation system concepts
Enabling Actors Attitude and Patter of environment and roles practices interaction Source: World Bank (2006)
Figure 3: Conceptual framework of innovation system
2.3.3. Actors and their roles
In the linear model of innovation, public research and extension organizations are the prime movers. Research generates the technology and responsibility of extension is to disseminate the technology (Hall, Mytelka and Oyeyinka, 2006). However, innovation system framework recognizes full range of diverse set of organizations/actors from the public and private sector, civil society organizations, producers association, etc. for generating and disseminating the innovation (Hall and et. al, 2003). This system considers that there is an important role of broad spectrum of actors outside government to make innovation system inclusive, effective and sustainable. The organizations outside the government, for example, may be: private organizations (firm/company), NGOs, civil society, local user and producer organizations, markets, so on and so forth. In this regard, Spielma, Ekboir and Davis (2006) point out that innovation can have an important socioeconomic impact only when different related actors having different capabilities, knowledge and resources become a part of innovation system. Because this system considers that individual actors usually do not have all the human, social, technical and financial resources necessary for the innovation. Therefore, involvement of different relevant actors in the innovation system can fulfil the need of resources, expertise and knowledge for effectively fostering innovation (Rycoft and Kash 1999; Christensen and Raynor 2003 cited by Spielma, Ekboir and Davis, 2006).
2.3.4. Attitudes and practices
The attitudes and practices of actors determine interaction and learning that accompanies innovation (World Bank, 2006). The common attitudes and practices regulate the relationships and strengthen interactions between individuals and groups which largely determine the intension of actors to innovate (Edquist 1997 cited by World Bank, 2006). For example, some organizations might have a tradition of interacting with other organizations but others prefer to work in isolation. Some actors/organizations have a tradition of sharing information with collaborators and competitors of about learning and upgrading, whereas others are more conservative in this line. Some actors take risks while others don’t take risk. Therefore, innovation depends on the organisational cultures within which innovation occurs, or the set of basic assumptions that are invented, discovered, or developed by a group in the process of learning how to deal with external adaptation and internal integration (Schein, 1984 cited by Spielman and et al, 2008). Attitudes and practices also help to know how organizations respond to new innovation such
18 as changing policies, changing in markets system and technological conditions. Because habits and practices vary across organisations, countries and regions, there is no certainty the way actors respond to new innovation (Hall, Mytelka and Oyeyinka, 2006). Hence while introducing new interventions particular attention must be given to ingrained attitudes and practices of the actors (Engel and Solomon 1997 cited by World Bank, 2006). There are particular attitudes and behaviour which are assumed supportive and hindrance to the innovation. For example, supportive attitudes and practices are: trust, openness, transparency, reciprocity, confidence, and mutual respect etc. Besides this, attitudes and practices of the actors which are believed to be restrictive for the efficient innovation processes and linkages are: secrecy, lack of confidence, professional hierarchies between organizations and disciples, internal hierarchies, top-down cultures and approaches, covering up of failures, limited scope and intensity of interaction in sector networks (World Bank, 2006). Therefore, for the innovation to occur, significant change in culture and behaviours is needed in those organizations which are driven by traditional sets of beliefs (Spielman and et al, 2008). Nonetheless, it is also envisages that the attitudes and practices which are critical to innovation are learned behaviours that shape approaches and arrangements and also are continuously changing over time. For example, participatory approaches are due to change in the attitude of researchers. 2.3.5. Patterns of interaction Linkages and networks among the actors is another concept in the innovation system framework. Well functioning of innovation system depends on the ability of agents/actors to interact and exchange of information and knowledge. Interactions can occur at any stage in the processes of producing, exchanging, or applying knowledge, through various types of networks, linkages and interventions (Fagerberg, 2005; Nelson and Rosenberg, 1993 cited by Spielman and et al, 2008). World Bank (2006) point out that innovation is an interactive process through which knowledge acquisition and learning take place. This process often requires quite extensive linkages with different actors for accessing knowledge and promoting learning. Linkages and networks also exemplify the “know who” or who are the major sources of knowledge, and such information helps to get the knowledge when necessary in the innovation process (World Bank, 2006). Thus it can be said that the linkages and the relationships control the flows of knowledge and information from one actor to another for innovation. Therefore, innovation system framework emphasizes on network-based knowledge generation and dissemination (Spielman and et al, (2008). Networks also influence the potential of public- private partnerships in which public and private sector entities jointly plan and execute activities to accomplish agreed-upon goals, commit resources to these goals, and share the costs, risk, and benefits incurred in the process of innovation (Spielmah and et al, 2008). Linkages also increase capacity of the actors. In order to solve the immediate arising problems, alliances is paramount importance. For instance, changing trade rules and competitive pressure in international markets could require new alliances between local companies and between those companies and research organizations. Collective effort of all concerned actors is more fruitful to solve the problems than the efforts of individual actor. Similarly, in case of out break of pest in crops linkages and networking help to solve the problems by sharing knowledge and information related to protective measures (World Bank, 2006). The existence of linkages and relationships among the actors depend on the policy context and the wider institutional environment. For example, strong public-private partnerships emerge through a liberal policy toward participatory approach. Alternatively, weak linkages may be a result of restrictive personnel polices for public sector that prevent them
19 undertaking contract for the private sector (World Bank, 2006). Linkages also depend upon the culture of the organizations. For instance, the public sector may have a strongly hierarchical culture, whereas the NGO sector may have a more decentralised, participatory culture. Collaboration between public agencies and NGOs/private may not occur due to conservation culture of the public organizations. Therefore, there is a need of more consultative culture to foster the innovation (Hall and et. al, 2003). The networks’ structure and dynamics also depend on the innovations’ complexity and maturity. In the case of simple or mature innovations (already established innovation), networks are loose. Because the economic and technical features of the innovations are relatively well known, members can relate to each other through formal contracts. For new or complex innovations, actors have to interact often and informally to overcome unexpected problems and the technical and market uncertainty derived from the innovation (Christensen and Raynor 2003; Rycoft and Kash, 1999 cited by Spielman, Ekboir and Davis, 2006). The effectiveness of innovation networks depends on capacity of actors to facilitate exchanges of information and resources. This capacity is known as the network’s navigability, and it depends on the existence of central actors i.e. well connected actors interacting among themselves (Buchanan 2002 cited by Spielman, Ekboir and Davis, 2006). For instance, small farmers’ groups may not have innovative capabilities to integrate into navigable networks that enable them to access technical and commercial information, markets, and financing due to not having enough human and social resources (Spielman, Ekboir and Davis, 2006). Thus emphasis should be placed on the development of individual and collective capabilities to access, imitate, and adapt existing information, knowledge, and technology by setting up and supporting more active innovation networks (Spielman and et al, 2008).
2.3.6. Enabling environment
Creating an enabling environment which encourages interaction among the actors and helps to put knowledge into socially and economically productive use is also an important aspect of innovation system. Generally, the elements for enabling environment include infrastructure, effective governance of input and output markets, and a supportive policy and fiscal framework for science, technology, legal, advisory, and trade issues (World Bank, 2008). Policies are integral to forming an enabling environment, but there is no single innovation policy. A set of policies is needed to work together to shape innovation (World Bank, 2008). Habits, behaviours and practices interact with polices and so to design effective policies it is necessary to take into account the habits and practice of the concerned collective actors. For example, the introduction of more participatory approaches to research is often ineffective unless the habits and practices and incentives of scientist are also changed (Mytelka, 2000 cited by Hall, Mytelka and Oyeyinka, 2006). Thus policies to promote innovation must be attuned to specific cultural contexts (World Bank, 2006). For creating the right policy environment concerning to innovation it needs for creating national and local forums that put policymakers into direct contact with researchers, research managers, private firms, civil society and other innovation system actors to discuss innovation policies in the wider context of national development (Spielman and et al, 2008). Innovation system has given priority for the participatory and contract out promoting policies. These kinds of policies help to bring stakeholders in the common round-table which promote networking and partnership and finally strengthen the innovation process effectively. Besides the policies, infrastructures are equally important for the promotion of innovation. Availability of market and market infrastructures significantly affect the innovation.
20
Appropriate property rights, and effective governance in both input and output markets also foster the participation of innovation agents in a system (Spielman and et al, 2008).
2.4. Research Questions
1. What learning and change process has FFS approach created at the local level?
2. Has the FFS approach attained adequate institutionalization enabling context to safeguard and sustain participatory technology development?
21
Chapter Three
3. Methodology For this study, I chose case as a research methodology. According Yin (1984) case study is a methodology that provides an opportunity to gain a deep insight of complex social processes that helps researchers to gain holistic picture of social phenomenon. Therefore, so as to gain clear pictures of learning and change processes and institutionalization context of FFS approach, I used case study. In order to gather complete data and deep understanding of the cases, I used different techniques of data collection such as participant observation, interview and content analysis.
3.1. Research Area I chose two districts: namely, Tanahun and Kathmandu for generating information. The reasons of selecting these two districts are: 1) these two districts are also the districts where Community IPM–FFS project (1998-2002) and Support to National IPM-FFS Programmes (2003-2007) were implemented to promote and institutionalize FFS approach; 2) in both of districts more 20 FFS have been conducted during projects periods to institutionalize FFS learning approach; 3) both of districts have IPM farmers’ associations, which is also one of the important driving forces for the institutionalization of FFS approach. DOA (PPD) has assumed that, among others, in these two districts FFS approach has been better institutionalized. That is why these two districts were chosen to assess the effect of FFS and institutionalization status. From both Kathmandu and Tanahun districts, I selected 5/5 IPM-FFS groups from five different villages. See in chapter 4 (section 4.1) for details of the research districts and FFS groups.
3.2. Research units Different research units were used to gain clear understanding of learning and change processes and institutionalization status of FFS approach. Following units were investigated to get the clear answers of stated objectives:
Table 3 Research units and method of data collection S.N. Research Unit Total Data collection Remarks Numbers techniques of units 1. IPM-FFS groups 10 Focus group Generally, in each group discussion + informal there were 10-25 persons discussion and in an average 6-10 person used to speak. Total actively participated participants =80 2. IPM-FFS farmer 3 Semi-structured and Total persons = 10 facilitators’ associations informal interview (farmer facilitators) 3. IPM–FFS facilitators’ 1 Semi-structured and Total persons= 8 Association (TITAN) informal interview
4. District Agriculture 2 Semi-structured and Total persons=8 Development Offices informal interview (DADOs)
22
5. Multi-stakeholders’ 3 Semi-structured and Total persons= 22 Coordination informal interview Committees (DCC, RCC and NCC) 6. Plant Protection 1 Semi-structured and Total persons=3 Directorate (PPD) informal interview 7. Department of - Semi-structured and Total persons= 5 Agriculture (DOA) informal interview 8. National Agriculture 1 Semi-structured and Total persons=5 Research Council informal interview (NARC) 9. I/NGO 2 Semi-structured and Total persons=5 informal interview 10. Non-FFS farmers - Informal interviews Total persons =12 11. CATC 1 Informal discussion Total persons =2
3.3. Data collection techniques I used different techniques of data collection in order to gather valid and reliable data. The details of data collection techniques and reasons for using these techniques are as follows:
3.3.1. Focused group discussion
I conducted focused group discussion in order to get different views of the members and leaders of IPM-FFS groups. In a whole group (focused group), it is easy and quick to get real facts because answers come from different corners with different viewpoints. Sylvia, McMillan and Borders (2002) also argue that via focus group discussion wide ranges of answers of the respondents can be obtained which help to get clear pictures of situations and/or opinions of respondents over the certain topic and subjects. Furthermore, focused group discussion is suitable method for getting perceptions and points of view of respondents without pressuring them (Krueger, 1988). Therefore, I chose a focused group discussion to understand the general views of the participants about FFS approach, why and why not FFS farmers are giving continuity to the experimental learning after FFS training. Also to know the reasons of why FFS farmers are using and/or not using learnt practices from FFS sessions and whether they are disseminating the generated from the FFS. While discussing with IPM farmer groups (focused group), there were 10-25 members at a time including leaders of the groups. But only 6-10 members used to speak and/or actively participated in group discussions . From 10 IPM- FFS groups in total, 80 farmers actively participated in the focused group discussion for providing the information and their perceptions, views about FFS and their activities and learnt knowledge. Generally, group discussion lasted for 1:30-2:00 hours. While conducting the focused group discussion, I mostly used voice recorders to store the information provided by the farmers. The use of an audio voice recorder during group discussions allowed me for Photo 3.1: Participatory observation collecting a lot of data in a short time and also I could talk freely with the respondents and could do probing sufficiently to get more data.
23
3.3.2. Participant observation
Participant observation is a type of research strategy. It is a widely used methodology in many disciplines particularly anthropology, but also sociology, communication studies, and social psychology. Its aim is to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given group of individuals and their practices, relationship and communication through an intensive involvement with people in their natural environment 7. Participant observation is active because the researcher takes part in some of the activities or cases being studied (Bernard 1995 and Dewalt et al 1998 cited by Isubikalu, 2007). I observed experimental activities, meetings of FFS groups and their discussion in group meetings. Besides this, I also observed the meeting of farmer facilitators’ associations, their discussions and interaction with the DADO officials.
3.3.3. Informal and semi-structured interview
Silverman (2001 cited by Isubikalu, 2007 mentions unstructured and open ended interviews provide insights into people’s experiences and constructions of reality. Besides focus group discussion and participant observation, I also conducted informal and semi-structured interviews in order to garner in depth information from the different respondents. I conducted series of interviews with FFS farmers, farmer facilitators, extension workers, researchers, and persons from NGOs, members of different coordination committees, policy makers and planners so as to gather detail insight concerning to experimental learning, change process, up scaling of FFS approach and institutionalization status of FFS approach. Additionally, I also involved in formal and information interview with the leaders and members IPM-FFS groups, IPM-FFS facilitators’ association members, members of multi-stakeholder coordination committees, member of TITAN, officials of PPD. These conversations helped me to understand the views of trainees, attitude and activities of farmers, extension workers and facilitators and attitude and practices of extension workers, policy makers and planners about FFS approach and fostering farmer lead innovation.
3.3.4. Documentary data
I also reviewed the policy papers of MOAC, Extension strategy of Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Prospective Plan of government of Nepal, 9th and 10 th Five Year Plan of Government of Nepal so as to know the policy priority for the promotion and sustainability of FFS approach. Additionally, I reviewed the annual program and reports and other publication of Plant Protection Directorate (PPD) and District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs) to see their regular programs for FFS related activities. Similarly, I assessed the minute books of Multi-stakeholders Coordination Committees (National Coordination Committee, Regional Coordination committee and District Coordination Committee) to see what kinds of decisions these committees have made for collectively promotion of FFS approach, collaboration and partnership programs.
3.4. Sampling techniques For gathering the data, Tanahun and Kathmadu districts were purposively selected having special characterises aforementioned in the section 3.1. Again from within the districts, IPM- FFS groups were selected randomly from the lists of DADOs. From Tanahun district 5 IPM- FFS groups were selected randomly from the list of 23 FFS groups of DADO. Similarly, from Kathmandu district 5 IPM-FFS groups were chosen from the list of 22 IPM-FFS obtained
7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participant_observation
24 from the DADO. In case of farmer facilitators’ associations of Kathmandu and Tanahun, both districts have only one association, therefore, both were selected purposively. Farmer facilitators and association leaders and members were selected purposively based on their knowledge and capacity and involvement in the facilitation works, involvement in the FFS learning activities and activities of the associations for the promotion of FFS approach. Similarly, respondents from the Plant Protection Directorate (PPD), Department Agriculture (DOA), I/NGOs and National Agriculture Research Council (NARC), District Agriculture Development Office (DADOs) were selected purposively who are aware and involved in the FFS planning and executing FFS experimental learning activities, represented in different committees meeting etc.
3.5. Data analysis In qualitative research, data collection and analysis processes tend to be simultaneous. Therefore, it is important to mention that in qualitative research data analysis processes are not entirely distinguishable from the actual data (Thorne, 2000 8). Qualitative data is often subjective, rich, and consists of in-depth information normally presented in the form of words. Analysing qualitative data entails reading transcripts, looking for similarities or differences, and subsequently finding themes and developing categories (Wong, 2008). Qualitative data are mainly unstructured text-based data. These textual data could be interview transcripts, observation notes and diary entries. In some cases, qualitative data can also include pictorial display, audio or video clips. Data analysis also focuses on the exploration of values, meanings, beliefs, thoughts, experiences, and feelings characteristic of the phenomenon under investigation 9. Therefore, being qualitative research, my data analysis also started from the time of data collection. Basically based on field notes, field dairies, recording of narration and informal discussion, filled up structured and semi-structured questionnaires, observation of FFS activities, l analysed execution pattern of FFS activities, scenario of use of learnt practices by FFS graduates, continuation status of FFS learning and knowledge sharing behaviour of FFS farmers etc. I also analysed the main actors, their role, attitude and practices and pattern of interaction over the FFS approach and/or for the promotion of FFS. I used triangulation of analysis of data collected from different sources for the validity of result. On way of producing believable, credible and trustworthy work is to use triangulation 10 . I also did content analysis. I looked at the different policies documents, reports and different papers of about FFS and its activities.
8 http://ebn.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/3/3/68 , Data analysis in qualitative research Sally Thorne, RN, School of Nursing, University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 9 http://ejournal.afpm.org.my/2008v3n1/pdf/NVivo_in_Qualitative_Research.pdf 10 http://qualitativeresearch.ratcliffs.net/15methods.pdf
25
Chapter Four
4. Execution and effect of FFS
In this chapter, focus of discussion and analysis will be on research area, execution and effects of FFS learning activities: continuity of FFS experimental learning after first and/or second round learning cycle, dissemination of the learned knowledge and practices by the farmers. Firstly, in the section 4.1 focuses of discussion and argumentation will be on research areas, reasons of selecting these research areas and selection of IPM-FFS groups. This part is to provide information about intervention areas and their characteristics. Secondly, in the section 4.2 concentrations of discussion, argumentation and analysis will be on execution of FFS learning activities. Basically, sub-section 4.2.1 focuses on selection of sites for organizing FFS, selection of participants for IPM-FFS learning and orientation about FFS methodology by the facilitators. Selection of sites, participants and orientation about FFS methodology are not exactly within main concepts of ELT (concrete experience, observation and conceptualization and active experimentation) but these are learning contextualizing activities and effectiveness and impacts of FFS learning is depends on suitable areas and appropriate participants. Without relevant sites and participants, FFS learning can’t bring significant impact and also learning process can’t sustain later on. Therefore, these points are used though don’t exactly come under ELT. In sub-section 4.2.2, focus is on execution of experimental learning. In the execution of FFS experimental learning, focus will be on in what ways the learners were involved in the FFS learning activities. Do participant farmers actively participate in the whole process of learning: concrete experience, reflective observation, conceptualization and active experimentation? Effect of experimental learning depends upon how actively participant farmers were involved during the learning sessions. Thirdly, section 4.3 will give attention to use of knowledge generated from FFS. Adoption of generated knowledge is also main component of ELT. To measure the effect of FFS, use of knowledge and learnt practices by the FFS farmers is also one of the crucial factors. Focus of the ELT is also to promote the adoption of learnt knowledge and skills. Fourthly, centre of attention of section 4.4 is on continuity of learning activities after completion of first and/or second round of FFS experimental learning activities. Experimental learning is cyclic process, continuity of the learning cycle is therefore crucial for assessing the sustainability and effects of FFS. Finally, section 4.5 will be concentrated on dissemination of learnt knowledge and practices by the FFS farmers. Focus of the Kolb’s experiential learning is not only of repetition of learning cycle but also spreading of the knowledge and experiences acquired by the learners to the non-learners. The learners need to share the learnt lessons and behaviours to the non-participant to make the experiential learning more effective and applicable to solve problems. That is why dissemination of knowledge is also become one of sections of chapter 4 though this part doesn’t come under main conceptual components of ELT.
26
4.1. Research Area
Post -Project IPM FFS Intensity Support to National IPM Programme (2004 -2007)
Humla Darchula -3 Tanahun district Bajhang -1 Bajura Baitadi Mugu -4 -2
-3 Dadeldhura Jumla -8 Doti Kalikot Dolpa -4 Achham Kathmandu district Mustang Kanchanpur -7 -2 Dailekh -27 Jajarkot Kailali Manang -29 Rukum Surkhet -11 -12 Myagdi Salyan -6 -8 Bardiya Baglung Kaski Gorkha -26 Rolpa -8 Lamjung Parbat -7 Rasuwa -14 3 -1 -13 - Banke Gulmi Pyuthan -23 Syangja -3 Tanahu Dang Arghakhanchi -16 -4 Sindhupalchowk -10 -23 Dhading Nuwakot -18 -5 Palpa -5 -38 K Dolkha Solukhumbu Kapilvastu -12 -17 B -10 -1 Nawalparasi Chitwan Rupandehi Taplejung Sankhuwasabha -28 Makwanpur L Kavre -19 -30 Ramechhap -6 -8 Okhaldhunga -38 Parsa Sindhuli -1 Terhathum -7 Khotang Bhojpur Panchthar -1 -13 Legend Total : 845 FFS Bara -1 -1 -4 -18 -11 Rautahat Sarlahi -9 Udayapur Dhankuta -29 Mahottari -15 Ilam High Intensity 23 Districts (15-38 FFSs) -32 -14 Dhanusha Siraha -20 -21 -14 Sunsari Morang -36 Saptari Medium Intensity 21 Districts (6-14 FFSs) -34 Jhapa Low Intensity 20 Districts (1-5 FFSs) None Intensity 11 Districts (0 FFS)
Data from IPMDATASOFT, March 2008
Figure 4: Map of Nepal indicating research districts Source: PPD (2008)
Kathmandu – IPM FFS 2004-2007 Tanahu – IPM FFS 2004-2007
Rupakot Jhormahankal Sangla Risti ChokChisapani Kabhresthali e Budanilkantha Sundarijal Firfir $T Thaprek Mirlung JJJitpurphedi Chapalibhadrakali T$ JJJJ $T Tokhachandeswori $T Satiswara Dharmasthali $T $T $T $T $ Shymgha Basantapur Pur kot Naglebhare $T T Kyamin Futung Baluwa Raipur $T $ $TDulega nda Khairenitar $T T u Tokhasarswoti Chunikhel Lapsephedi Dhorfirdi Goldhunga Gagalphedi Khadkabhadrakali t ii $T $T Ta nahunsur $T Nayapatiiii Manpang T$ Manmaiju Dhapasi Mahankal Aal apottt Gonggabu Baj rayogini(Sankhu) $T Bhanu Ichangnarayan Kapan Gokarneswor BBBhadrabas $T $T Barbhanjyang Bhi mdhunga $T T$ ByasN.P $T Indrayani Suntol Bhanumati $T Bh ima d . Jorpataa i Daan chhi PPukhulachhiP Chhang $T JamuneBhanjyang $ $T Ramkot $ T T i $T Ghansikuwa Sitapaila Kathmandu Metr opolitan City Mulpaniii Arunodaya $T Chouketardahachok $T Gothatar Baadbhanjyang Seuchatar $T Rani pokhari(Resing) Majhakot PokhariBhanjyang Bal ambu $T Kihun Bandipur $T Thankot Naikk apnaya bhanj yang Kotdarbar KahuShivapur $T T nthana ahadevathan Satungal i ShambuBhagawatipur M $T Keshavtar Anbukhaireni Kirtipur Municipalityaaaa Matatirtha $T aaa Gajarkot Sundhara(Ghiring) Ramjakot $T $T Dhar ampani Machhegaun Deur ali Bhirkot Bai di Chalnakhellll Chhi pchhipe llll Chhi mkeshwori
Sheshnarayan Talkududechour Satikhel
Devghat
Kota Daxinkali
Chhaimale
Figure 5: Research districts Source: PPD (2008)
For this research, I chose two districts (as mentioned in the section 3.1): namely, Tanahun and Kathmandu from two different Development Rregions of the country (out of the five development regions). Tanahun district come the Western Development Region and Kathmandu district is one the districts of Central Development Region country (see section 3.1 why I selected these two districts for research). In these two districts (Tanahun and Kathmandu) IPM-FFS projects were implemented: Community IPM–FFS project (1998-2002) and Support to National IPM-FFS Programmes (2004-2007) were executed to promote and institutionalize FFS approach. Both of districts have categorized as the districts having higher intensity of FFS (see in the map of Nepal up) , where more than 15 IPM-FFS were conducted during projects periods. Therefore, these two districts were chosen purposively so as to see the effects of IPM projects for the institutionalization of FFS and/or to see the institutionalization status of FFS approach in the districts where higher numbers of FFS training were conducted. From the both districts (Kathmadu and Tanahun), 5/5 IPM FFS groups were selected from five different villages of both districts.
27
The areas of Kathmandu for selecting the FFS groups were: Satungal, Panga Dhusi, Mulpani, Gorkarna and Kavresthali. Among them Satungal, Panga Dhusi and Mulpani areas are the commercial vegetable production areas of the Kathmandu district. Rest two areas Gokarna and Kavrethali are mainly rice production with minimum vegetable production. Mostly, the commercial vegetable producers of these selected areas use high dose of chemical pesticides in order to protect the crops from insects and diseases and also augment the production of the crops (DADO Kathmandu, 2008). Thus the focus of DADO is to judicious use of pesticides in the crops by considering their effects on human health and environment. Therefore, priority of the projects and DADOs for establishing FFS were/are on areas where commercial production of vegetable is substantial and farmers using more chemical pesticides. Additionally, main focus of FFS on the rice production areas is to better off of the crop management practices in order to increase the production and productivity and equally of minimizing the unnecessary use of pesticides.
Table 4 List of IPM-FFS investigated (Kathmandu) SN. Name of IPM-FFS Name of Place Date of FFS conducted on establishment 1 Raksha Devi IPM-FFS Kavresthali, Kathmandu January 2006 Rice 2 Bishnudevi IPM-FFS Satungal, Kathmandu October 2006 Vegetable (cauliflower) 3 Shankhapur IPM-FFS Panga Dusi, Kathmandu December 2005 Vegetable (cauliflower) 4 Shivapuri IPM-FFS Gokarna, Kathmandu June 2001 Rice 5 Mulpani -PM-FFS Mulpani, Kathmandu May 2007 Tomato Similarly, from the Tanahun district Jamune-5 Kurinchaur, Biyas Municipalty-5 Dumsi, Mangpang-1 Chhabise and Dulegauda-5 Bankewa are areas from where IPM-FFS groups were selected for investigating. Jamune-5 Kurichaur, and Dulegauda-5 Bankewa are the commercial vegetable production area of Tanahun district. Mangpang-1 Chhabise and Bayas Municipalty-5 Dumsi area are the rice production areas. In the same vein, DADO’s target is to reduce to the use of pesticides in the vegetable and rice crops and give the farmers more knowledge about better crop management practices. The priority of DADO is to conduct the FFS where there are special problems of crops and where farmer practice applying of high dose of pesticides and use fertilizer inappropriately.
Table 5 List of IPM FFS investigated (Tanahun) Name of place Date of FFS on Name of IPM-FFS S.N establishment (crop) 1 Shiva IPM-FFS Dumsi, Tanahun January, 2005 Rice (spring) 2 Raktakali IPM-FFS Bankewa,Dulegauda,Tanahun October, 2006 Cauliflower 3 Janajagaran IPM-FFS Hatiya, Dulegauda, Tanahun September, 2005 Cauliflower) 4 Kurinchaur, IPM-FFS Jamune Bhanjayan, Tanahun September, 2005 Cauliflower) 5. Akala IPM-FFS Manpang, Tanahun September 2005 Rice
4.2. Execution of FFS Conducting of FFS learning activities is ideally started with the initiation of FFS in the communities with specific steps: 1) identifying of the problems in production in the areas; 2) preparing the curriculum for the FFS on the basis of problems identified; and 3) the experimentation stage (Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006). FFS is season-long/complete crop cycle learning activities which accommodate field-based groups of approximately 25 to 30 farmers, who meet regularly to learn together through discovery and experience based learning. FFS learning especially intends to allow convergence between local and scientific knowledge. During the learning sessions, plots of study is divided in a farmers’ practices plot on which farmers cultivate in their traditional way,
28 and other plots on which farmers apply scientific way/IPM way of cultivation practices. These experimental plots are main tools for farmer to study which allow for comparison of practices. Differences between farmers’ practices and the IPM practices are easily observed and interpreted in the FFS (Nederlof and Odonkor (2006). The observation of different phenomenon, group discussion and analysis and conclusions are drawn systematically on a logical ground. The main focus of learning is to make farmers understand Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA), making them understanding FFS methodology and learning process, and strengthening their capacity to understand field problems and decision-making capacity to solve their problems by themselves at the local level. Another important factor of FFS is that the learning should be based on farmers’ needs and problems (CIP-UPWARD, 2003 cited by Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006). If the trainings are not related to the farmers’ needs and problems, the learning may not be the matter of interest to the farmers/learners. Additionally, in line with organizing experimental learning Winarto (1994) argue that in the field school farmers are encouraged to conduct the activities themselves in order to make them understand the learning process and bring confidence to repeat the process in their fields. Facilitators need to avoid one-way communication and the imposition of external frameworks of analysis. The facilitators require providing opportunities to the farmers to deal with particular local ecological problems themselves. Such as direct experience, observation, reflection and analysis increases farmers’ knowledge in the field condition, knowing the kinds of problems, group discussion and improve decision making capacity. For the sustainability of FFS process, sufficient knowledge about experimental learning process (getting experiences, observation, and conceptualization and action plan) is necessary. If graduate farmers could not develop adequate self-confidence and capability to from the experimental learning, learning activities can’t get continuity after the termination of first cycle. For that reason, the learning process needs to be created and organized in such a way that the learners can sufficiently understand the process and build self-confidence on observation, reflection, conceptualization and action.
4.2.1. Preparation of FFS learning
Before implementing FFS learning activities, preparatory phase is of selecting location for conducting FFS, selection of participants, and orientation about programmes (what is FFS and its aim, role of participants during and after training, role of facilitators etc) is important for effective learning and sustainability of method at local level. Furthermore, for the institutionalisation of farmer participatory research, need to be famers' needs based (Veldhuizen, and et al, 2002). Davis (2006) also argues that it would be wise to take cautionary approach to FFS, using FFS where they are suited rather than applying the methodology across the broad. FFS doesn’t fit and success everywhere, areas with specific conditions is one factor for promotion, therefore, FFS should not be established all places rather need to be given careful attention where this approach is actually needed. Braun and et al (2006) argue that FFS impacts can be strengthened and promoted by careful selection of sites and participants. From my research, what I found is that selection of sites for conduction FFS training were not based on the specific problems of the crops and specific needs of the farmers. Rather places were chosen based on interests of the facilitators, easily accessible places, already established groups and demand of the farmers not due to having specific problems but owing to interest of knowing something new in the farming. The 30% of the sites were selected based on the genuine needs and problems of the areas, for example, areas having problem
29 in crop diseases and anticipation of heavy huge of pesticides etc on the cultivation practices. Another 50% sites were selected based on having general problems of crops but not with any specific ones but motivation was to improve the cultivation practices and promote farmers to use the local resources in the crop management practices. The rest of 20% sites were selected for introducing the cultivation of new crops rather than solving the existing unsolved problems and these areas also are not potential for the expansion of cauliflower on which FFS were conducted. For example, Raktakali and Janjagaran IPM-FFS sites of Tanahun were selected for introducing cultivation of cauliflower. In these areas farmers had not even started cultivating cauliflower. In these cases, FFS were introduced to start the cultivation of cauliflower instead of solving the existing problems of cauliflower. In this context, ex-participant farmers said” When we heard about the FFS programs, we approached president of farmer association of Tanahun and she informed about the availability quota of FFS in vegetable and in the preliminary meeting we decided to run the IPM-FFS in cauliflower”. Majorities of the sites were not based on the genuine needs and/or having specific needs of the farmers. If the FFS trainings are not need based, the farmers generally don’t use the generated knowledge. Orientation of program about FFS is important for making learning process effective. In line with orientation, I found that most of the IPM facilitators (official facilitators) provide orientation about FFS: what is FFS, what is IPM, what are the principles and procedures of FFS, role of facilitators, role participants and duration of FFS training. Orientation about FFS helped to understand the participants about IPM-FFS activities and its aim. Participant farmers mentioned that they used to get orientation about FFS approach in the preliminary meeting. But under my investigation, out of the 10 FFS 3 (30%) FFS were facilitated by official facilitators. However, more than 50% of farmer facilitators don’t have clear understanding about long term vision of FFS approach and therefore, they don’t provide sufficient orientation of about FFS approach, its main long-term goal and role of the participants’ farmers after completion of learning session. Majority of farmer facilitators said” “We don’t have any written documents about FFS approach. We just have notes which we prepared during TOT/TOF and refresher training. For conducting FFS session effectively, we need written document concerning technical matter (about insects and diseases, crop management practices, about new crop varieties etc) as well as about FFS approach and its promotion strategies and how to strengthen the FFS learning in the local areas”. Orientation about FFS approach also determines its sustainability in the local level.
Photo 4.2: Facilitators giving tips to the Photos 4.1 Farme rs making note s in the participant farmers after field work field
30
Most of the farmers have understood that FFS training is also similar with other short term training of agriculture. Selection of participants is also important step in preparatory phase of FFS activities. Participants need to be interested to involve in the season-long FFS learning activities. Enhancing and continuity of learning process also depends upon interests of participants, their motivation and active involvement in FFS learning activities. In general 25 farmers are selected in most of the cases. According to the facilitators the general criteria of participants selection is that the participants should already have involved in the cultivation of crop on which FFS activities is conducted, commitment of participants not dropping out from school in the middle or before completion and possibly those who can read and write. Form study what I found is that in some cases (20% cases) the participants were not farmers but teachers, students and traders. They were selected to fulfil the quorum of members in groups. However, in most of the cases the women got priority while selecting the participants. In case of the education, more than 60% of participants had low level of education (those who hardly can write their name and read written instructions). As mentioned my FFS facilitators, mostly, the participants who have low level of education cannot actively participate in the experimental learning process. During the learning sessions, the participants have to make notes, drawing on the papers and minor calculation etc.
FFS Facilitators said: “The level of education of farmers is also one of the vital factors for actively involving in the learning activities during learning sessions and understanding the learning process and institutionalizing the process in their field after terminating the learning cycle”. Level of education of participant farmers is also important factor for active learning and develops expertise of the participant farmers.
4.2.2. Experimental learning session
In the learning session of FFS, I will analytical spotlight on how FFS experimental learning is implemented. Do farmers get opportunity to get concrete experiences, self-observation and critical thinking, active group discussion about the problems and finally generating the solution themselves based on the logical ground? From an epistemological perspective, experiential learning aligns with constructivism, which posits that learners construct meaning from their experiences (Doolittle & Camp, 1999 cited by Roberts, 2006). Active involvement of participants in the FFS activities (concrete experience, reflective observation and conceptualization and experimentation) is necessary for developing the farmers’ analytical skills, critical thinking, and creativity and correctly theorizing the events for active experimentation. Understanding of the experimental learning and building confidence in the learning process are crucial for promoting the learning and sharing activities during learning session and also continuing learning activities after FFS. Actual implementation of FFS activities is an important aspect for making the learning process effective and output oriented. An effective farmer participatory research needs understanding and motivation of farmers rather than commanding and also need to provide balance rules with freedom for creativity and room for manoeuvre (Veldhuizen, 2002). In discovery learning process, learners’ have to discover new knowledge by themselves by their own exposure with the problems and observation. According to FFS participants during the experimental learning session (concrete experience, reflective observation, conceptualization and active experimentation), a
31 democratic forum is provided for active participation. Participants were/are encouraged to directly involve in experiencing the problems and conceptualize solution of problems based on the reflective observation. As said by participants they participated in two kinds of experimental learning. First is introductory phase of FFS in which basically IPM cultivation practices and farmer/traditional way of cultivation is practiced. In this sort of practices, participants involve in the experimental learning activities and critically evaluate IPM method and traditional farmer method of cultivation based on the experience, observation, reflection and action. In the end of discovery based learning, participants compare outcome (yield/performance of technology) of IPM method and farmer methods based on the result of active action on field. Second category of learning is called Farmer and Science 11 experimental learning. It is second and follows up phase of discovering learning. In this category of experimental learning, mainly farmers involve in experimental varietal and cultivation practices trials with different treatments and replications. It is more a research- based learning than introductory IPM one. But all of FFS groups I investigated were not followed the Farmers and Science (F&S) phase of learning instead 60% of them had gone through F&S. I talked with the participants who were involved in both categories of learning to know how were they involved in the experimental learning process (observation, reflection and conceptualization) and how was learning environment that is to say encouragement, motivation and opportunity of actively participating in the learning and knowledge generation process to build up their capacity in critical thinking, decision making in order to develop confidence in the learning process. In this line with participation in the learning session (observation, reflection, analysis and conceptualization) the majority of participants of IPM- FFS said: “We used to directly involve in the learning activities of FFS session. For instance, we get exposure of problems of seedlings in the nursery, for example, need of water (what are symptoms of deficiency of water), need of nutrients and need of fertilizers, attack of insects
Photo 4.3 Famers are measuring the plant growth (right) and recording the data (left) in FFS learning session and diseases, etc. We used to observe the phenomenon or problems critically in groups, discuss over the events, analyse the issues in the groups and decide for active experimentation to solve problems . We used to observe insects and diseases in growing
11 Farmer and Science (F&S) is a little bit advance phase and generally only the participants who were participated in the introductory phase can and/invited to participate). In this phase of FFS, farmers/participants involve in the complete varietal experimental trial of the crops to see the performance and/or resistance of different crop varieties (local as well as improved ones) over certain kinds of diseases via different treatments.
32 crops; we used to discuss to find out whether they were harmful or beneficial insects, for instance, we also used to rear the insects in insect zoo, we used to observe their characters, for example, whether they eat the crops or not. By continuous observation of their behaviours it became easier to us conceptualize whether they were harmful and beneficial insects. Moreover, we used to see the result of active experimentation, for example, use of local pesticides on the insects and used to see whether they can control the pests or not. The facilitators used to encourage us for actively involving in whole cycle of experimental learning session”. According to the participants they used to observe phenomenon, used to discuss over the events in small groups and used to decide collectively what to do or what can be done for the solution of the problems. For example, when they used to see the insects and diseases in the crops, they used to use the chemical pesticides and botanical pesticides and observe the effect of both category of pesticides on the crops whether the botanical pesticides could control the insects or diseases or not. Participant farmers said: “When we saw the affect of botanical pesticides on the insects and diseases after that we conceptualized that botanical pesticides prepared by local plant materials can also control the insects”. But, interestingly, in the focus group discussion, when I asked to participants do you have confidence and knowledge for identifying insects and diseases and other problems of crops, only 5-8 farmers (out of 20-25) mentioned that they can identify the harmful and beneficial insects of the crops by observing their character and comparing their behaviours. Majority of the participants don’t have confidence on observing the events or problems, reflecting critically or thinking deeply and deciding logically over the problems for active experimentation. Therefore, experimental learning session has not sufficiently developed self-confidence of participant farmers for solving local problems. Furthermore, they don’t have confidence for organizing and conducting the experimental learning (concrete experiences, observation and going for active experimentation) by their own knowledge. Actually, the majority of the participants in the groups of 25 persons don’t have knowledge and understanding of experimental knowledge generation process and critically thinking and deciding reasonably. Only those who were leaders of small groups of 5 persons and literate have understanding about observing the field problems, reflection over such problems and finding solution by themselves. Similar results of FFS have also reported by Isubikalu (2007) in the study of PhD thesis of Farmer Field Schools in Uganda and mentioned that “agro- ecosystem analysis needs some standard of education given the debates and arithmetic involved. Most participants who were illiterate were not actively involved in the learning process (observing the problems critically and deciding logically) and they felt inferior or foolish in the learning process and, therefore, they opted to shy away or escape during group discussion, argumentation and presentation sessions. Work of drawing proved difficult, especially for the women and old people, who had to be taught how to handle a pen. To avoid embarrassment, farmers in this category opted not to take part in drawing or writing results on a flip chart. So there was domination of talkers”. Additionally, besides the general ideas of about traditional method of cultivation and IPM method of cultivation, the participant-farmer also used to involve in experimental varietal trial and cultivation practices trials of different crops which is called Farmer and Science. As said by the participants who participated in the Farmer and Science also revealed that their involvement in the observation, reflection, critical thinking and conceptualization the problems were active. They explained about their participation in the learning process like this:
33
“We directly involved in garnering concrete experiences in designing of experiment, preparation of plots, seeding of seeds, use of different doses and different kind of fertilizers, application of botanical and chemical pesticides, etc; participatory observation over the problems and group argumentation over the problems and results of these different cultivation practices; analysis of data (plant grow, percentage of damage of plant by diseases and yield of products). Finally, based on observation, critical thinking and group evaluation, we used conceptualize and/or decide to go for active experimentation to solve the problems. The whole process of learning activities (observation of different kinds of phenomenon or problems and critical thinking and rational decision making) develop our confidence and skills in conducting experimental activities”. From the study what I found is that those farmers who have participated in more than one FFS learning activities (Farmer and Science) have more knowledge and confidence and understanding about observing the problems, reflection over them and theorizing for active experimentation. The participants said: “When we participated in first school, introductory phase, we had confusion but Farmer and Science, second phase of learning, makes us clearer about experiment learning and/or process of the observing the events, critical thinking and theorizing for solution of problems ”. In the focus group discussion majority (more than 50%) of members said that they can identify the major insects and diseases of the crops by observing them in the fields, they can keep the records of observed events and decide based on reflection over the data. Finally, experimental learning session has not adequately developed the creativity, critical thinking and self-confidence of majority of the farmers that is to say FFS participants farmers are empowered sufficiently experimental learning session. In order to be empowered FFS learning, participants need to have confidence in observing the problems critically, reflection over problems and development of concepts and active experimentation for solving their local problems. From the increased knowledge and skills point of view, FFS participants are not in condition to address local problems and to stand on their own feet.
4.3. Adoption of knowledge and practices In this part, I will concentrate on use of knowledge generated from FFS experimental learning session: what kinds of knowledge and practices farmers use and what are the constraints farmers have for adopting generated knowledge from FFS. A well known model of technology adoption/diffusion was proposed by Rogers (1983, 1995). In this model, Rogers state about factors that affect the adoption and diffusion of technology and this model basically focus on social, economic and personal characters of adopters which determine the adoption of any innovation. Rogers argue that adoption of technology is an individual efforts and process and therefore, the adoption of innovation is affected by different rationality factors of the individual farmers (adapted from Dormon, 2006). On the other hand Leeuwis (2004) argument is that technology and innovation adoption is not an individual process rather it is resulted from the coordinated efforts and action of interdependent actors. Hammond (2002 cited by Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006) argue that FFSs are introduced to bridge the gap between technology development on the one hand and adoption of technology on the other hand. Similarly, Isubikalu (2007) in his PhD dissertation of about FFS of Uganda mentioned that farmer-led experimental process might be a better route for the adoption of technologies than a research-led analytical approach. Therefore, use of the learnt knowledge and practices is important aspect of FFS experiential learning. During my field work I found that majority (60%) of the graduates don’t use the generated 34 technologies from the FFS but there is substantial change in behaviour of using pesticides, chemical fertilizer and other cultivation practices. There are different reasons of not applying the generated knowledge. In some cases, the participants wanted/would like give continuity to their old habits while in other cases the farmers did not apply the learnt practices due to unavailability of technologies in the market after FFS training and in other some cases farmers don’t adopt the innovation owing to time and labour-intensive nature of generated knowledge. There is lack of collective effort and supportive environment for the use of learnt knowledge. Actually, what I found is that farmers use knowledge and technologies which are easy to use and need less effort. However, farmers don’t use the knowledge and practices which need more efforts (more labour and more time for using knowledge and practices). For example, Shankhapur-IPM-FFS group conducted experimental learning on cauliflower to find out club- rot disease resistance variety and suitable cultivation practices to reduce infestation of disease. The experimental learning showed that use of compost and agricultural line in the cultivation practices can reduce the infestation of club-rot diseases. Similarly, Himal variety of cauliflower was proved resistance to club-rot disease (low disease infestation) in most of cultivation practices. When I asked to participants of this group whether they used the learnt knowledge and technologies after the FFS training, in the answer of my question the members said: “We wanted to use cauliflower variety “Himal” which was proved resistance to club-rot disease in the varietal experimental trial of FFS but we couldn’t find this variety in the market after experimental trial”. Scarcity of technologies is also one of the reasons of not using the learnt knowledge from the FFS learning session. In this case, FFS facilitators chose wrong technology to verify in the FFS experimental trial. Similarly, in case of using of compost in the cultivation practices members of this FFS said: “Preparing compost is time consuming and labour-intensive task. It is easy to use chemical fertilizers; therefore, we mostly use chemical fertilizers”. This shows that participants were not motivated to use the developed knowledge due to difficulty in using new practices. Another reason was the problem of club-rot was not very much severe and thus farmers weren’t so much eager for using the generated knowledge. Similarly, members of Kurinchur IPM-FFS group where FFS was conducted in cauliflower and biological pesticides prepared by local plant materials were quite effective for controlling the insects. But most of the participants mentioned that they did not use botanical pesticides after FFS training. In this case majority of school participants said: “It is time consuming and need more labour to make bio-pesticides from local plant materials; rather it is easy to buy chemical pesticides from the shop. In the urgent cases, it isn’t possible to prepare the local pesticides”. Again labour-intensive is also the reason that the participants did not use the learnt innovation from FFS. When I asked how many participants of Kurinchaur FFS groups have been preparing bio-pesticides/domestic pesticides after the FFS training, only 3 out of 30 members said they have been using the local pesticides after FFS training. According to them main reason of distraction with new knowledge is due to time consuming for preparing the local liquid from local plant materials. Dormon (2006) on his PhD dissertation of about “management of cocoa pests and diseases in Ghana” also reported that main ground for not adopting IPM practices by the cocoa farmers is due to labour-intensiveness nature of learnt practices.
35
These results show that farmers are not fully motivated for using the generated knowledge and practices from the FFS. Some examples of use the learnt knowledge and practices: Deepak Dungana, a participant of Mulpani IPM-FFS, has been using the knowledge generated from FFS experimental learning. He mentioned that “Shrijana variety of tomato” was found resistance to the bacterial wilt in Farmer and Science experimental trial. After the FFS experiment, Dhungana used Shrijana variety of tomato in his land for commercial cultivation. Dhungana said: “I am a commercial tomato grower and I was in search of tomato variety resistance to bacterial wilt. In the FFS experimental trial Shrijana variety was found resistance to the bacterial wilt. After the experiment I used this variety of tomato and also I have been using this variety. Not only me but also other farmers both participants and not-participants have also been growing this variety of tomato”. In this case what I found is that the generated knowledge was in accordance with the great need of the FFS participant farmers. Therefore, the participant farmers used the generated technologies. This case depicts that for adopting the technologies by the farmers, the technologies need to according to actual needs of the FFS participants. Importantly, what I learnt is that even if majority of farmers don’t use generated technologies from FFS, their traditional cultivation habits have changed to some extent after FFS learning sessions. For example, before FFS training, they used to apply chemical pesticides haphazardly (over dose than required) but after the FFS training they use chemical pesticides only when there is extreme need. Additionally, according to majority of participants, nowadays they use the pesticides only after confirming harmful insects. Before FFS they used to apply pesticides immediately after some insects were seen in the fields as they had not any ideas about harmful and beneficial insects. They had perceptions that all insects are harmful. But after the FFS learning, they can identify some major harmful and beneficial insects of crops on which FSS was conducted. Furthermore, as said by most of the farmers those who attended the FFS sessions are better aware of safety measures of chemical pesticides. For instance, while spraying the pesticides, they try to protect their body parts. The farmers said before school training, they did not knowledge about harmful effects of pesticides. Similarly, the participants who were participated in FFS of rice mentioned that they had habits of using chemical fertilizers in inappropriate time. However, after FFS they learnt that only applying fertilizers isn’t beneficial and don’t increase yield of crops but what they learnt is that correct time of applying of fertilizer is more important to boost up the yields. About other cultivation practices of rice participants of Shiva IPM-FFS of rice mentioned that: “We had habit of using more than 10 seedlings at a place while transplanting the rice but when we saw the result on FFS learning plot that yield was not different between transplanting of single seedling and more than 10 seedlings at a place. After FFS training we have been using single seedling while transplanting rice and that practices has saved our seed more than ten times”. In conclusion, farmers adopt the technology and learnt practices which are in accordance with their actual needs but they don’t use the technologies and knowledge which need more time and labour.
36
4.4. Continuity of knowledge generation Kolb (1984) argue that experiential learning is a process but not a product. The process doesn’t end after completing one cycle/two cycle rather it keeps on repeating after one another. Stolzenbach (1994) states that “Where does farmers’ experimental learning start and where does it end? May be it never ends, and it is arbitrary to set at limit. FFS approach which is based the principle of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is, therefore, it needs to be continued after completion of one crop cycle. Fliert and et.al (2002) emphasize that continued learning process of FFS not only helps to build up additional capacity and skills of farmers to conduct experiment but also brings feeling of ownership over the approach. FFS empower farmers to become “experts” on their own farms and to be more confident in solving their own problems (David and et al, 2006). Continuity of FFS learning approach at the local level can be viewed from two aspects. One is follow up learning at the already established FFS groups and another is up scaling of FFS learning approach in the new areas. Both follow up and up scaling of FFS learning are important for the sustainability of FFS approach. Pimbert (2002 cited by CIP-Upward, 2003) state that after completion of one cycle of FFS training, if follow up action doesn’t persist, the learners and facilitators will continuously lose their knowledge and skills and learning process cannot sustain. Continued learning-by-doing enhances the capacity of the learners and FFS approach can be established at the local level. Similarly, Winarto (1994) state that continuous observation by FFS participant farmers during daily farming practices; they can accumulate experiences and knowledge about insects, diseases and other problems year on year. For the impacts and efforts of FFS to be realized, the process must continue over a long period of time. Key to the sustainability of FFS is a sense of farmer ownership and involvement in the training process. Farmers are even expected to take over the financing of FFS (David and et al, 2006). Firstly, in this study what I found is that after the completion of FFS training, 80% of the FFS groups are not repeating learning activities at the local level. Only 20% (2 out 10) FFS groups’ members after the FFS training have given continuity to the knowledge generation process by their own effort at the community level. The ex-participants of these two IPM-FFS groups have established study plots individually. Especially these plots are for testing new crop varieties to find out their disease resistance capacity and production performance, and use of organic pesticides for controlling the attack of insects in the vegetable crops. In these cases, however, the farmers don’t go to the study plot regularly but they observe often what progress is and what is happening on the planted crops (growth of the plant, insect and pest attack, need of fertilizers, irrigation, etc.). When they notice something wrong in the plants, they observe the Photo 4.5 FFS farmers of Janajagaran IPM -FFS Tanahun, Bankewa continuing experiment after FFS problems, discuss over the problem in group of 3-4 members and sometimes whole group in the group meeting, and
37 generate some ideas or reasons of the problems and try to find the solution of problems based on the gained knowledge in the FFS learning. If they couldn’t figure out the problems and generate the solution, they consult to the ex-facilitators and even some cases they consult to DADOs’ IPM facilitators. Even if majority of FFS groups have not continuously been involved in knowledge generation and experimental learning, joint learning habits have been developed in members of FFS groups. When ex-participants see some insects or diseased plant or other problems on crops, they bring the plant parts in the group meeting and try to find out the problems and solution by discussion, analysis and collective conclusion. Sometimes group members also go to the field to observe the problems if necessary. This process has helped to maintain group cohesiveness and joint learning and problem solving habits of FFS graduates. FFS groups are not taking initiative to give continuity to the knowledge generation process. Most of the IPM-FFS groups are only expecting support from the DADOs and other organizations to organize the FFS learning activities. Most of FFS groups have group fund but are not interested to use their own money for conducting knowledge generation process (in new places, in new crops or as follow action) collectively to build up their knowledge and capacity to innovate. When I asked with the group leaders and members about using group money for organizing and conducting experimental learning process, most of them showed reluctance using their own money. Therefore, most of group leaders and members have feeling that for the continuity of experimental learning, DADOs have to keep on supporting financially and technically. Participant members of FFS groups said: “We cannot use our own money for conducting FFS learning, we collected our group fund with very difficulty, this money is for giving loan to the members who are in need but not for conducting experiment, DADOs need to support to subsequent learning activities” . From this statement we can say that FFS participants are not motivated to conduct the experimental learning by their own initiation and this further depicts that the participant farmers don’t have ownership feeling over FFS learning. Equally, farmer facilitators’ associations, which are supposed to provide support to FFS graduates and FFS groups after FFS training for promotion of learning at the local level, are not supportive for continuity of learning and sharing. Out of two districts (Kathmandu and Tanahun), the association of Kathmandu is inactive after its formation in 2006. However, the association of Tanahun is active but not so much effective for promoting FFS learning at the local level by their own efforts. Similarly, facilitators associations are also not lobbying and advocating strongly with other organizations especially of DADOs, Village Development Committees (VDCs) and other local organizations for financial support to give continuity to the experimental knowledge generation activities at the community level. Therefore, so far, the facilitators associations are not effective for raising voices with the concerned organizations for the supporting the knowledge generation process. 4.5. Dissemination of learnt knowledge
One of the functions of FFS approach is to promote farmer-to-farmer diffusion of knowledge (Berg, 2003, Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006). FFS approach achieves very limited coverage unless there is an organized effort for the dissemination of knowledge. An effective diffusion mechanism knowledge enhances neighbour to neighbour learning and sharing (Pimbert, 2002 cited by CIP-UPWARD, 2003) which is important for the sustainability of FFS approach at local level. Furthermore, Veldhuizen and et al (2002) argue that in farmer participatory research sharing of results is necessary for sustaining the process. Knowledge exchange is
38 social process and largely exchanged through causal discussions in informal settings and between networks of friends and relatives, for example, exchange occur during leisure time and on social and religious occasions (Winarto, 1994). Farmer to farmer diffusion of knowledge, practices and information is important aspect of FFS (Davis, 2006). First, what I found is that Farmer Field Day is a forum for disseminating the knowledge and practices generated from FFS. Field days are the least expensive means of diffusing IPM technologies and Field day participants are most likely to adopt simple practices (Gilbert and et al, 2008). DOA (PPD) has made compulsory that all FFS training have to organize Field Day before wrapping up the learning cycle. On the occasion of field day farmers, teachers, students, agriculture technicians, political local leaders are invited to participate in closing ceremony and to observe the generated knowledge and technologies from the school. The invitees are shown the plots of IPM method and traditional farmers’ method of cultivation, experimental plots of varietal trial and other different treatment trial. The farmers can see and compare the products produced by IPM-FFS methods and traditional farmer method as well as with different crop management practices. Non-participant farmers can compare the products; in the varietal trial, they can see which variety perform better in term of production or disease resistance etc. The invitees are shown drawings and real specimens of beneficial and harmful insects which were learned or observed or collected during FFS learning; different parts of plants having infected with diseases and damaged by insects. About the Field Day participants said: “The field day is a good platform for FFS participants to share what we learnt and also good chance to the non-participant farmers to get information from the participant farmers about generated knowledge and practices”. Field Day is especially organized for sharing of knowledge that is horizontally dissemination of knowledge. Field day is also a good forum for the promotion of FFS approaches. In this regards FFS facilitators said: “It is good forum for providing new practices and knowledge to the non-participants farmers. It is also a forum for advocating and promoting FFS approach not only to the famers but also to the politicians, bureaucrats, businessman and people of other sectors of society. They can understand the value of FFS methodology by observing new technologies, by listening the speeches of technicians and participants farmers. Via this forum generated knowledge and technologies are disseminated via art of poems, folk songs, drawings and posters of different kinds”. Nonetheless, many activities are to be performed in a single day, participants and facilitators do every thing in hurry up so it is not easy to the audiences, especially of farmers, who are supposed to apply gained knowledge from the field day, to grasp the information, ideas and knowledge delivered in the field day program. Additionally, mostly the theoretical knowledge and information are provided but it is difficult to apply based on just observation on the field day Additionally, according to FFS farmers they were busy on seat arrangement to the guests and other preparation. Limited time was available to FFS farmers explaining what they learnt to the non-participant farmers. Instead more time was allocated for formal speeches from invited guests from DADOs, DOA and local political leaders. Priority is given to the big bosses. In the same way, sometimes poorly performing plots are not chosen as field day sites because there is nothing to show and the facilitators and participants feel shame to show such field. Therefore, mostly there is no space or time to discuss negative lessons.
39
Second, FFS graduates, individually, also share the learnt knowledge and practices generated from FFS to the non-participants farmers. In focused group discussion I found that 6-8 (around 25%) participant farmers of a group of 20-25 members told me that they shared the learnt knowledge, information and farming practices to the non-participants. Some examples are as, Narayan Tiwari, a participant of Janajagaran IPM-FFS,Tanahun said: “I shared the learnt knowledge to the non-participants. When non- participants ask, I happily share knowledge with them what I learnt in the schools. I even go to the fields of the neighbours to see the disease and insects of the vegetables and advices them for controlling measures based on the knowledge I acquired in the FFS”. Narayan further mentioned that interested villagers also come to his vegetable growing plots to get information how to raise the vegetable seedlings, and getting information about diseases of vegetables and other crop management practices, for instance, time of planting, dose of fertilizers etc. In such cases, I frankly tell them what I learnt in the school training. Deepak Dhungana of IPM-FFS, Mulpani, Kathmandu said: “In the Farmer and Science experimental learning, when HRD1 and Shrijana varieity of tomato were proved best resistance to bacterial wilt, I shared this knowledge to other non-participants and advised them to grow these varieties. Later on non-participant farmers also grew this variety of tomato to increase their production”. Via individual sharing, participant mostly shares the knowledge to the relatives, friends and neighbours. The participants share the theoretical knowledge rather than skill oriented knowledge and practices. Mostly participants tell about the harmful effects of chemical pesticides and how to protect from the harmfulness of pesticides etc. The participants farmers don’t show process of making the bio-pesticides, showing the harmful insects and symptoms of the diseases. Third, 20% of FFS groups also promote sharing of the learnt knowledge and cultivation practices to other farmers of the communities. For example, IPM-FFS, Rakchhadevi, Kathmandu and Shiva FFS, Dumsi, Tanahun members said: “After the training we shared the learnt knowledge about crop management of rice to the other farmers of the group who weren’t in the FFS training. The non-participant farmers also take advantages by the shared knowledge”. However, majority of groups don’t have any mechanism to disseminate the learned knowledge and practices to the farmers of the same villages. The groups also don’t encourage their members for sharing the learnt knowledge to other non-participant farmers of the villages. Fourth, famer facilitators’ associations rarely organize programs with view of disseminating the generated knowledge from FFS and advocating the FFS approach. Farmer facilitators’ association of Tanahun organizes IPM song competition on the occasion of Teej, the festival of women; so as to give information about generated technologies from the FFS. In this program, FFS graduates of different FFS groups participate in song competition. President of FFS facilitators’ association of Tanahun said: “Local song competition is organized to provide knowledge and information about technologies generated from the FFS to the farmers to aware and motivates other farmers to use bio-pesticides instead of chemical ones, use protective measure while using pesticides. Via folk songs messages are also given to the consumers to consume the foods produced by IPM ways of cultivation. If the consumers become conscious about the IPM products that encourage the FFS graduates to use the learnt knowledge and practices learnt from the FFS”.
40
But the association organize these kinds of programs irregularly, hardly once a year. For these sorts of programs the association have to depend upon the financial support from the DADOs, NGOs or private organizations because association doesn’t have its own fund to organize such programs. As mentioned by Isubikalu (2007) in his PhD thesis based on reports from different countries, e.g. Kenya (Mwagi et al ., 2003; Bunyata et al ., 2005) and Zimbabwe (Mutandwa and Mpangwa, 2004), Indonesia (Feder et al ., 2004 ) and Sri-Lanka (Tripp et al ., 2005) revealed no effective diffusion of knowledge from FFS farmers to non-FFS farmers. Conclusively, though dissemination of knowledge is one the functions of FFS, there are not any effective mechanism for disseminating the generated knowledge from FFS. In majority of cases graduate farmers don’t share the learnt knowledge and practices. FFS groups also don’t have effective mechanism to disseminate the learnt practices and knowledge in the community to promote the application of knowledge. Equally, famer facilitators association is also ineffective for sharing the knowledge to the non-participant farmers. 4.6. Concluding remarks Main focus of IPM-FFS is to solve the some specific farming problems and expansion of cultivation practices and technologies in the potential areas. For instance, crops having problems of insects and diseases; crops having problems of low production and productivity; areas having good potential for expanding the cultivation of some crops, for example, in areas having good irrigation facility and market, vegetable cultivation can be promoted. However, I found that whilst selecting sites for FFS, careful attention weren’t given to the areas having specific problems and areas having probability of expanding the learning activities. Only 30% of sites were chosen having specific problems and suitable for spreading out of cultivation of some specific crops. Therefore, sites for establishing FFS were not based on actual needs of areas and felt needs of the farmers. Rather focuses were given to introduce to new technologies in the areas which have less potential for expanding. Enhancing and continuity of FFS learning process also depends upon interests of participants in the learning process and their capacity to actively involve in the learning session (observing problems critically, analysing problems objectively and experimenting) and understanding the experimental learning process. In case of my research, I found that majority (60%) of participants had low level of education (those who hardly can read the written instructions and make drawing and writing) and have less capacity for expanding learning and sharing process locally after termination of FFS training. Low literacy and low capacity of FFS participants have become of the constraints for making learning effective, brining changes (knowledge, critical thinking, decision making) in the participant farmers and ultimately promoting the FFS approach. Orientation about FFS methodology (its long term goal, role of participant farmers and facilitators during learning session and roles of participant farmers after FFS learning) is also one of important elements for promotion and sustainability of FFS learning and sharing at the local level. But I found majority of farmer facilitators don’t have clear understanding about long term vision of FFS training. Therefore, majority them don’t give details information and knowledge about long term purpose of FFS to the participants before organizing FFS learning session. As a result, most of the FFS farmers don’t have knowledge about what actually FFS learning is and what are their roles after FFS trainings. Lack of adequate orientation about FFS approach also becomes a constraint for sustainability of FFS approach: learning and sharing activities locally after termination of FFS. FFS is a medium for collective learning by the participants: observing, discussing, thinking, deciding and doing. Therefore, self-learning and open democratic discussion, decision making and experimentation environment is crucial to make the participant better understand
41 learning process. In my case, I found while executing FFS learning activities, self-learning and self-decision making atmosphere is provided to the farmers during experimental learning sessions. However, majority of farmers don’t actively involve in self-experiencing the problems, reflective observation over problems, theorizing the problems and ultimately active experimentation for the solution of problems. Mostly, leaders of sub-groups and literate farmers take lead in the experimental learning sessions and other farmers used to observers and follower of the leaders and literate farmers during the learning activities. Consequently, majority of the farmers of the FFS groups don’t have knowledge and confidence in observing the problems critically, analysing the problems logically and active experimentation of developed theories. Therefore, majority of FFS participants are not empowered by FFS experimental learning. That is to say they don’t have confidence and capacity for solving local problems by their own observation, reflection and conceptualization of the problems. One of the functions of FFS training is to promote the adoption of technologies, practices and knowledge. But I found that majority of FFS participants don’t use the generated technologies from the FFS learning sessions. In some cases this is due to labour- intensiveness and time consuming nature of technology for using: for example, according to FFS participants, preparing bio-pesticides and preparing compost is labour-intensive activities. In other cases, verified and developed technologies were not available in the market after the FFS training: for instance, cauliflower varieties which were proved resistance to diseases were not available in the market after FFS. Though, majority of farmers don’t adopt knowledge, the FFS learning activities has changed traditional farming behaviours of the farmers, for example, after FFS training, farmers follow protective measures while using chemical pesticides, applying low dose of pesticides, using pesticides when there is great need, timely use of chemical fertilizers, regular field observation and other better crop management of practices. One the principle of FFS is that it needs to be continued after first round of learning cycle. But I learnt that in majority of cases, the FFS learning is not continuing after first and/or second round of learning session supported by projects. Only 20% of FFS groups have given continuity to learning process by their own efforts. Though most of FFS groups have groups’ funds (money collected by members as membership fees), they don’t motivated to invest their own fund for continuing learning and sharing activities at their fields because they have feelings that DADOs and other concerning organizations need to support constantly for continuing the experimental learning activities. This reveals that majority of FFS graduates don’t have ownership feelings over FFS, a collective learning activities. FFS groups are also not taking initiatives to keen on observing the problems, reflecting over problems, conceptualization of problems and generating solutions for the problems. Local farmer facilitators who are supposed to continuously motivating and supporting to the FFS graduates for continuing knowledge generation process are also not supporting effectively. The farmer facilitators’ associations are also not motivating FFS graduates for keeping up knowledge generation process at local level. Furthermore, facilitators associations are not effective for lobbying and advocating with local level organizations for generating resources for giving continuity to the FFS learning at local level. Horizontal (farmer to farmer) dissemination of generated knowledge is also one of the functions of FFS. But what I found is that there aren’t strong mechanisms for spreading the knowledge produced from FFS. Field Day is little bit effective mechanism than other methods for disseminating knowledge. In the Field Day, FFS participants share learnt practices and knowledge to non-participants via folk songs, drama, speeches and showing the FFS research plots. But in Field Day more priority is given to the speeches of guests (bureaucrat and political persons) rather than promoting farmer to farmer interaction: interaction between school participants and non-participant farmers . After FFS learning sessions, only around 30% of farmers share knowledge to the non-participants. Mostly FFS farmers share the
42 theoretical knowledge such as harmfulness of chemical pesticides, protective measures while using pesticides, etc instead of showing or demonstrating skill oriented practices, for example, making bio-pesticides and symptoms of diseases and identifying insects etc. Similarly, merely 20% of the FFS groups have system of disseminating the knowledge and practices to other farmers of the communities. FFS groups are not committed and encouraging their members for sharing learned knowledge and practices to other farmers of the villages.
43
Chapter Five
5. Institutionalization of FFS approach at local level
In this chapter, I will discuss on institutionalization status of FFS approach at the lower level (district and village/community). Mainly my discussion on this chapter will be on involvement of different concerning actors and their roles for institutionalizing FFS methodology, attitude and practices of these varied actors, pattern of interaction between and among these actors and enabling environment especially of polices and programs to promote and institutionalize the FFS approach at the local level. When we look at the concept of institutionalization, it is a process in which new ideas and practices are introduced, accepted and used by individuals and organizations so that new ideas become part of the norm (Sutherland, 2000). Furthermore, institutionalization is transformation of norms, attitudes, behaviours and organizational structures so that the idea becomes the norm (Pimbert, 2002 cited by CIP-UPWARD, 2003). Veldhuizen and et al (2002) argue that institutionalisation of farmer participatory research (FPR) is a process of change and for this change process advocacy and campaigning, in formal or informal ways; relevant people are informed of the importance and effectiveness of FPR, their motivation for change necessary. Veldhuizen and et al (2002) further stress that for the institutionalization of farmer participatory research, internal institutional change is necessary that is managers and staff review internal mechanisms and structures in view of need for farmer participatory research and plan, implement, monitor and evaluate necessary changes. Since Participatory Technology Development (PTD) is an interactive approach among the different actors (Veldhuizen et al, 1997) therefore, promising efforts have to be made to institutionalise PTD within large organisations of agricultural research, extension and education/training-both governmental and non-governmental (Veldhuizen and et al, 2002). In this research, FFS approach, is a new methodology based on concept of participatory technology development, was introduced in Nepal in 1997 and the focus of the supporting projects were to institutionalize this methodology at the farmer fields and mainstreaming this approach in extension, research, NGOs and other private organizations’ system for the continuation of approach after the termination of project. Therefore, my discussion and analysis in this chapter fundamentally will be on whether this method has become of norm of individual farmers, farmers’ organizations, public extension and research organizations, I/NGOs and other private organizations or not. The concept of innovation from the innovation system perspective, innovation neither originates from research nor science only, but rather, is the application of all types and sources of knowledge to achieve desired social and/or economic outcomes (Hall, 2005). From this concept we can say innovation isn’t a product of research only; rather it is a combination of knowledge, resources, and expertise of different concerned actors for social and organizational and economic improvement. The actors of innovation system are mostly governed by a range of institutional ties that is values, norms, interests, traditions and patterning styles of interaction. Institutional ties, therefore, play a key role for the promotion of FFS approach and especially of research and extension have long and important roles in deciding what is best for farmers (Isubikalu, 2007). Considering the role of farmers/users in the innovation generation and diffusion, a growing number of organisations in agricultural research and extension system involve farmers and their organizations as full and equal partners in all stages of innovation development process and focus on strengthening their
44 capacities to experiment and innovate (Veldhuizen et al, 1997; Veldhuizen, 2002). Russ Dilts, (2003) mentioned the components which are necessary for the institutionalization of FFS at local level.
Support system
Local FFS groups, Local government FFS trainers NGOs
Communication Post Farmer and/organization Field School: • Farmer Trainers Farmer Based • Training of Forum/Farmer Community IPM- facilitators’ Training associations FFS (TOT/TOF )
• Follow up • Advocacy and activities, Lobbying • IPM-FFS for Farmer trainers’ associations other crops, Alumni Farmer Network/clubs
Source: Russ Dilts (2003) cited by CIP-UPWARDS (2003)
Figure 6: Building of community IPM-a model for institutionalization FFS
As mentioned in this diagram, role government, NGOs and farmers’ organizations is equally important for the sustainability of FFS approach. Besides this follow up activities of FFS, networking of FF farmers and facilitators, training to the facilitators also has give priority. Description of all these actors, their roles, attitudes and practices and pattern of interactions and enabling context for their interaction and production of innovations are as:
5.1 Actors and their roles At the local level the actors who are responsible and/or have a role for the institutionalization of FFS approach are: FFS graduate farmers, graduate farmers’ groups (FFS groups), farmer facilitators, farmer facilitators’ associations, District Agriculture Development Offices (DADOs), NGOs and other private organization.
5.1.1. FFS graduates and FFS groups
First of all, IPM-FFS graduates and their groups are important actors and have a great role for stability and institutionalization of FFS approach at the local level. In this context, CIP- UPWARD (2003) stress that the issue of sustainability of FFS groups always seems
45 pertinent when question of institutionalization of FFS is raised. Actually, the role of school graduates is important is to give continuity to the learning process by learning and sharing with each other after terminating first/second FFS learning cycle. But I discovered that most of the school graduates are not playing active role that is not involving in knowledge generation process after completion of first and/ or second round FFS conducted by DADOs with support of project fund. The FFS groups are also not taking initiative and motivating their members for engaging in the learning activities continuously. FFS graduates’ roles are also to use the learnt knowledge and practices in their fields and to disseminate the knowledge and to non-participant farmers. However, majority of FFS graduates aren’t motivated to apply the learnt practices and to share the learnt lessons. For that reason, the role of FFS graduates and FFS groups are not so encouraging for institutionalizing the FFS approach at communities. The FFS groups have also not taken proactive role to develop the links with other organizations to get supports so as to sustain the learning approach at the local level. Role of most of the leaders of FFS groups are inactive for generating resources. Interestingly, the leaders don’t have clear vision and understanding of about FFS methodology that what is it intended for.
5.1.2. Farmer facilitators’ association
District level IPM farmers’/facilitators’ associations are also important actors and have significant role to promote and institutionalize participatory technology development at the local level. FFS farmer facilitators’ associations have been formed with an aim of promoting learning and spreading of generated knowledge from school for institutionalization of learning activities. The role of the facilitators associations is equally important for nurturing and strengthening FFS approach at the local level. The farmer facilitators’ of both districts, Tanahun and Kathmandu, under my study, have associations. The role association of Tanahun district is active and it has been organizing regular meeting and playing active role for the promotion of FFS learning since its establishment in 2006. The association organizes regular meeting at DADO in every month with the participation of DADO chief and other officers and discuss about their programs, progress and future plan and gets feedback and suggestions from the DADO while Photo 5.1 Farmer facilitator s’ association of planning programs. Tanahun organizing meeting with DADO, Tanahun The association has been organizing FFS official s trainings, encouraging graduates for applying the generated knowledge from schools and advocating FFS approach. Nonetheless, the association of Kathmandu is completely inactive after its formation in 2006 and has played no role for promoting and sustaining FFS. According to the members of this association of Kathmandu, leader Nilkamtha Amatya is not taking any initiative role to organize meeting and other activities. As said by the members of association, Nilkantha is not FFS graduates thus he don’t have any idea in FFS activities. He is a retired teacher and became leader of association in the farmer congress due to favour of DADO.
46
5.1.3. Public Extension (DADOs)
DADOs, district level public extension offices, are another important actor in the district level. Since DADOs have taken responsibility and leading role for promoting FFS approach, active role of DADOs are indispensible for sustainability of FFS approach. Positively, both of DADOs Tahanun and Kathmandu have been taking central and coordinating role for promotion of FFS. DADOs claimed that they taken the foremost responsibility to bring concerning actors such as NGOs, farmers associations, agro-vets and private organizations in the common forum and have created an environment for sharing knowledge and information, experiences, expertise and problems with each other to promote participatory innovation development practices and strengthen the farmers’ capacity to innovate. However, I found that the roles of the DADOs are not so active at the local level even if they are trying their best. The DADOs are playing coordinating roles but their roles are not effective for supporting, motivating and guiding the FFS graduates and FFS groups for giving continuity to the learning process and using the learnt practices in their fields after FFS. Besides this, the roles of DADOs are not enthusiastic for guiding and motivating IPM-FFS groups and IPM farmers’ associations to strengthen their organizational capacity to support for institutionalizing FFS methodology.
5.1.4. Non-Government Organization (INGO)
INGO are also the important actors for fostering FFS approach at the local level. An INGO, Caritas-Nepal, under my investigation has been playing supporting roles to strengthen the farmers’ capacity and experimental learning. The role of the Caritas is especially on conducting the FFS learning activities and represented different coordination committees chaired by DADOs to exchange the knowledge, experiences and expertise with other actors for promoting the learning activities.
5.2. Attitude and practices of actors In this section, I will focus on attitude of different actors (FFS graduates, farmer facilitators, members of farmer associations, DADOs and INGOs ) over FFS approach and collaboration between them and what are the efforts of these organizations for the institutionalization of FFS approach at the local level. Sustainability of FFS approach at local level depends on how the different actors have looked at the approach, reasons different actors giving priority to this approach and their willingness to cooperate with other actors for sharing resources and knowledge for fostering FFS approach and strengthen the farmers’ capacity to innovate. In this regard, Killough (2009) state that attitude is a willingness to make compromise/adjustment patience to work through the necessary steps of a successful partnership and collaboration and willingness to share knowledge and resources. In the context of participation of actors in the FFS Isubikalu (2007) in his PhD thesis about FFS of Uganda reported that active involvement of actors in the entire process of diagnosing the problems, designing feasible solutions and implementing programs that helps to ensure that every actor has ownership feeling over the process and is accountable to it.
5.2.1. FFS Graduates and FFS groups
Institutionalization of FFS learning approach at the local level hinges on how the school graduates have perceived this approach and reasons of giving preferences over this method. If they don’t have positive attitude towards this approach, FFS approach can’t sustain at the
47 community level. From this study what I found is that almost of all FFS graduates have positive perceptions over FFS approach. According to graduates via IPM-FFS learning, they have gained knowledge and skills of about better crop management practices; making biological pesticides from the local plant materials; identifying beneficial and harmful insects of different crops, become aware of appropriate time and use of correct dose of pesticides and fertilizers on different crops and have acquired habits of regular crop observation and critical reflection and decision making to solve the problems of crops. Additionally, as said by FFS graduates, FFS training has provided them more knowledge about chemical pesticides and their effects on human health and environment and ways to minimize the affects of pesticides. Most of FFS graduates said: “We did not think that chemical pesticides are so harmful to human health, environment, beneficial insects and other animals but after FFS session we knew reality of harmfulness of pesticides. Now, we are careful with pesticides and give more attention while handling it”. Furthermore, according to the school graduates, FFS approach is not only useful for increasing knowledge for better cultivation practices but also beneficial for the group building, cooperation between farmers and collective learning and sharing to solve their problems. Therefore, as mentioned by most of the school graduates due of all these reasons, they have interest to involve in the FFS knowledge generation activities. Interestingly, even if most of the school graduates have positive thoughts with FFS approach, in general, majority of graduates/FFS groups’ members haven’t given continuity to the knowledge generation activities at their fields after the school learning. Aforementioned in the section 4.4 only 20% of FFS groups have been given continuity to knowledge generation process after the FFS learning. In the same way, even though most of the graduates said they learned useful knowledge, practices and skills, aforementioned in 4.3 section, majority (60%) of graduates don’t use the learnt practices and knowledge from FFS session. Moreover, surprisingly, IPM-FFS groups/members are not motivated to invest their own fund for collective learning activities. All of the IPM-FFS groups have revolving funds, money collected from the members as monthly membership fee, but the members of these groups don’t use their own money for establishing new FFS and for follow up learning activities. FFS graduates have feelings that follow up learning activities should be supported by the DADOs and other concerning organizations rather than using by their own funds. This intention of graduates depicts that FFS graduates don’t have ownership feeling over FFS collective learning to better off their farming practices. Interestingly, majority the leaders and members of the FFS groups don’t have understanding that the goal of experimental learning is continuing at the local level. Therefore, leaders and members of FFS groups need to redefine and reorient about long term aim of FFS methodology and why such process is brought into practice.
5.2.2. Farmers facilitators’ associations
Farmer facilitators’ associations, is a means to bring graduates and facilitators together in common forum, have significant roles for sustaining FFS approach at the community level. The main vision of formation of IPM-FFS graduates association is to empower farmers and to strive for farmer rights (Hidayat and Adinata, 2001; cited by Winarto, 2009). The attitudes and practices of farmer facilitators and their associations always play significant contribution for institutionalizing FFS learning approach as they are main actors at the local level to promote farmer- to-farmers diffusion of knowledge.
48
In both Kathandu and Tanahun districts, facilitators’ association have been established to promote and strengthen FFS approach. Association of Kathmandu district has not registered yet as IPM-FFS graduates’ organization at District Administrative Office (DAO) and remain inactive after its formation in 2006. Registration is compulsory for getting legal status and involving in different activities and getting support from the other organizations and/organizing activities in collaboration. Thus Kathmandu association has remained inactive to promote and institutionalize the FFS activities in the local level. However, the Tanahun district association has registered at the DOA and conducting FFS activities and dissemination of generated knowledge from the FFS to some extend. What I found from my study is that most of farmer facilitators have affirmative thoughts towards FFS approach. According to most of farmer facilitators what is the effect of FFS approach on society: “FFS approach has helped to the farmers about better crop management practices, develop consciousness about harmful effects of pesticides, knowledge about local plant materials, exposure especially of women has increased in the society, farmers’ decision making capacity has increased on cultivation practices, increased tendency of seeking knowledge and information from varied concerning sectors, farmers are organized in the society, commercial cultivation has increased and motivated to use of low dose of pesticides”. According to the farmer facilitators, FFS method has positively affected the leadership development of facilitators especially of women; they have got recognition in the society due to their involvement in facilitation works and helping fellow farmers, they have got introduction with different organizations and people. However, the farmer facilitators are not so much motivated to work as facilitators due low incentives for their tasks. They are not ready to provide services in voluntary basis. Some of the opinions of farmer facilitators and/or association members are as follow: Shuverna Shrestha, member of association of Kathmandu and farmer facilitator said: “Since last 9 years I have been working as a facilitator. When I began working in this field, I had a lot of encouragement and imagination but now I lost my enthusiasm because I hardly get one farmer school to facilitate in one year. Money for facilitation is also very low. I get only 150/- Nepalese Rupees (around 2 US dollar) per day. This amount of money has discouraged me to involve in the work of facilitation . Even if facilitation work is more or less social service but I cannot work for free. We cannot provide fully voluntary work in the community level as we also have to earn money for living. DADO needs to provide sufficient incentives for us to get continue support from us”. This outlook reveals that even if farmer facilitators have positive feelings over the FFS approach but in practices they are not highly motivated to keep on helping voluntarily to the FFS graduates and non-graduates in the communities. Farmer facilitators who have great role to promote the FFS learning at the local are not so cooperatives and encouraged to keep on supporting graduate farmers to promote and institutionalize FFS methodology. What did, Bimal Bista, a farmer facilitator and vice-president of Kathmandu alumni say? “I have been working as a facilitator since last 8 years. I facilitated more then 10 FFSs. I am committed for working as farmer facilitators as FFS approach is good for healthy food production and empowerment of farmers. The incentives of government to the farmer facilitators are very low (150/ NR) and we are also not getting regular work of facilitation. There are few programs in regular programs of DADOs after the project. In order to promote this approach, DADOs, NGOs and private organizations need to support farmer facilitators to increase our motivation. We are always ready for
49
providing services to the fellow farmers but incentives are equally important for motivating us. We can’t provide free support to the FFS graduates and other people of communities for promoting the learning”. Judgement of Bista is focused on women facilitators, who have got social prestige being involved in facilitation works, thus she is still interested to keep on working in the days to come. However, she is also not unconcerned with the incentives to the facilitators. Bista’s viewpoint is that government and other organization need to support the farmer facilitators. In the same way, Laxmi Wagle, farmer facilitator and president of association of Tanahun said: “FFS is very good method. It has empowered farmers. Our mobility has increased. We are getting recognition and respect in our society as we are helping other fellow farmers. Our association is very much interested to work with other organizations like NGOs, government organizations and other private organizations. The main problem is that our association don’t have fund. Nonetheless, association is organizing and implementing FFS activities with the financial support of DADO Tanahun and other organizations. Our association is also working co-ordinately with NGOs and private organizations. We are ready to work with any organization who works for welfare of farmers”. Viewpoint of Laxmi depicts that even if they are concerned with the incentives of government, they are committed for collaborating with other actors for the promotion of FFS approach. The attitudes of farmer facilitators and/or association members are positive towards FFS approach but they are not committed working as facilitators voluntarily and instead seeking better incentives from the concerning organizations. They are taking facilitation work as a part time job rather than social work to institutionalize FFS at community level. However, they have opinion that this approach has increased their prestige and recognition in the society. Additionally, although most of the farmer facilitators have positive thoughts over the farmer participatory approach, they are not so much committed for supporting FFS graduates after FFS session for promoting learning activities. Nonetheless, for sustaining and institutionalization of FFS approach, farmer facilitators necessitate promoting experimental learning at the local level. They need to have contact with FFS graduates nearby them and keep on supporting and motivating for using of learnt practices and continuation of collective learning in the locality. Furthermore, what I discovered is that the leaders and members of association and/or farmer facilitators are not taking strong initiative to raise voice to local government which can/have to provide fund for FFS activities. Local government like Village Development Committee (VDC) can provide budget for running the FFS activities if the leaders can raise voice and lobby for the FFS approach. Some FFS groups of Tanahun have got support from the VDCs to establish the FFS in new areas.
5.2.3 Public extension (DADOs)
Officials of both DADOs (Kathamandu and Tanahun) have positive perceptions over FFS approach. FFS approach has also been considered one of the effective methods of extension to generate and disseminate innovations to solve the farmers’ problems. What the officials of DADOs said: “FFS approach has focused to human resource development that is to strengthen the farmers’ capacity to generate innovation and to solve the local problems by the famers
50 themselves”. In order to promote the FFS approach, DADOs have made provision to register the IPM-FFS groups at the DADos after FFS training so as to encourage the graduates continually involving in the knowledge production and dissemination process. DADOs also took initiation to form IPM-FFS graduates associations during the project time. The main aim of forming farmer facilitators association is to bring the school graduates and facilitators in a common forum and strengthen their collective effort to promote the FFS method and to increase their strength for advocating and lobbying with the concerned organizations for supporting the FFS approach. Though DADOs have positive attitudes, they are not supporting sufficiently for the continuation of learning activities after termination of project. DADOs don’t have budget in their regular programs to support follow FFS learning activities and to establish FFS in new places. During the project periods, DADOs didn’t have FFS trainings programs in their own budget because the DADOs used to get support from the project for organizing FFS but after termination of project also DADOs don’t have adequate programs in their regular program for FFS. This reveals that DADOs are not committed for the promotion of FFS approach. After the projects, DADOs have minimum programs for establishing the FFS. For example, DADO Tanahun has budget in its regular program to establish one FFS in the fiscal year 2008-09 (see in the table 6).
Table 6 : FFS established by DADOs in different year (before and after project) Year No of FFS (Tanahun No of FFS (Kathmandu Remarks DADO) DADO) New Follow up New Follow up FFS FFS 2004 5 0 0 0 During project period 2005 4 2 8 0 During project period 2006 10 1 7 2 During project period 2007 8 2 5 1 During project period 2008-9 1/1 - - - After project (Source: PPD, 2008) During project time, the Tanahun DADO used to get budget from project for establishing 4-10 FFS/year in new places. But for follow programs there were only 1-2 FFS/year. Similarly, DADO Kathmandu had 5-8 FFS/year for new places and there were 1-2 FFS/year for the follow up training. However, after the project DADO Tanahun has only one FFS in its regular program nonetheless, DADO Kathmandu doesn’t have single FFS program. DADOs have given low priority for FFS training after the project. Additionally, after the termination of first and second FFS training organized by the project funds, majority of the IPM-FFS groups don’t even have contact with the DADOs. According to the graduate farmers, they are not in regular contact with DADOs and don’t get suggestions and advices from the DADOs for sustaining FFS learning approach. DADOs don’t have specific support programs to the IPM-FFS groups with regard to give continuity to the knowledge generation process. The DADOs don’t provide other supports such as seed of improved varieties, fertilizers and other production material to encourage groups and groups’ members for follow up experiment. However, after the registration in the DADOs the IPM-FFS groups get equal treatment as other kinds of farmer groups registered at DADOs. But both DADOs have been taking initiative to bring concerned actors together for sharing
51 knowledge, resources and expertise with each other to promote the FFS approach and practices. In both districts, District Coordination Committees (DCCs) have been formed under the chairmanship of DADOs chief to develop cooperation and collaboration among the different actors.
5.2.4. Non-Government Organization (INGO)
In the district level, an INGO also have positive attitude towards FFS approach. An INGO, Caritas–Nepal, working in the Kathmandu district, has been promoting FFS approach in order to strengthen the farmers’ capacity to innovate. Carita-Nepal also have collaborative attitude with DADOs for executing and promoting the FFS approach. Therefore, Caritas is represented in the multi-stakeholder coordination committee coordinated by DADO. But in Tanahun district there are not any NGOs and INGOs which are using FFS tool.
5.3. Pattern of interaction Innovation is an interactive process (Leeuwis, 2004) and thus well functioning of innovation relies on the ability of actors to interact and exchange of information and knowledge. Such interaction among and/or between actors can occur at any stage of innovation production, exchanging or applying of knowledge (Fagerberg, 2005; Nelson and Rosenberg, 1993 cited by Spielman and et al, 2008). Therefore, networking and collaboration with concerning actors is an equally important for institutionalizing the FFS approach. Veldhuizen and et al (2002) also mentioned that effective partnership between research, extension of both governments and NGOs and farmer organizations need be established in order to make the participatory research and extension program more effective. Moreover, Veldhuizen and et al (2002) stress that agricultural research and extension organizations involve farmers and their organizations as a full and equal partner in all stages of the technology development process and that focus on strengthening the capacities of farmers and rural communities to experiment and innovate.
5.3.1. FFS groups
From the study what I found is that all IPM-FFS groups have maintained their groups after termination of FFS training. The school graduates have remained intact in groups and most of the groups have registered at the DADOs for maintaining links and connections with DADOs. Almost all groups have been organizing meeting regularly with aim of interaction and sharing of knowledge and information with each other. They have fixed dates for meeting once or twice a month. However, even if the groups conduct meeting regularly, majority of them don’t have agenda of continuing learning process collectively and sharing of learnt knowledge to non- participants and members non-FFS groups. Only 30% of the FFS groups practice interacting, discussing and observing the field problems in the group meeting and taking initiatives to find the way of the problems. In these groups, members introduce their problems in the groups’ Photo 5.1 Ex -participants of Kurinchaur meeting and/or they carry the IPM-FFS, Tanahun collecting the vegetables insects/disease found in the fields and at the collection centre established by them discuss, exchange ideas and experiences in
52 the group meeting and generate the solution collectively. If necessary, the group members also observe the problems in the fields jointly. If they could not generate the solutions, they even call on school facilitators and DADOs’ officials for help. Majorities of FFS groups, under my study, don’t have networking and collaboration with other IPM-FFS groups of the same villages. Nonetheless, 30% (3 FFS groups) groups have initiated to establish cooperatives in the local level to strengthen the IPM cultivation practices and marketing of agricultural products at the local markets. The members of the groups mentioned that cooperatives help to promote collective learning process at the local level. Similarly, 20% out of 30% of FFS groups have been practicing collective marketing of the vegetable to promote IPM-FFS approach. As mentioned by the members of these groups, establishment of collection centres has assisted to sell vegetable produced by the group members. Most of the groups don’t have link with other concerning organizations, for example, Village Development Committee (VDCs), local NGOs and other private organizations for garnering support for learning and sharing activities. These groups have not taken initiatives to develop the links with these concerned organizations. The leaders of these groups are inactive and don’t have capacity to develop links with the concerned organizations. Therefore, there is need of reorientation to the leaders FFS groups about developing interaction and connection with other groups and concerning organization for institutionalizing FFS approach.
5.3.2. Farmer facilitators’ associations
In both Kathandu and Tanahun districts, facilitators/graduates associations have been established to bring all facilitators and school graduates into common forum, to develop networking with other organizations and to promote and strengthen FFS approach at the local level. But association of Kathmandu district is inactive and doesn’t have any networking and collaboration with other concerned organizations to promote and institutionalize the FFS methodology. However, the Tanahun district association is active in developing networking and conducting FFS activities in collaboration with other organizations. The association members of Tanahun have links with the FFS graduates and encourage the group members to apply the learnt knowledge and practices from the school. The associations organize meeting with different IPM-FFS groups and discuss about the problems in applying learnt IPM practices and try to solve them in the local level. However, these kinds of interactions program are organized irregularly. The field visit programs of association members are very irregular. They make visits of limited numbers of FFS groups, hardly 4-5 FFS groups in a year. Sarasoti Poudel, secretary of Tanahun district association said: “We can’t visit all FFS groups for encouraging and advising farmers as we don’t have budget to organize such field visit programmes regularly. The association have to totally depend upon financial support of DADO to organize these kinds of program”. The farmer facilitators’ association of Tanahun has linkages with DADO, NGOs and chamber of commerce of Tanahun and thus gets financial support for organizing FFS learning activities. Basically, the association has been conducting FFS activities in collaboration with DADO and Regional Plant Protection Lab (RPPL) of western development region, Kaski. These organizations provide fund and technical support and association organizes FFS. The members of the association who are also farmer facilitators organize and conduct FFS. The DADO Tanahun has also recognized farmer facilitators’ association as a co-partner for implementing FFS.
53
However, the association of Tanahun doesn’t have networking with local government organizations like VDC and I/NGOs from where association can get financial support for promoting FFS approach and school activities. Why the association doesn’t have connection and/getting support from these local organizations? What I found is that leaders of association are not lobbying with these local organizations for financial support. Local government like VDC can provide to FFS training if the leaders can raise strong voice and lobby in favour of FFS approach. For example, some FFS groups of Tanahun have got support from the VDCs to run FFS. For example, Kairenitar VDC of Tanahun have allotted budget for running two FFS trainings in the local areas. The VDC decided to provide budget when group of school graduates demanded for the provision of budget.
5.3.3. Public extension (DADOs)
In order to develop coordination among different concerned actors, both Tanahun and Kathmandu DADOs have established DCCs. The DDC is a multi-stakeholder forum responsible for coordinating and collaborating FFS related activities in the district level and provide recommendations to the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) and National Coordination Committed (NCC) for strengthening FFS learning approach. The DDC is chaired by chief of DADOs and other members are INGO/NGO Representative, District IPM Farmer Association representative, District Cooperative Office Representative, Agro-vet Association Representative and Plant Protection Officer of DADO-Member Secretary. Responsibility of DADOs is to organize meetings of DCCs and other necessary arrangements. DDCs have established for: 1) facilitating and establishing the functioning of IPM-FFS procedure and establishing coordination among different stakeholders engaged in IPM-FFS activities in the districts; 2) monitoring the IPM activities undertaken in the districts and provide necessary support and feedback for efficient implementation of IPM activities; 3) providing feedback to the regional and national level institutions on the progress, constraints and improvements to be made in the programmes. Out of the two DCCs I investigated, DCC of Tanahun district is not functional. DADO Tanahun, which has responsibility for making functional and strengthening of DCC, has not taken initiation for organizing regular meeting of DCC to share knowledge, experiences and problems of other actors of related to FFS. DADO Tanahun doesn’t have budget in its regular programs for organizing meeting of DCC. President of farmer facilitators’ association of Tanahun said: “After the formation of DCC in 2006, DADO organized 2-3 meetings in the beginning after that DCC is non-functional and DADO has not organizing meeting”. From this scenario it can be said that DCC is not fully internalized in the DADO of Tanahun for collectively promoting of FFS learning approach in the district”. But DCC of Kathmandu district is functional and has been organizing regular meeting in every four month with concerned actors and there is provision of budget in DADO’s regular program to organize the meeting. That means DCC is internalized in the DADO of Kathmandu. Actually, the DCCs were formed during the project period to trigger collaboration and collective activities between the actors, but there isn’t adequate partnership and working collaboration among and/or between the main actors. In this context representative of agro- vet of DCC of Kathmandu said: “Up to now DCC has effective for bringing working collaboration with collective actors. Merely
54 regular meeting has been organized with minimum discussion how to strengthen the FFS activities in the field. However, only meeting is not sufficient rather there should be some collaborative programs among and/or between actors in order to promote FFS approach and institutionalize FFS- IPM practices”. According to DADO chief of Kathmandu there is technical cooperation between DADO and INGO. During the project period (2004-2007), Plant Protection Directorate used to provide packages of FFS training to the INGOs and NGOs from project fund so as to develop and initiate collaboration between government extension and I/NGOs. But now there is technical cooperation between DADO Kathmandu and Caritas-Nepal for generation and dissemination of innovation at the farmer level. In this regard, DADO chief of Kathmandu said: “DADO and Caritas has collaboration while organizing FFS. DADO provides technical support to Caritas-Nepal whilst organizing and implementing experimental learning activities. Before organizing FFS, Caritas consults DADO for the selection of sites; we collectively visit sites and decide to run FFS. DADO and Caritas have understanding of using similar norms (financial norms and norms of duration of FFS)”. Even if there is technical cooperation between DADO and Caritas-Nepal, they do not have any understanding and practices to run the FFS collaboratively. Krishna Tamang, a FFS field assistant of Caritas-Nepal said: “Caritas has its own mandates, fund mobilization strategies, technology packages, delivery methods, time frames and areas of operations and DADO has its own priority and target. Therefore, we are working independently”. According to Tamang owing to differences in priority and working style of Caritas-Nepal and DADO, they don’t have working collaboration for promoting FFS approach. In the perspective of partnership and collaboration with I/NGOs and other organizations DADO chief of Kathmandu said: “Our long term vision is to work collaboratively with NGOs and other private organizations but up to now we are cooperating with INGOs and other private organizations especially for minimizing the duplication of programme and to bring similar working norms”. Both, Caritas-Nepal and DADO don’t have yet think of organizing the FFS in collaboration. The Caritas focus of the program is on limited areas with intensive programs while the DADO has shallow nature of program with intension of covering more areas. So there are differences in their focus and priority. Nonetheless, what I found is that there is provision of collaboration and partnership between farmers association and DADOs. The DADOs have made provision to provide fund to the farmer associations to organize FFS. Generally, DADOs provide money to the farmer association and association organize and conduct FFS with the technical support of DADOs. This provision was started during the project time and has been continuing yet. After the project, in 2008 and 2009, DADO Tanahun has provided money to farmer facilitators’ association to run the FFS. DADO chief of Tanahun said: “Our main target is to strengthen farmers’ capacity in innovation generation and diffusion. So we are following this system in order to develop farmer organizations as a co-partner for the promotion of FFS approach”. DADOs are committed for working collaboratively with farmers organizations to build up to their capacity to innovate. Furthermore, even if the DCCs are formed for collective monitoring and evaluation of FFS activities to know the status of FFS groups, what are the effects of FFS training on farming system, what are the constraints for promotion of FFS learning collectively at local level? But there is not collective monitoring and evaluation system so as to see the impacts and effects
55 of FFS training on farming activities. When there were projects, the DCCs (both Kathmandu and Tanahun) had monitoring and evaluation programs especially to know the quality aspect of FFS conducted by farmer facilitators but after the projects they don’t have such provision in their regular programs and therefore, not organizing collective monitoring program. Additionally, within the DADOs’ organizational structure, I found that there is tendency of working individually. There are 6 sections/working units within the DADOs but only the plant protection section is dealing with FFS training even though all other sections’ responsibilities are also to provide extension services to the farmers. During the project time, the responsibility of FFS related activities was that of plant protection unit of the DADOs; however even after the project this system has not changed. According to officials of other section (agriculture extension section, planning section, horticulture section etc), they don’t have feeling that FFS related programs are also programs of their section. According to officials of these sections, during the project time also non-plant protection sections were excluded or basically not included in the FFS related activities sufficiently. DADOs have not yet made FFS approach an inclusive within the DADOs extension system. Therefore, FFS approach hasn’t become holistic approach of extension under DADOs’ structure.
5.4. Enabling environment In this section, focus of the discussion will basically on what kinds of policies and strategies Government and Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) have for the promotion of FFS approach; are these policies are supportive for the promotion of FFS approach and what is the institutionalization status of FFS related programs in the district level extension system (DADOs). Policies that support local learning and farmer empowerment are prerequisite for institutionalization of FFS approach (CIP-UPWARDS, 2003). Veldhuizen and et al (2002) also argue that in order to institutionalize the farmer participatory research, it is necessary that these programs should be part and parcel of the regular programs of the research and extension organizations. Sustainability of farmer participatory research beyond project period is the main question. Donor driven programs are effectively conducted during period of project and after the project difficult to sustain them. Additionally, Veldhuizen and et al (2002) argument is that monitoring and Evaluation is an important aspect of farmer participatory research. Monitoring and evaluation not only gives information about the technical parameters of the experiments, but also on issues such as the awareness of farmers needs and capacity of farmers to continue experimenting by their own and extent of spreading of technologies across the communities. Regarding the government policies related to FFS approach, what I found is that FFS approach has been accepted as one of the methods of extension by MOAC. The 9th ( 1997- 2002) and 10 th (2002-07) Five Years Plan of Government are in support of IPM practices and FFS methodology. Extension strategy (2006) of DOA has given top priority to FFS method and IPM practices. With a view of promoting the FFS extension approach, DOA has developed financial norms and procedural guidelines for running FFS. DOA’s has also instructed to DADOs to give emphasis to the FFS related programs in their regular programs. Additionally, government’s partnership and privatization policies are also in favour of conducting extension and research activities in collaboration and/or partnership with other concerned organizations. By these policies, government’s extension and research organizations can conduct FFS experimental learning in collaboration with other concerned organizations, for example, with farmer organizations, I/NGOs and with other private organizations. From the policy point of view, this is also plus benefits for the sustainability of FFS approach.
56
Agricultural extension services have been decentralized at the district level. Under this decentralized arrangement, local extension organizations (DADOs) have provided authority for providing extension services to the farmers with their own jurisdiction, and thus district level extension organizations can plan their own works and are also answerable to their work and progress. From this research what I uncovered is that though government policies, strategies and acts are helpful for the promotion of FFS, FFS training and related programs are not fully internalized in the government extension organizations. There aren’t sufficient regular programs in the DADOs for establishing new schools and providing follow up activities and refresher training to farmer facilitators, which are building blocks for the sustainability for FFS approach. Similarly, there is lack of monitoring and evaluation of FFS related activities specially to know the effects of FFS training on the farming activities, knowing the activities of FFS graduates after graduation, for instance, whether they are using the acquired lessons or not, whether they are sharing learnt knowledge to other farmer or not. Though existing government policies are supportive and DOA also recognized FFS as one of the effective programs, after the projects there are limited FFS in the regular programs of the DADOs. For example, as aforementioned in section 5.2.3, during projects there were 4-10 FFS per year in DADOs but after the project (in 2008/09), Tanahun DADO has one FFS and Kathmandu DADO doesn’t even have single FFS program in its regular program. This scenario demonstrates that even if government policies are encouraging for the promotion of FFS approach, FFS has got low priority in the DADOs’ regular programs. This trend has raised the question of sustainability of FFS approach at the local level after the termination of project. In this context, chief of DADO Kathmandu, Achute Dakal said: “We are in favour of FFS method and want to promote this model but due to transition period (completion of project last year) we couldn’t include the FFS programs last year (2008) and this year (2009) in our regular programs”. This shows that DADOs still want to prioritize the FFS training in their regular programs. In this similar context, Dilliram Sharma, chief of Regional Plant Protection Lab, Central Development Region, Harihar Bhawan said: “FFS is an expensive program, for one FFS training, DADOs have to invest 30,000 Nepalese Rupees (around 400 US dollar) and only 25-30 farmers can get service by this amount of money but with this same amount of money DADOs can provide seed, fertilizers and other short term trainings to more than 100 farmers”. According to Sharma, DADOs have compulsion to provide extension services to as many farmers as possible. Opinion of Sharma hinted that DADOs are still focusing on materials support to the farmers rather than strengthening their capacity to innovate and help them to solve their problems by themselves at the local level. DADOs are still giving more emphasis to “Technology Transfer” model of innovation rather than human resource development and/or participatory technology development model of innovation and extension services. In the same way, there is not any permanent mechanism for Training of Trainers (TOT) 12 / Training of Facilitators (TOF) to produce new farmer facilitators and also to upgrade the knowledge and skills of farmer facilitators to motivate them to support learning and sharing at the local level. DADOs organize district level farmer trainings in different topics but don’t
12 (TOT/TOF) Training of FFS facilitators focused on technical skills (e.g. how to use improved varieties, identify pests and injury or damage resulting from pest attack in an IPM context, and how to use better or recommended spacing). Inadequacy in training exposed facilitators to the risk of being less relevant in some cases due to their inability to handle realities in the farmers’ fields.
57 have planning to conduct refresher training and TOT/TOF which is important for improving quality of FFS training and further sustaining the FFS approach. In this perspective, chief of DADO Kathmandu said: “In the earlier years (during project period) refresher training and TOT/TOF used to be conducted by the financial support of project so that we didn’t feel the need of such training to be conducted by DADO but after the project we have thought that to organize and conduct TOT/TOF is the mandate of Regional Agriculture Training Centre (RATC)”. Both of DADOs, Tanahun and Kathmanu, have not initiated and thought of organizing the TOT/TOF and refresher training by their own initiation in the DADOs for promoting FFS approach after termination of project. Furthermore, Regional Agriculture Training Centre (RATCs), responsible organizations under DOA for conducting different kinds of training related to agriculture sectors, also don’t have refresher and TOT/TOF in their regular programs. Interestingly, after the project these trainings have not internalized or institutionalized in the government training centres. Nevertheless, for upgrading the knowledge and skills of the facilitators, refresher training is necessary. In this regards, for example, Shuvarna Shrestha, a famer facilitators, said: “In order to update and upgrade our knowledge in crop management practices of different crops, to solve the different problems of insect and pests in the school, we need refresher training in frequent interval otherwise it will be difficult to conduct the FFS. Time to time refresher training also motivate us to support technically to the FFS graduates for organizing learning and sharing of knowledge”. Therefore, according to farmer facilitators they need regular orientation, knowledge–based information and guidelines from the concerned organizations for quality improvement of FFS training. Farmer facilitators further hinted that regular trainings also encourage them for helping the graduate farmers and non-graduates in the locality. Continuous help and suggestions of the farmers’ facilitators to the school graduates are crucial for sustaining the FFS methodology at the community level. Moreover, DADOs don’t have regular programs for monitoring and evaluating the effect of IPM–FFS training. Monitoring and evaluation is not of regular program of the DADOs. Chief of DADO Tanahun said: “We don’t have sufficient budget in our programs to monitor and evaluate quality of FFS run by farmer facilitators, to monitor and evaluate the effect of FFS training on the farming, what are activities of FFS groups after FFS learning activities etc. It is true that we are weak in the monitoring and evaluation part, we have to improve in this part”. However, DADOs have made provision to register the IPM-FFS groups after termination of FFS learning sessions. According to the DADOs (both Kathmandu and Tanahun), FFS groups are registered at DADOs after the training. According to DADOs main reason of registering is to keep the groups active and functional in the knowledge generation process after training. In this context DADO chief Kathmandu said: “Our aim is to keep IPM-FFS groups active so that the members discuss with each other, use the generated knowledge, and find the way of continuing FFS collective learning activities”. In the same way, there is not specific market place for IPM agricultural products. While interviewing with graduate farmers they mentioned that there are no specific places or markets for selling the IPM agricultural products and there are also no price differences between IPM products and non-IPM products. According the school graduates lack of marketing provisions of IPM product has also discouraged them to go for applying the learnt practices from the FFS. The DADOs have not taken any initiation to open up markets for IPM agricultural products in districts.
58
5. 5. Concluding remarks For the institutionalization of FFS approach, FFS graduates require to integrate FFS collective learning practices in their farming system. However, what I found is that majority of FFS graduates are not active and committed for continuing learning and sharing of knowledge. In the same way, for the promotion of FFS approach, roles of FFS groups should also be active. But most of FFS groups are not motivated for sustaining FFS activities in their locality by their own efforts. However, most of the FFS groups are registered in DADOs and also have got recognition as FFS groups. Moreover, farmer facilitators’ associations are also not effective for sustaining and promoting FFS approach: effectively advocating and lobbying with concerned organization for promotion FFS approach, supporting FFS graduate farmers for conducting FFS learning activities at local level. The role of facilitators’ association of Tanahun is little bit active but role of Kathmandu association is not active after its formation. Therefore, as envisaged at the time of formation of associations, the associations are not efficient for advocating and lobbying with local organizations (local NGOs, VDC and other private organizations) for supporting and promoting the FFS learning activities. As district level public extension organizations, DADOs are taking leading and coordinating roles for the promotion of FFS approach and bringing concerning actors in the common forum for exchanging knowledge, information and resources with each other. Nonetheless, DADOs’ roles are not praiseworthy for supporting, motivating and guiding the FFS graduates, FFS groups and farmer facilitators’ associations for promoting and sustaining learning activities at the local level. An INGO, Caritas-Nepal also playing supporting role especially for promoting the FFS approach and represented in District Coordination Committees (DCC) for exchanging knowledge, experiences and expertise with other actors. Nonetheless, the role of Caritas-Nepal is not constructive for developing coordination with other actors, for instance, FFS groups, farmer facilitators’ associations and DADOs for institutionalizing FFS approach at the community level. In case of attitude and practices, FFS graduates have positive perceptions over FFS approach for acquiring knowledge about better crop management practices, preparing bio-pesticides; identifying friendly and harmful insects and knowledge about harmful effects of chemical pesticides. Nevertheless, in practice, most of the graduates are not devoted for organizing knowledge generation activities jointly for sustaining FFS approach by their own local resources, for instance, group fund and local knowledge (FFS organizing knowledge and capacity of the FFS graduate farmers) rather they expect support from the DADOs and other organizations. Therefore, FFS graduates haven’t fully accepted FFS approach, a collective group learning activities as an integral part of their farming system. In case of farmer facilitators, though they have positive attitude over the FFS approach owing to its role for leadership development, recognition of facilitators in society and personal links of facilitators with different organizations, in practice they are not ready to provide voluntary services to promote and finally institutionalize FFS approach in the community. Instead they have taken facilitation work as a part time job and they demand incentives from the government for their continue services. Moreover, DADOs also have positive perceptions over FFS approach and collaborative attitude with concerning actors for promotion of FFS approach. With the view of promoting and institutionalizing FFS approach at local level, DADOs have made provision of registering FFS groups after termination of first round of FFS training. This provision is made to establish links with FFS graduates and FFS groups after FFS training and continually motivate them to organize collective learning and sharing activities. DADOs have positive attitude towards farmer facilitators associations and have intension to develop them as a co-partner for the sustaining FFS approach. But not effective for promoting farmer facilitators’ associations: leadership development, supporting to generate resources locally and strengthening their organizations. Additionally, DADOs have collaborative attitude with actors and thus have been taking leading role for bringing concerned actors together in a common forum and organizing regular meeting for
59 sharing knowledge, resources and expertise with each other. Though DCCs were formed during project period, DCC of Tanahun district is not functional after its formation in 2006 and DADO Tanahun doesn’t have budget in its regular program for organizing meeting and conducting other activities to promote FFS approach collectively. But DCC Kathmandu has been organizing regular meeting since its establishment in 2006 and DADO has budget in its regular programs. That is to say DCC Kathmandu is institutionalized in the DADO system. An INGO, Caritas-Nepal also have positive attitude and has been using FFS tool for generation and diffusion of innovation and also have collaborative intention with other actors: for example, represented in DCC for developing collaboration with other actors for the promotion of FFS. However, in practice Caritas doesn’t have intension to develop working collaboration with DADO and other actors. As said by Caritas officials they have their own targeted population, strategies and working style, for example, give more focus in small areas and intensive working style while DADOs have their own target, strategies and working styles. In case of pattern of interaction, most of the FFS graduates have maintained their groups after FFS training and most of them are organizing regular meeting and regular interaction among members. But 70% FFS groups don’t have networking and collaboration with other IPM-FFS groups of the same villages for strengthening FFS learning. Similarly, most of the FFS groups don’t have link and cooperation with DADOs, Village Development Committee (VDCs), local NGOs and other private organizations for getting supports for sustaining FFS learning activities. Farmer facilitators’ associations have some sort of networking and collaboration with concerned organizations to promote and institutionalize the FFS methodology: Tanahun district association has collaboration with DADO, RPPL and private organizations (chamber of commerce) and conduct FFS with the support of these organizations. But the association of Tanahun doesn’t have networking with local government organizations like VDCs and I/NGOs for promoting FFS learning activities in collaboration. DADOs have taken initiation to develop coordination and networking with other actors (INGO, agro-vets, DCO etc). DCCs is a multi-stakeholders’ platform under the DADOs for coordinating and collaborating FFS activities with other actors. But so far DADOs are not effective for developing partnership and working collaboration with these actors. Nonetheless, DADOs have made provision working collaboratively with farmer facilitators’ organizations and Tanahun, DADO has been conducting FFS in partnership with farmer facilitators’ association of Tanahun. DADO provide financial support and association organize FFS trainings. Suitable policies and regular programs of government organizations are equally important for the promotion of FFS approach. MOAC and DOA has recognized FFS approach as one of the approaches of extension, periodic plan (9 th and 10 th five year plan) of government are also supportive to FFS methodology. Extension strategy (2006) of DOA has also acknowledged FFS method and has developed financial expenditure norms and procedures for conducting FFS activities. Partnership and privatization policies of government are in favour of carrying out extension and research programs in collaboration with other related organizations. But in practice, in accordance with policies, there aren’t adequate programs in the DADOs for establishing new FFS, follow up FFS programs, monitoring and evaluation to measure the effectiveness of FFS program and upgrading the knowledge and skills of farmer facilitators. DADOs are still focusing on material supports and giving priority to “Technology Transfer” model of innovation rather than strengthening farmers’ capacity to innovate and make them self-reliant to solve their problems by themselves.
60
Chapter Six
6. Institutionalization at the higher level
In this chapter, I will discuss about institutionalization of FFS approach at the national and regional level. For materializing the sustainability of FFS methodology, only institutionalization at local level is not sufficient but institutionalization at higher level is also equally important as actors at the national level reinforce actors at local level to follow the policies and strategies developed by higher level organizations. In the national level concerned stakeholders especially of public extension (DOA, PPD), NARC, INGO (Carita-Nepal), and FFS facilitators’ organizations (TITAN) are participating and collaborating for promoting the FFS approach. Therefore, in the following discussion, I will focus on active role of all these concerned actors at national level and regional level, attitudes and practices of these actors for collaboration and partnership, pattern of interaction of these actors have for sharing of knowledge and experiences and enabling environment especially of policies and programs of public extension for promoting FFS approach.
6.1. Actors and their roles Innovations can only be effective and impart significant socio-economic impact if all concerned actors are collectively integrated and their existing knowledge, resources and capabilities are combined together (Spielma, Ekboir and Davis, 2006). Innovation system considers that a single actor generally doesn’t have all human, technical and financial resources for generating and disseminating innovations efficiently and sustainably.
6.1.1. Public Extension (DOA, PPD)
Since the introduction of FFS approach in 1997 in Nepal, Plant Protection Directorate (PPD), a directorate under the DOA has been taking role for the promotion of FFS approach. From the very beginning, IPM-FFS projects were conducted and managed by PPD. The latest project “Support to National Integrated Pest Management Programme” was also established at PPD and PPD had taken responsibility and authority to implement the FFS related activities with view of strengthening FFS approach. Therefore, PPD is playing vital and coordinating role for fostering FFS approach and participatory technology development. The PPD has initiated to bring all concerned stakeholders INGO, Research (NARC) and facilitators’ organizations together for developing network and collaboration for institutionalizing and strengthening FFS methodology. The PPD has been playing roles to develop the norms, guidelines and procedures of about running FFS activities and emphasizing to INGO and other organizations to follow similar criteria and procedure to bring uniformity in the FFS learning acvities. The officials of PPD said: “Uniformity in the process and procedures facilitate the cooperation and collaboration among actors which help to institutionalize the process”. The PPD is also taking initiatives to formulate and recommend to DAO and MOAC to bring appropriate policies and strategies to support and promote the farmer participatory innovation. However, the role of the PPD has not seemed effective, for example, formation of national and regional level farmer facilitators’ association and fostering partnership and working collaboration with research and INGOs.
61
6.1.2. Research (NARC)
NARC was established in 1991 as an autonomous organization under Nepal Agricultural Research Council Act-1991. Its mandates are to conduct qualitative studies and researches on different aspects of agriculture according to required national agricultural policies; provide research and consultancy services to the other organization and clients; to identify the existing technological problems in agriculture and find out the solution and to coordinate, monitor and evaluate the agricultural research activities. Though NARC is only one public research institute of country having mandate of generating technologies for agriculture sector, has not played significant roles for promotion of FFS methodology. Organizationally, NARC has not adopted FFS tool for promoting knowledge generation and dissemination. During the project time, PPD provided packages of FFS trainings to the NARC and NARC also conducted these FFS training under its command on the NARC’s outreach sites but after the project support, NARC has not used this approach by its own and officially has yet decided to apply FFS approach as a means of generating and disseminating technologies. However, active role of NARC is indispensible for sustaining and promoting FFS methodology because of mandate of developing technologies, NARC has expertise, experiences and capabilities in generating innovations. Such platform and expertise can be utilized effectively for the sustaining the FFS approach.
6.1.3. Non-government Organizations (INGO)
An INGO (Caritas-Nepal) is also one of the actors playing roles for developing and spreading the innovations through the FFS method. Caritas-Nepal has been giving priority to the FFS approach since last five years. IPM-FFS is one the prioritized programs of the Caritas-Nepal to increase the farmers’ knowledge in experimentation, crop management practices and making good decisions to solve their problems. Roles of I/NGOs are always important for the promotion of the participatory approaches because they have good connection with farmers and these organizations are working intensively with the rural people.
6.1.4. FFS facilitators’ organization (TITAN)
TITAN is a professional organization of IPM-FFS facilitators representing from public extension, NGOs and farmers. TITAN was established in 2002 by the initiation of FFS facilitators especially of public extension and I/NGOs . TITAN was formed with vision of promoting and safeguarding the interests, rights and professionalism of FFS facilitators including farmer facilitators; promoting and advocating IPM-FFS approach and providing consultancy services to the private organizations to plan and conduct the FFS trainings. Now, TITAN has more than 300 members among them more than 200 farmer facilitators and rest of them represent from I/NGOs and government. TITAN’s role is effective in providing consultancy services to the private organizations to conduct FFS. Also TITAN is actively lobbying for the right of FFS facilitators and increasing the facilities and incentives of farmer facilitators. Even though TITAN is committed for developing the curriculum and playing roles for quality control of FFS activities, it has not role in this sector. Due to lack of financial resources of its own, the TITAN’s role for fostering FFS approach is not so effective so far. The TITAN has not its regular fund to provide knowledge upgrading trainings to the farmer facilitators and other FFS related activities which was also one the targets of the TITAN.
62
6.2. Attitude and practices of the actors Attitude is a willingness to make compromise/adjustment patience to work through the necessary steps of a successful partnership and collaboration and willingness to share knowledge and resources (Killough, 2009). Attitudes and practices of main actors DOA, NARC, TITAN and INGOs (Caritas-Nepal) over the FFS methodology and its promotion strategies determine the sustainability of the approach. The attitudes and practices of main participating actors also determine interaction and communication among them which lead to collective action that help to foster FFS approach. In this part I will focus on the attitude and practices of DOA (PPD), NARC, INGO (Caritas- Nepal) and TITAN.
6.2.1. Public extension (DOA, PPD, RADs)
Public extension organization DOA and PPD have positive attitude toward the FFS approach and collaborative attitude with other actors. The DOA has considered FFS approach as one of the effective methods of extension and thus has been giving more emphasis for its promotion. PPD has initiated to bring main actors like NARC and INGOs together for working collaboratively and collectively but the efforts made so far is not effective to start FFS activities in partnership. DOA still has bureaucratic behaviour with NARC and INOG. About intention and practices of DAO towards FFS approach, Deputy Director, Bijaya Kumar Mallic, of DOA said: “IPM-FFS is one of the farmer-centred approaches of extension as it helps to increases the farmers’ capacity to innovate. The FFS approach has already been accepted as one of the methods of extension and DOA has given authority to the DADOs to give top priority and conduct FFS training to strengthen the farmers’ capacity to solve local problems by themselves”. Outlook of Deputy Director shows that DOA’s has positive thought towards FFS approach would like to promote this approach to strengthen farmers’ capability to innovate. Similarly, the opinion of Director of Regional Agriculture Directorate (RAD) of Western Development Region, Kaski, Pokhara, Janardan Sharma pointed positive concern with FFS approach and collaborative attitude with other actors. Sharma emphasized that there should be involvement of the other organizations so as to sustain and institutionalize this approach. In this context, Sharma said: “IPM-FFS is one of the effective programs as farmers directly involve in the experimentation and spreading of the innovations. It is prioritized program of DOA/RAD. Our target is to strengthen farmers- to- farmer extension that is involving farmer facilitators for organizing the FFS training so that they can feel ownership over the program and their capacity will also be increased to solve local problems. This program is expensive, therefore, only the efforts of DOA’s/RAD can’t sustain the program. FFS approach should be prioritized by Village Development Committee (VDC) and District Development Committee (DDC, I/NGOs and other private organizations in order to promote this approach. Thus in the regional level a Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) has been established to initiate the coordination with all other concerned actors to promote FFS approach collectively”. Opinion of RAD chief is that only effort of government isn’t adequate for the sustainability of FFS programs; therefore, there should be coordination and cooperation among the different actors. Intension and focus of RAD is more on collaborative work.
63
Public extension (DOA/PPD) attitude is also to strengthen the farmers’ organizations and has stressed and initiated collaborative working with farmer facilitators’ associations for institutionalizing farmer-centred approach. But DOA has not made any agreement so far to work cooperatively with the NARC and I/NGO. In this line PPD officiating director mentioned that: “Through FFS approach, our main aim is to build the capacity of farmers’ and farmers’ organizations so that they can be effective and efficient partners for strengthening this approach. FFS discovering learning is an observational and adopted research or farmer research rather than scientific research and thus we haven’t initiated working collaboratively with research (NARC) but our intension is not to exclude research rather we have considered that research is our important partner for the promotion of FFS approach”. According to PPD director, due to having FFS an observational research or adopted research therefore NARC has not been involved in organizing and conducting FFS collectively but still necessary for getting the new technologies and experimental knowledge. These kinds of perceptions of PPD are not so positive for developing working collaboration with NARC. Despite the fact that research remains one of the most important sources of knowledge and technologies but DOA has no intention to work with research (NARC) in the implementation of FFS. NARC has also not organizationally adopted FFS approach for promoting participatory innovation development though there is involvement of NARC in the coordination committees (National Coordination Committees-NCC and Regional Coordination committees-RCC). However, DOA has highly collaborative tendency with the farmers’ organizations and would like to develop the farmer facilitators’ associations as their co-partner for fostering FFS approach. But PPD has not taken effective initiation for the formation of national and regional level farmer facilitators’ association. Additionally, DOA have not made any official Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) working collaboration with Caritas-Nepal (INGO) in the implementing part of FFS but Caritas- Nepal has also been included in the multi-stakeholders coordination committees chaired by DOA.
6.2.2. Research (NARC)
FFS approach has not mainstreamed in the NARC system for promoting farmer participatory innovation development. Though NARC has not adopted FFS as a tool for generating and disseminating innovations, NARC’s officials have positive attitude over this approach. They expressed interests to work co-ordinately with DOA for promoting the farmers’ capacity for developing innovations. The officials of NARC have opinions that extension and research always need to go together for generation and dissemination of innovations. Some of the statements of the NARC officials are as follows: Director of agronomy and Horticulture, Dil Prasad Serchan, mentioned that: “FFS is an effective tool as farmers generate and verify new innovations in their own fields with their active participation. Farmers’ direct involvement in the technology generation process augments their knowledge in innovation and also definitely increases the use of technologies. However, it is time consuming process, some farmers especially women don’t have time to involve in the field activities. Regarding the cooperation and coordination with DOA, we don’t have any formal agreement with the DOA to conduct the FFS in coordinated way or in partnership. But we are interested to work with DOA in this sector for the promotion
64 of FFS. FFS tool is ok but we have objection over the IPM-band. IPM is narrowly focused it should be wide focus like Integrated Crop Management or we should give new name so that all feel this FFS isn’t only for insect and pest but for all crop management practices”. Similarly, opinion of Director of Planning and Coordination, Bhola man Singh Basnet said: “FFS is a very good approach because in this approach farmer themselves involve in the technology generation process and this helps farmers to understand about technology. The concept of IPM means only for insects and diseases. Though IPM-FFS learning and sharing activites covers whole crop management practices, name is only limited to insects and pests. So, I am not comfortable with the name IPM-FFS. There should be common word so that all can enter through the common door of FFS. Other organizations and experts who are not working and/or have not mandated of IPM have feeling that this isn’t approach for me or us. Viewpoints of officials reveal that though NARC is not playing any role for promoting innovations via FFS approach, NARC is interested to collaborate with extension and farmers in this regards. But NARC has objection over the IPM band of FFS. According to officials IPM-FFS is only subjected to management of insects and pests though whole crop management practices are in the learning sessions. However, NARC is representing in multi- stakeholder coordination committee which is established by DOA (PPD) for sharing knowledge, resources and experiences among the actors. The opinion of Shree Baba Pradhan, chief of Entomology Research Division, NARC, also depicts that NARC has not any coordination with DOA, however, interested to work with DOA and other organizations. In this regards Pradhan said: “I don’t have objection over the name IPM-FFS. We don’t have any Memorandum of Understanding with DOA to work co-ordinately in the organizational level. However, sometimes DOA invites our technicians as experts while organizing FFS activities. But this is mainly on the individual basis. Our technicians have also got Training of Facilitators (TOF) organized by DOA during the project time. This is also sign of coordination”. But to promote FFS approach and expand its expansion, research and extension have to go together from planning to implementing and evaluating the programs.” In general, NARC officials have positive attitude with FFS tool and revealed they are interested to work co-ordinately and jointly with DOA for the promotion of FFS approach and strengthen farmer capacity to innovate. Although DOA and NARC have not any collaboration at organizational level, DAO had also provided facilitation trainings to the NARC researchers during the project time and received technical support from NARC in case of need. Both have supportive attitude with each other but there has not initiation of collaborative work yet. Since NARC has not adopted FFS tool, it has to initiate institutional change and creation of effective coordinating mechanism with other complementary actors like extension and farmers’ organizations. NARC has participatory technology development programs in the outreach research sites where farmers involve in technology development and verification process. According to NARC this participatory innovation development programs had become dysfunctional and withdrawn due to 10 years long conflict in the country. As during the conflict time there was not possible to work in the rural areas with the farmers. As said by the NARC officials they are trying to initiate such farmer participatory programs in the outreach sites. But NARC is not in mood to use FFS approach in these sites. What I found is that NARC has low tradition of sharing expertise, developing technologies in collaboration with extension, I/NGOs and even with farmers’ organizations. Due to such culture and tradition of liner mode of innovation (technology transfer model of innovation) has got priority within the NARC system and thus prevented research and extension
65 collaboration. Nonetheless, complementary of knowledge and expertise is necessary for effectively generation and dissemination of innovation. Thus in this context, institutional change is necessary within research system to work collectively with other collective actors.
6.2.3. Non-Government Organization (INGO)
An INGO, Carita-Nepal has positive attitude with FFS approach and has given priority in its programs to promote this approach. The opinions of the official of the INGOs are as described: Tej Basnet, IPM FFS program officer said: “FFS approach bring the farmers in common platform together where they can discuss about their problems, fight with the problems collectively and finally can generate the solutions of problems. Among different methods of extension, this method is one the effective and successful programs to solve the farmers’ problems by developing their own capacity and knowledge. Via this method farmer can lobby for right, empower the farmers through networking and association”. Due to of all these reasons Caritas Nepal has given top priority to this program. We have tendency to work with other organizations. Therefore, we are following guidelines developed by the DOA in order to give uniformity in the FFS procedure. Our interest is to go co-ordinately with the DOA but in the implementation part we don’t have any collaboration yet. They have their own way of approaching to the farmers and we have our own way. So we are working independently”. INGO (Caritas) also have positive attitude towards FFS approach and coordinating behaviour with Government extension and farmer organizations. Generally, an understanding has been made that INGO (Caritas) have to coordinate with and follow the guidelines and procedures developed by the government (DOA) while organizing and executing FFS activities and Caritas-Nepal is also following procedures and process. Using similar format has helped to bring uniformity and collaboration between government and Caritas. Caritas-Nepal is also participating in the National Coordination Committee chaired by DOA to share the knowledge and expertise with each other. Involving in the NCC and RCCs and following the procedures developed by DOA reveal that Caritas has tendency to work in collaboration with government for promotion of FFS approach. But in most of the cases Caritas don’t submit reports of FFS to the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) which is also compulsory provision made by the coordination committees. Moreover, the government and Caritas don’t have uniform norm (budget) for organizing the FFS. Dissimilarity in the budgetary provision for organizing FFS between government and Caritas-Nepal confront the collaboration and partnership between them. Government give 150 Nepalese Rupees to the farmer facilitators per day facilitation while the Caritas-Nepal provides 450 Nepalese Rupees for the same. 6.2.4 FFS facilitators’ organisation (TITAN) TITAN, professional organization of FFS facilitators, has positive attitude towards FFS approach and collaboration attitude with other concerned organizations. TITAN is committed for the right of FFS facilitators. TITAN has collaboration with farmer facilitators’ organizations, caritas-Nepal, Dabur-Nepal, Helvetas-Nepal and other private organizations for the promotion of FFS. TITAN provide consultancy services to the private organization especially to Dabur-Nepal for organizing FFS trainings. TITAN motivates farmer facilitators’ organizations for promoting the FFS approach. TITAN organizes workshop often for advocating FFS approach. Via different committees, for example, NCC, RCC and other different technical committees, TITAN lobby and advocate
66
FFS approach and right and incentives of farmer facilitators. Though role of TITAN is to develop FFS curriculum and quality of control of FFS activities, it hasn’t playing any action in this respect.
6.3. Pattern of interaction In this part the chapter, I will focus on networking and alliances of DOA (PPD), NARC, INGO (Caritas) and other actors in the national and regional level to promote and strengthen FFS approach. I will focus on multi-stakeholders’ National Coordination Committee (NCC) and Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) and their activities during and after project for sustaining FFS learning activities. As mentioned by Leeuwis (2004) innovation is interactive and dynamic process, linkages and networking among the actors is important for innovation to trigger. Bayer and Veldhuizen (2009) mention that collaboration among key stakeholders at sub-national and national-level create a space for institutional change and such interactive platform help to grow partnership. Such platform is also space for negotiation where actors discuss and clarify their viewpoints and seek common ground for planning and joint action. In my study I found that there is networking and linkages among the main actors, DOA (PPD) NARC, INGO (Caritas-Nepal) and other concerned organizations at national and regional level for sharing knowledge, experiences and information among them. DOA (PPD) is coordinating and leading the platform of networking. These networking are named as National and Regional Coordination Committees NCC/RCC). The main reasons of formation of these coordination committees are to build up contact with, interactions and to develop collaboration on implementation of FFS activities among the actors. Formation of committees has increased interaction among the actors, open up the sharing of information and technical knowledge for fostering FFS approach from higher level but still there is lack of collaboration among the actors. These committees are not so productive for strengthening complementarities among the actors rather limited for organizing meetings in every four month and looking at the progress of targeted annual programs of the different organizations under NCC. The details National Coordination Committee (NCC) and Regional Coordination Committees (RCC) are as follows:
6.3.1. National Coordination Committee (NCC)
NCC as a platform in the national level has been formed for coordinating and collaborating among the concerned actors. NCC is chaired by Director General of DOA. The other members are represented by Deputy Director General (Planning) of DOA, Directorate of Agricultural Extension, District Development Council Federation Representative, Planning Director of National Agriculture Research Council, Collaborative NGOs/INGOs Representative, National IPM Farmers Association Representative, IPM-FFS Facilitators (TITAN) Association Representative, National Coordinator of IPM Program (FAO) and Program Director of Plant Protection Directorate (PPD) – Member Secretary. The PPD is responsible organization for organizing meeting and forwarding the decisions made by the committee to other concerned organizations for implementation. The NCC was formed especially for: 1) Providing advice on policy matters to DOA and MOAC related to implementation of IPM FFS programs; 2) Ensuring necessary coordination and collaboration between the various national level institutions and concerning stakeholders; 3) Providing necessary guidance to national IPM team in implementation of FFS related programs; 4. Reviewing overall progress and constraints of IPM-FFS programs at different
67 layers and advice future policy & strategy for the improvement of programs for promoting and sustaining the IPM-FFS programs. What I found is that even if NCC was formed during project time in 2005, it is functional after the termination of project. The NCC has been organizing meeting regularly in every four months to discuss over the concerning issues of policies, programs and progress and constraints of IPM-FFS activities and promotion of FFS approach. Regular meeting and provision of budget for conducting meeting has been internalized in the PPD system that is PPD has budgetary provision for organizing meeting regularly. The NCC has been making some necessary decisions to promote FFS approach of extension. I learnt that after its formation NCC has made some decisions to recommend to DOA to change the norms (financial norm that is to increase the incentives of farmer facilitators), expansion of coverage of IPM-FFS training in other high value crops such as coffee, tea, apple, ginger and cardamom etc and has made decision to demand reports of FFS conducted by INGOs/NGOs and other organization who are organizing the FFS training. This provision is to bring uniformity in the FFS training. However, NCC has not concentrated effectively for promoting the IPM-FFS activities in partnership with I/NGOs, NARC and other private organizations in order to build up foundation for the sustainability of IPM-FFS approach after the termination of project. In order to institutionalize the FFS approach, it is necessary to have working collaboration and partnership with different related stakeholders. Similarly, NCC has not concentrated on how to institutionalize FFS related programs with the regular program of Village Development Committee (VDC) and District Development Council (DDC). In the NCC there are representatives from National level VDC federation and DDC federation. But I learnt that NCC has not made any formal decision and/ or request to these organizations for providing financial support for FFS related programmes. In the context of devolution and decentralization of agriculture extension services, support of DCC and VDCs is looked quite essential and necessary for institutionalization of FFS training in the local level. Moreover, NCC has given more important to the progress of targeted programs of the organizations under its command, whether these programs were successfully completed or not but it has not adequately focused on constraints of the FFS activities in the field and find out the ways to solve these problems. In the same way, in the NCC farmers are neither represented nor engaged because in the national level farmer facilitators’ association has not established yet. NCC has not focused and concentrated for the formation of national level farmer facilitators’ association after the project. Absence of FFS farmers’ representative in national level committee and in the decision making process concerning to policies, strategies and FFS related activities; it is evidence that of low priority has been given for effective participation and empowerment of farmers.
6.3.2. Regional Coordination Committees (RCCs)
RCCs were formed in 2005 in all five regions of the country. But RCC Western Development Region (Pokhara) and RCC Central-Development Region (Harihar Bhawan) were under my investigation. RRCs are chaired by Regional Director of Regional Agriculture Directorates (RAD) and other members represent collaborative NGOs/INGOs representative, Director of Regional Agriculture Research Station-NARC, Chief of Regional Agriculture Training Centers, Chief of Regional Soil Lab, Chief of Regional Seed Lab, Chief of Fisheries, and Regional Plant Protection Lab – Member Secretary. The RCCs were established for: 1)
68
Establishing coordination among different stakeholders engaged in IPM-FFS activities in the region; 2) Monitoring the IPM-FFS activities undertaken in the districts of the region and provide backstopping support to the implementing partners in smooth and efficient implementation of IPM activities in line with the programme policy & strategy; 3) Providing feedback to the national level institutions on the progress, constraints and improvements to be made in the programme. Regional Plant Protection Labs (RPPLs) under DOA is the responsible organizations for conducting meeting and other necessary arrangement for the committees. Both of committees, under my investigation, have been conducting regular meeting in every four months since their establishment. RPPLs have budget in their regular program for organizing the meeting of RCCs that is to say these committees are internalized in the government system. RCCs have initiated some novel work for the promotion and expanding the coverage of FFS activities in different crops. RCC Central Development Region, Harihar Bhawan has prepared the booklet for IPM-FFS in bee. Preparation of this book has opened up the way for conducting the FFS training in bee farming also. Similarly, the RCC Central Development Region, Harihar Bhawan has initiated for the preparation of guidelines and curriculum for FFS training in seed and fish culture. This will help to conduct the FFS training in seed and fish farming. In the same way, RCC Western Development Region has taken responsibility to prepare guidelines and curriculum of FFS on apple. For effective working collaboration in the local level, support and initiation from the higher level is also important. However, the RCCs aren’t ineffective for advising, guiding and instructing the DADOs and DCCs for developing alliances and working networking with the concerned institutions, for example, NARC, I/NGOs and other private organizations. RCCs are not guiding properly to the DADOs and DCCs for developing partnership and collaboration with other organizations for organizing FFSs in the community level. Moreover, even if RCCs’ main task it to monitor IPM–FFS learning activities, its effects on cultivation practices and what are the constraints for effectively implementing the FFS activities and to provide appropriate feedback and suggestions to NCC and other concerned organizations for corrective measures. But RCCs are inactive in this matter. They don’t have regular programs for monitoring FFS activities in the field and provide useful suggestions for improvement. Both of RCCs had monitoring programs when there was project money but after project, they don’t have regular program for observing the field activities collectively. The RCCs don’t have financial provision in the regular program for monitoring FFS activities. The RCCs are subjected only organizing meeting to fulfil regular targeted program but they are not committed for improving the quality of FFS training.
6.4. Enabling Environment In this section my focus will be on policies, strategies and programs of government for fostering the FFS approach and IPM practices. Mainly, my concentration on whether there are supportive government polices for further expansion and development of FFS approach and whether there are adequate programs in accordance with policies to mainstream the FFS approach in the government system or not. Supportive policies are vital for the promotion of any kind of programs. FFS methodology has been accepted as one of the approaches of extension by the MOAC. The 9th and 10 th Five Year Plan of Government of Nepal has given priority to use FFS platform and IPM ecological based farming practices for providing the extension services to the farmers and development of agriculture sectors. Additionally, partnership, privatization and contract out related policies of government of Nepal are also encouraging to promote the FFS approach by collaborating with different concerned stakeholders. These policies facilitate to conduct the extension and
69 research activities in partnership with public extension, research, I/NGOs and other private organizations. Only supportive policies are not sufficient for the sustainability of FFS after the termination of projects. In this regard, Van Veldhuizen and et al (2002) mention that sustainability of Participatory Technology Development (PTD)/Farmer Participatory Research (FPR) beyond short project period is the main question. In order to institutionalize such program it is necessary that PTD/FPR related programs should be part and parcel of the regular programs and activities of the concerning organisations. However, even if the government policies are supportive for the promotion of FFS but efforts of DOA (PPD) and RAD are not so effective for promoting FFS learning activities in the regular programs of DADOs. Additionally, DOA and PPD have not taken effective initiation after the project for the establishment of national and regional level IPM farmers/facilitators’ association. Such associations are necessary for effectively advocating and lobbying with the national and regional level extension, research and INGOs and other private organizations for the promotion of FFS approach and IPM practices. Strong advocacy helps generate support from policies makers and financial support from diversified sources and such tasks help to promote FFS approach. Even if DOA and PPD is committed for the promotion and institutionalization of FFS approach, FFS related training programs especially of refresher training and TOF/TOT are not mainstreamed in the government training centres (CATC and RATCs). CATC and RATCs have responsibilities of preparing curriculum, approving trainings and conducting trainings related to agriculture sector but these training centres don’t have refresher and Training of Trainers (TOT) in their regular programs. In this case, senior program officer of CATC, Ganesh Shrestha said: “E ven if CATC’s and RATCs’ responsibilities are to conduct different kinds of trainings related to agriculture but we weren’t requested by PPD to organize TOT/TOF. TOT/TOF and refresher trainings were conducted under the supervision of PPD during the project time. PPD and other are concerning organizations were conducting training without coordinating and/or getting approval from CATC and RATCs. They don’t have right to do like that. Before conducting any kind of training related to agriculture under DOA structure, need to coordinate and should get approval from training centres’”. This shows that there isn’t coordination even within the government organizations for promoting the FFS approach and related programs. During the project time, different kinds of training especially of TOT/TOF and refresher were conducted without involvement of CATC and RATCs. Therefore, these organizations are not motivated to include FFS related training in their regular program after the project. Similarly, higher level organizations especially of PPD is ineffective for monitoring and evaluating FFS activities, for instance, has FFS training brought changes on farming practices, what constraints and problems do graduate farmers and farmer facilitators’ associations have for sustaining FFS at local level and what supports are necessary to institutionalize process. IPM-FFS experts and extension facilitators of DOA and RADs don’t monitor and evaluate IPM–FFS activities that is monitoring and evaluation of FFS activities is not of very regular and prioritized programmes of these central level organizations. Besides of all these, the DOA and PPD have not taken effective initiation for promoting marketing of IPM agriculture products. For this, arrangement of separate market places and advocacy are necessary so that IPM agricultural products get priority than conventional agricultural products and also farmers get reasonable prices. Reasonable prices and additional supports inspire FFS graduates for adopting learnt practices and that help for farmer to farmer expansion of the FFS approach.
70
6.5 Concluding remarks
PPD, as a responsible organization under DOA at the national level, has been playing vital and central role for developing alliances with other stakeholders for developing common norms and procedures for conducting FFS in order to bring uniformity in FFS learning activities. Nevertheless, role of PPD is insufficient for the formation of national and regional level FFS farmer facilitators’ associations in order to strengthen FFS farmers’ capacity for advocating and lobbying at national and regional level to promote FFS approach and FFS farmers’ rights. The role of NARC is inactive for fostering of FFS approach. NARC has not yet adopted FFS methodology within its structure for generating and dissemination technologies. However, NARC is represented in multi-stakeholders coordination committees at national and regional level for the exchange of knowledge and experiences and providing suggestions and feedback while re/formulating policies and strategies for the promotion of FFS approach. Caritas-Nepal, an INGO is also one of the main actors, has been using FFS methodology and playing active role for institutionalization of FFS approach. FFS training has become one of the top prioritized programs of Caritas-Nepal since last five years. Additionally, Caritas- Nepal is also actively participating in national and regional level coordination committees (NCC and RCC) and has been providing suggestions and inputs for re/formulation of policies and strategies for the promotion of FFS approach. TITAN, a professional organization of IPM-FFS facilitators, has been actively involving in safeguarding rights and professionalism of FFS facilitators; advocating IPM-FFS approach and providing consultancy services to the private organizations for institutionalizing FFS methodology. But TITAN has not any role for the development of FFS curriculum and quality control of FFS learning activities. From the perspective of attitude and practices, DOA (PPD) has positive attitude toward FFS methodology and collaborative tendencies with other concerning actors. DOA has acknowledged FFS as one of the effective methods of extension and NCC and RCC have been formed so as to bring all actors in the common forum and developing coordination and collaboration among them. DOA (PPD) has mandated to DADOs for conducting FFS in collaboration with farmer facilitators’ associations to strengthen farmers’ capacity to innovate and ultimately to develop co-partners for up scaling FFS at the local level. Though steps have taken to collaborate with FFS farmer facilitators’ organizations, so far DOA has not initiated to work collaboratively with other actors especially of NARC and I/NGOs in implementation part of FFS training. Therefore, DOA still has individualistic mentality rather than collaborative. Even though NARC has positive perception over FFS approach, it has not adopted FFS method for generation and diffusion of innovations. NARC has positive intension to work co- ordinately with DOA but so far there isn’t any agreement for implementing FFS activities in collaboration with other actors. However, NARC has been represented in multi-stakeholder coordination committee (NCC and RCC) with an aim of fostering the FFS approach. NARC has low tradition of developing technologies in collaboration with extension and farmers’ organizations and liner model of innovation has still got priority in the NARC system. Nevertheless, complementarily of knowledge, expertise and experience among the research, extension and producer organizations are necessary for effective generation and dissemination of innovation via FFS. An INGO, Carita-Nepal has also positive perception to FFS approach and has given priority in its programs to promote this approach and has been following guidelines developed by the
71
DOA in order to bring uniformity in the FFS process and procedure. Due to collaborative attitude, Caritas-Nepal is also represented in multi-stakeholder coordination committees (NCC and RCC) but doesn’t have yet started collaboration with DOA for organizing the FFS jointly. Though Caritas has collaborative attitude, not has intension of working collaboratively with other actors. Individualistic nature is also prevalent in INGO (Caritas). Effective interaction and networking between and/or among the stakeholders are crucial factors for sustaining the FFS approach. NCC and RCC has been established for strengthening the interaction and collaboration among the actors and advising on policy issue related to FFS, reviewing the progresses and constraints of FFS activities collectively, suggesting concerned organizations for improvement measures and developing collaboration between and/ or among the actors etc. NCC and RCCs have been organizing meeting regularly in every four months to discuss on concerning issues and finding the way out. For the expansion of coverage of FFS activities and cover a wide range of crops, NCC and RCC have been working to conduct FFS on high value crops such as coffee, tea, apple, ginger and cardamom and preparation of booklets and curriculum for IPM-FFS in bee, seed and fish culture and apple has been underway. However, NCC and RCCs have given inadequate attention for promoting IPM-FFS activities in partnership with I/NGOs, NARC and other private organizations. The focus of the NCC and RCC is more on reviewing the progress of annual targets of the organizations under their command rather than developing effective networking and collaboration with concerned actors at regional and national level for the institutionalization of FFS approach. Therefore, NCC and RCCs are also ineffective for developing working collaboration with other collective actors. One of the mandates of RCC is monitor and evaluates activities of FFS collaboratively with other actors and to provide feedback to the concerned organizations. But RCCs are ineffective for monitoring the effects of IPM–FFS training: quality of FFS trainings, its effects on cultivation practices, constraints for continuing FFS learning and recommending concerned organizations for improvements and promotion of FFS practices. Collaborative is still lacking in the monitoring and evolution of FFS activities and its effects. Regarding the enabling environment, FFS approach has been recognized as one of the methodologies of extension by DOA and MOAC. The 9th and 10 th Five Year Plan of government of Nepal has acknowledged FFS as an effective platform for promoting IPM, ecological based farming practices. Furthermore, policies of GON related to partnership, privatization and contract out are also encouraging and supporting for conducting FFS training in collaboration and/or partnership with different concerned stakeholders. Although government policies are supportive for the promotion of FFS, FFS related programs have not got priority in regular programs of DOA and organizations under DOA. TOT/TOF have not institutionalized in the training centres (CATC and RATC) under DOA. Additionally, DOA (PPD) haven’t given priority for monitoring and evaluating FFS activities for knowing impacts and constraints for continuing knowledge generation process and use of generated knowledge from FFS. DOA (PPD) has not taken effective initiation for promoting the marketing of IPM agricultural products. For this, arrangement of separate market places and advocacy of IPM products are necessary. Specific places for IPM products in the market help to recognize the IPM products and farmers can get reasonable prices which ultimately help to institutionalize the FFS approach.
72
Chapter Seven
7. Conclusion and recommendations
In this conclusion and recommendation chapter, first I will explain about usefulness of Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) and Innovation System Framework (ISF) theries I used in this research for assessing learning and charge process and institutionalization enabling context of FFS. Secondly, I will explain institutionalization status and finally I will give recommendations for DAO, DADOs and other organizations and limitation of this study.
7.1. Relevance and limitation of theories
7.1.1. Experiential learning Theory (ELT)
First, in this research I used ELT for getting answer of my first research question: what learning and change process has FFS approach created at local level? This question has two parts: one is what farmers learnt from learning activities and another has FFS learning changed behaviour and cultivation particles of farmers? In this context, ELT is relevant for getting answers of what learning practices FFS farmers have learnt and what changes FFS trainings have brought in knowledge, skills, capacity and behaviours of the farmers. From the theoretical perspective, ELT is useful to study physical and mental learning activities of FFS participants. Since ELT is based on adult education principle, therefore relevant to study feeling, thinking, watching and doing activities of FFS participants. The cognitive, emotional and physical aspect is important for adult farmers to learn, understand and use the learnt practices in the fields. When farmers do activities and see outcome of their activities, convinced (seeing is believing) and therefore, motivated to apply the learnt practices. During my filed work, I did not get chance to observe how FFS learning activities were/are executed. Aforementioned my explanation about in what ways FFS learning activities were implemented and in what ways farmers were involved in experiential learning sessions were based on information provided by participant farmers and FFS facilitators. Therefore, my assessment of usefulness of ELT to study FFS training activities is also based on my theoretical understanding of theory and information provided by participant farmers and facilitators. The ELT could be useful for assessing learners’ ability on observing events, reflection on problems, critical thinking and making decisions about problems objectively and applying developed concepts in the real field. ELT could provide more knowledge, skills and confidence to the participants for further learning and doing activities. ELT could be relevant for measuring in what ways participant farmers are/were involved in experiential learning activities: concrete experiences, reflective observation and conceptualization and active experimentation and have these activities (mental and physical) changed the level of knowledge, capacity and confidence for looking at the events, understanding the events logically and generating solution based on experience. Therefore, ELT could be useful for assessing changes in farmers’ knowledge, skills and capacity for doing mental and physical activities to solve their problems. ELT could be relevance to gauge how farmers were exposed with their problems in the beginning of FFS learning to get practical experiences and gathering personal perceptions over the problems. ELT could also helpful to know: were farmers motivated to look at the
73 problems from their own angles and make personal judgement over the problems; were farmers used to express their feelings, perceptions and convictions about the problems in group discussion; were farmers used to develop concepts by in-depth analysis and critical thinking and were farmer used to go for active experimentation by themselves for solving the problems. ELT could be useful to get answers of these questions: whether not farmers were actively participated in the observing the problems, reflection, conceptualization and active experimentation. Active involvement of farmers during learning session is important for understanding learning process, brining confidence in follow up learning and finally improving knowledge, capacity and skills of farmers for solving their local problems which are main thrust of FFS methodology. Additionally, one of the fundamental elements of ELT is action or use of the learnt practices and behaviours in the learning sessions. Therefore, ELT was useful for assessing whether FFS participants used learnt practices from FFS learning sessions or not. It was important in case of FFS learning because to promote use of learnt knowledge and practices is also one of the focuses of FFS approach. Equally, use of acquired knowledge and practices is also one of the essential components for the institutionalization of FFS approach. Therefore, ELT was very useful to measure the sustainability of aspect of FFS. In the same way, ELT is cyclic process that means the learning cycle keen on repeating one after another. In this context, also ELT was useful to assess whether FFS learning activities are getting continuity at the local level after terminating one complete crop cycle or not. ELT is based on principle of complete cycle of phenomenon or event. In case of experimental FFS learning in agriculture, it is study from seeding to harvesting (seed to seed). It is time consuming to observe whole cycle of learning and how farmers learnt during the learning session. Especially, for a researcher (like student for doing M.Sc. thesis) to study FFS learning activities and to assess in what ways farmer involve in learning cycle is time consuming task. If I had an opportunity to observe whole FFS learning activities from seed to seed, it would have been difficult to me to observe complete cycle and learning activities. Dissemination of generated knowledge is one the functions of FFS and for measuring sustainability aspect of FFS, it is crucial to see whether generated knowledge and practices are disseminated horizontally or not. Though dissemination is associated part of ELT, main conceptual elements of ELT (concrete experience, reflection observation and abstract conceptualization and active experimentation) dose not cover the dissemination of learnt practices and behaviour. Therefore, it was difficult to measure the dissemination of knowledge and practices generated from FFS by using ELT.
7.1.2. Innovation System Framework (ISF)
In this research, I also used ISF to measure institutionalization aspect of FFS approach. The use of ISF was to get answer of my second research question: Has FFS approach attained adequate institutionalization enabling context to safeguard and sustain participatory technology development? From innovation system perspective, innovation is outcome of combined efforts of different collective actors with their attitudes, interaction and enabling policies. ISF is a holistic analytical tool to know main actors and their roles, attitude and practices, pattern of interaction and suitable policies for assessing sustainability context of FFS approach. Therefore, to get details of enabling context of FFS, ISF is relevant and useful. ISF provided knowledge and information about who are main actors and what roles are they playing for institutionalization of FFS approach at national, regional level and local level: what
74 kinds of roles DADOs, DAO, PPD, INGO, TITAN, NARC, farmer facilitators and FFS farmers are playing for the institutionalization of FFS approach. ISF also gave me answer why NARC and other local level organizations such as VDC are not actively involving for sustaining FFS tool. ISF provided clear-cut pictures of about missing actors for sustaining and effectively generation innovation. The knowledge of matrix of actors and their roles has paved the way for further intervention and improvement. ISF was useful for understanding attitudes and practices of major actors’ of about FFS approach and collaborative action for the promotion of FFS. Without knowing the actual intentions of major actors about participatory technology development, sustainability aspect of FFS approach cannot be gauged because attitude and practices determines collaboration and networking. Clear insight about attitude and practices of actors was also helpful for knowing missing link between attitudes and practices of main actors. Such knowledge is crucial for understanding gap for institutionalization of FFS. Additionally, ISF is useful for getting details about interaction pattern of main actors: networking, collaboration and partnership actors have for conducting FFS learning activities jointly. Effective networking and collaboration are considered importance for sharing information, knowledge and resources. The use of ISF gave clear image that though major actors have forums for discussion and sharing knowledge and information, they don’t have partnership and collaboration for organizing the FFS collectively. This framework identifies common weaknesses of collaboration among actors for improving the innovation capacity. In addition to that ISF also helpful for investigating existing policies, strategies and programme government has which are supportive for strengthening the collaboration between actors, supporting the farmer facilitators’ organizations for horizontally expansion of FFS learning, supporting the FFS groups and school graduate farmers for improving the innovation generation capacity. Thus ISF was useful to know existing gap between government policies and intervention to support these policies. From limitation perspective, ISF focuses on involvement of whole diverse set of actors for the production, dissemination and use of innovation. Most of very related actors to agriculture innovation system weren’t aware and familiar about FFS approach, therefore, it was difficult get to these actors’ attitude and practices to get holistic picture of sustainability aspect of FFS approach. Similarly, in the context of less networking and linkages among related actors with aim of promoting the FFS approach, it was difficult to get real picture of their perceptions and interests over collaborative activities as most of actors have culture of doing activities individually and they don’t have even think of collaborating with each other for promoting innovation. Sometimes it was difficult to get the attitudes of actors about FFS approach and collaborative practices and to correlate attitude with their real practices. In the context of less developed networking and partnership activities. Similarly, enabling environment itself is vague term difficult to narrow down to which aspect to assess in the context of less developed and less institutionalized context of FFS approach. Measuring suitable policies for the promotion of FFS approach was also broad term which aspect of policy to cover. Innovation system covers broad range of activities from generation of innovation to dissemination and use of innovation. Broad range of policies could be useful to see the prospective of sustainability but it was difficult to cover whole of them to assess the institutionalization context of newly introduced and less developed approach of extension like FFS.
75
7.2. Institutionalization status of FFS approach
Before analysing whether FFS approach has been institutionalized or not, I would like to focus on what institutionalization actually is? As abovementioned in the chapter 5 “Institutionalization is a process in which new ideas and practices are introduced, accepted and used by individuals and organizations so that new ideas become part of the norm” (Sutherland, 2000). Furthermore, “institutionalization is transformation of norms, attitudes, behaviours and organizational structures so that the idea becomes the norm (Pimbert, 2002 cited by CIP-UPWARD, 2003). According these two definitions, FFS to be institutionalized need to be adopted and accepted by the individuals and organizations as a norm or as their integral part. Has FFS approach become a norm of the concerned organizations, FFS farmers and farmer facilitators? What are the perceptions and practices of concerned organizations for promotion of FFS approach? What are the efforts of these organizations have for institutionalization of FFS approach? What are perceptions of FFS participants and farmer facilitators about FFS approach? What are the efforts and intensions of FFS participants and FFS facilitators? Answers of these questions, including some others, which are discussed in chapter 4, 5 and 6, clarify whether FFS approach has been institutionalized or not. In order to give a clear picture, I will highlight some points below: From FFS graduates’ perspectives, FFS graduates have positive attitude towards FFS approach but they are not interested or not committed for organizing learning activities by their own efforts at the local level that means farmers don’t have ownership feelings over FFS approach and have not integrated FFS experimental learning activities within their farming system. Therefore, it can be said that FFS approach has not institutionalized at the farming system or has not become norm of farming practices of FFS graduates. But FFS farmers’ groups are institutionalized in the government system that is IPM-FFS groups have been registered at the DADO and also have got recognition. Nonetheless, most of FFS groups do not have any effective activities for the promotion and institutionalization of FFS learning activities. From farmer facilitators’ perspective, farmer facilitators also have positive perceptions towards FFS approach but they are not fully committed to promote FFS approach. They are not ready to provide voluntary services to the FFS graduates and non-graduates at local level for horizontal expansion of FFS learning. Additionally, due to lack of strong commitment and capacity of farmer facilitators’ for generating resources and conducting FFS learning locally, FFS approach is not in condition to be promoted and/or institutionalized at local level without external support. From farmer facilitators’ networking perspective, district and regional level farmer facilitators’ organizations (facilitators’ association) have been established and these associations are registered and institutionalized under the government system: have acknowledged as IPM- FFS farmers/facilitators’ organizations and have legality to conduct FFS activities with the financial support of different government and private organizations. But these associations are not sufficiently active and functional for the promotion of FFS approach. From the perspective of public extension organizations, DOA/PPD is main organization who first introduced FFS in Nepal in 1997 as an extension approach and has been promoting this approach since then. But not fully committed for developing the collaboration and partnership with other important actors like NARC and I/NGOs for the promotion of FFS. The initiative of DOA (PPD) is not praiseworthy for the formation of regional and national level farmer facilitator’ associations. FFS approach still has been looked from project oriented perspective rather than one of the approach of extension. DOA, DADOs and other government
76 organizations give top priority to the material supports (seed, fertilizers and other production materials) rather than focusing on human resource development that is to strengthen farmers’ capacity to innovate. Regarding the government policies, FFS approach has been adopted as one of the extension approaches of MOAC; FFS approach and IPM practices have been recognized by GON periodic plan (9th and 10 th Year Plan); FFS approach has got priority in the extension strategy of DAO (2004). Therefore, from the policy point of view, FFS approach has been institutionalized in the government system. But from the regular program perspective, FFS related programmes are not institutionalized as programmes of DOA and other organizations under DOA: TOT/TOF has not become a part of regular program of training centres (CATC and RATC); FFS trainings have not got priority in the regular program of DADOs and DADOs don’t have effective monitoring and evaluation system to assess the activities of FFS graduates and effects of FFS learning. Therefore, FFS approach hasn’t become holistic approach of extension in government system. From actors networking and collaboration point of view, multi-stakeholders coordination committees (NCC, RCC and DCC) at district level, regional level and national level have been established for the promotion of FFS approach and these committees have institutionalized in the government system (regular meeting and provision of government budget). But working collaboration and partnership between actors for promotion of FFS approach have not institutionalized yet. From perspective of research, NARC, only one government research organization, has great role for generation of innovation in agriculture sector, has not adopted the FFS approach under its system that is FFS approach has not institutionalized in the research system yet. This is one the threats to the institutionalization of FFS approach. Finally, from organizational development of point of view (formation and registration of FFS groups, formation and registration facilitators’ associations, formation and recognition of multi-stakeholders committees (NCC, RCC, DCC), FFS approach has been institutionalized. But from the functionality point of view (activities of FFS graduates and groups, activities and programs of FFS facilitators and facilitators’ organizations, and regular activities and programs of multi-stakeholders committees, programs of DADOs and other government organizations), FFS approach and practices has not institutionalized yet.
7.3. Recommendations
• FFS doesn’t fit and success everywhere. Sites with specific conditions and having potentiality of horizontal expansion are considered suitable. However, in majority of cases of my research I found that FFSs were established in areas having easy accessibility, already established farmer groups and areas familiar to facilitators rather than areas having specific needs and problems (areas having problems of diseases and insects, low production of crops and areas having potential for expanding some crops, for example, vegetables). In such cases, FFS learning and sharing activities cannot be sustained and promoted horizontally. Therefore, facilitators need to give careful attention while selecting sites for organizing FFS training. For this purpose, PPD and DADOs need to reorient to especially to farmers facilitators. • Majority of farmer facilitators don’t have clear understanding about long term goal of FFS training. Those facilitators who don’t have understanding about FFS approach (for example, long term vision of FFS training, role of facilitators, role of farmers after FFS
77
training), can’t provide adequate information and knowledge to FFS participants before and during FFS training. FFS farmers who don’t have clear understanding of long term goal of FFS training can’t give continuity to the learning activities in the local level after FFS training. In this condition, the FFS approach can’t sustain at the community level. PPD, TITAN and DADOs need to reorient farmer facilitators about long term vision and goal of FFS training consequently they can also provide detail information to the farmers during FFS training sessions. • Focus of FFS training is to make farmers understanding of FFS learning process and strengthening their capacity to understand field problems, reflective observation, critically thinking about the problems, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation. However, FFS training has not adequately strengthened the capacity of farmers for critically analysing the problems and generating the solutions for their local problems. In this condition, FFS learning and sharing process doesn’t seem to be continuing at the local level due to inadequate confidence and understanding of the learning process. To build up the farmers’ skills, knowledge and confidence in the collective learning, at least of 2-3 cycles of trainings need to be provided consecutively. Therefore, DOA (PPD) and DADOs need to keep on supporting the FFS groups at least for three crop cycle to develop self-learning and confidence in the experimental learning process. • The thrust of FFS experimental learning is to continuing learning and sharing process at local level after first round of learning cycle. Continued learning not only builds up FFS farmers’ knowledge and capacity for critical thinking and to organize FFS learning activities but also develops the feeling of ownership over FFS learning activities. But I found that only 20% FFS groups have given continuity to learning process after the FFS training. This picture reveals that FFS learning and sharing activities aren’t in condition to sustain at local level. For sustaining learning process, continue motivation to FFS graduates to use their local resources and technical advices can be an effective option. Roles of local farmer facilitators can be vital in this regard. Therefore, DADOs and farmer facilitators’ associations required to work to motivate the FFS groups for continuing the FFS learning process. • Horizontal sharing and diffusion of knowledge generated from FFS is also crucial for institutionalization of FFS learning approach. Mostly, the FFS graduates don’t share acquired knowledge to other non-FFS farmers. This is also a threat for the sustainability of FFS approach. FFS groups could be good means for sharing the learnt from the FFS. In this context, reorientation to the leaders and members of FFS groups about sharing of knowledge to other farmers of community is important. For this, DADOs and farmer facilitators’ associations required to play vital role that is motivating FFS farmers for disseminating the knowledge and learnt practices horizontally. • Innovation is an interactive process and well functioning of innovation system depends on ability of actors to interact and exchange of information and knowledge with each other. Cultures of coordination and collaboration have to be developed among the actors for promoting FFS approach. But DOA (PPD DADOs), INGO, NARC and other private organizations don’t have working collaboration for up scaling of FFS approach. For the sustainability of FFS approach, DOA needs to initiate working collaboration and partnership with INGO, NGOs, NARC and other private organizations (agro-vets, seed company etc.). Such collaboration not only sustains FFS experimental learning process but also increases their collective capacity to innovative. In this context, DOA having responsibility of promoting FFS approach needs to change their individually working culture and have to join hands with others organizations for partnership for sustaining the FFS approach.
78
• NARC is a major source of knowledge and has more expertise in the generating technologies and new cultivation practices. Such expertise and experiences will be helpful and valuable for the promotion and institutionalization of FFS approach. NARC still has culture of focusing on Transfer of Technology (TOT) model of innovation rather than embarking of non-linear model of innovation. However, to make technology effective and to promote adoption rate of innovation, involvement of other actors especially of extension, producer organizations and other concerned private organizations is crucial in the technology development process. So, institutional change (change in attitude, practices and motive of collaboration) within NARC system is necessary for adopting and/giving priority for participatory technology development model. Change in traditional mentality of one way development of innovation helps to adopt the FFS model of innovation in the NARC system which provides room for sustainability and institutionalization of FFS approach. • FFS related programs have got low priority under DOA extension systems. For example, TOT/TOF and refresher training to FFS facilitators have not become regular programmes of CATC and RATCs; FFS trainings have not become priority programs of DADOs etc. Even if DOA (DADOs) has positive attitude toward FFS approach, in practices they are focusing on material supports to the farmers rather than emphasizing on capacity development of farmers to solve their problems by themselves. However, in order to institutionalize FFS approach and in the government extension system, DAO, CATC, RATC, RPPL, and DADOs need to include FFS related programs in their regular programs. • Monitoring and evaluation to assesses the effects of FFS training in the farming system, activities of FFS graduates and assessment of capacity and interest of FFS groups for continuing the learning process and identifying kinds of support they require for sustaining the FFS practices are important for the sustainability of FFS approach. DADOs have to develop strong mechanism for monitoring and evaluation of FFS groups and need to assess what constraints they have and in what ways FFS groups can be motivated to give continuity to learning process at the local level by the use of their local resources. • At local level, roles of VDCs (local government have fund for development of local area) could be vital for the promotion and sustainability of FFS approach. DADOs, farmer facilitators’ associations and FFS groups have not inadequately approached to the VDCs for financial support for the promotion of FFS approach. In this context, role farmer facilitators associations are important to lobbying with VDCs for financial support. DADOs also need to develop cooperation with the VDCs for generating resources for institutionalization of FFS approach at local level. • FFS farmers associations are vital for the promotion of FFS approach. Associations can advocate and lobby for the institutionalization of FFS from local to national level and to make FFS approach a holistic approach of extension system of government, Non- government and private organizations. But FFS farmers’ associations have not formed at regional and national level. In this context, PPD, RPPLs, RADs and DADOs need to take initiative to guide the FFS farmers and farmer facilitators to form the regional and national level associations. 7.4. Limitation of research
Firstly, one of limitation of my research is that I did not get chance to observe the execution of FFS learning activities. How did/do farmers actually learn in the FFS learning sessions: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization and active
79 experimentation). Study of whole FFS-cycle gives clearer picture about FFS learning activities and participants’ involvement in the learning process so that it would be easy to assess where is weakness in the learning process: whether farmers actively involve in the learning process or not. Secondly, due to limitation of time I couldn’t cover all actors who are involved in multi- stakeholder committee (DCCs, RCCs and NCC). I only could cover the major actors, public extension (DOA, PPRL, DADOs, RADs, CATC, PPD etc), research (NARC), INGO and TITAN and farmer organizations. Some other actors who were left out: District Development councils (local government organization has responsibility of allocating government budget for local level development); local political leaders (for example, leaders of VDCs), people from Seed Company, officials from the cooperatives, officials from the NGO federation (who are guiding organization for NGOs and INGOs), officials from the VDC federation etc. If I had sufficient time, I would have been able to know attitude and motive of these actors about FFS approach. The perspectives and attitudes of these additional different actors would have been valuable for knowing future possibility of institutionalization of FFS approach. Thirdly, due to time constraints, I only chose two districts having high density of FFS but left out other districts having medium density of FFS and low density of FFS (for detail see the picture 4 map of Nepal). If I had time to choose at least two/two district from three different categories, this would have been more sufficient to get clearer picture about what is institutionalization status in different categories of districts. Fourthly, owing to limitation of time, I selected districts only from 2 Development Region out of 5 Development Regions of the country. If I could have chosen districts from all development regions, the result would have been the representative of whole country. My result, institutionalization status of FFS may not represent whole country because in other development region, the institutionalization status may be different. Further research : In this research I tried to see the FFS from experimental learning and participatory technology development point of view but owing to limited time and financial constraints, I could not cover all concerned actors and sufficient case studies representing whole country. However, in the context of decentralization of agricultural extension services a broader study including major actors at local level, VDCs, DDC, agriculture cooperatives, private organization (agro-vets, Seed Company and chamber of commerce), NGOs, CBOs and other different kinds of local farmer organizations is crucial in order to assess the further institutionalization status of FFS. Additionally, impacts of FFS on other aspects of development would also be important. Further interesting and crucial areas of study are: impact of FFS on pesticides use, economical impact and social and political impacts of FFS on the society. Furthermore, impacts of FFS training on different category of farmers: large scale commercial farmers, small scale commercial farmers, poor farmers and farmers of different castes and culture are equally important. It is important to see impacts of FFS training on these varied categories of farmers. Impact of FFS on women empowerment would also be an interesting topic as major focus of FFS training was on women empowerment. What is the effect of FFS on women empowerment: social capital, involvement in household and societal decision making process, involvement in different rural local peoples’ organizations (local areas improvement committees, water and sanitation committees, forest committees etc), and economic empowerment ?
80
References
Bartlett, A. (2005). Farmer Schools to promote Integrated Pest Management in Asia: the FAO Experience. Case Study presented to the Workshop on Scaling Up Case Studies in Agriculture, International Rice Research Institute, 16-18 August 2005, Bangkok.
Basnyat, B.B. (1991). Agriculture Extension System in Nepal. Development Pioneer PVT. Ltd, Satdobato, Kathmandu.
Braun, A. & Duveskog, D. (2008). The Farmer Field School Approach– History, Global Assessment and Success Stories, Paper commissioned by The International Fund for Agricultural Development, October 2008, FAO Community IPM Programme, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Braun, A. and et al (2006). A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences, Report prepared for the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Final Report June 2006, Endelea Rietveldlaan, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
CIP-UPWARD, 2003. Farmer Field School: From IPM to Platform of learning and empowerment. International Potato Centre –Users’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research and Development, Los Bonos, Philippines. Rockefeller foundation.
David, J. and et al (2008). An innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems 98 , 1–9.
David, S. and et al (2006). A guide for conducting farmer field schools on cocoa integrated crop and pest management. Sustainable Tree Crops Program, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Accra, Ghana.
Dilts, R. (2001). From farmer field schools to community IPM: scaling up the IPM movement, LEISA magazine, pp18-21.
Dormon, E. and et al. (2006). Creating Space for innovation: the case of cocoa production in the suhum-Kraboa-coalter District of Ghana, A PhD thesis Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, pp107.
Feder, G., Murgai, R. and Quizon, J. B. (2004). The Acquisition and Diffusion of Knowledge: The Case of Pest Management Training in Farmer Field Schools, Indonesia. Journal of Agricultural Economics 55 (2), 221 -243.
Fliert, van de, E., Dilts, R. and Pontius, J. (2002). Farmer researcher teams, farmer field schools and community IPM: Different platforms for different research and learning objectives. In: Leeuwis, C. and Pyburn, R. (2002). Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management. Royal Van Gorcum BV, Assen, The Netherlands, pp120-133.
Gallagher, K. (2000), Community study programmes for integrated production and pest management: Farmer Field Schools . Pages 60–67 In: FAO, Human Resources in Agricultural and Rural Development, Rome. Gallagher, K., Braun, A. R. and Duveskog, D. (2006), Demystifying Farmer Field School Concepts. Paper prepared in response to JIAEE paper by K. Davis. 6 pp. Available at: http://www.infobridge.org/FFSnet/output view.asp?outputID=3200.
Gallagher, K. (2003).Fundamental elements of a Farmer Field School. In: Leisa Magazine, March 2003, pp. 5-6.
81
Gallagher, K. (1998), Farmers Field Schools (FFS): A Group Extension Process Based on Adult Non- Formal Education Methods , Global IPM Facility. FAO, Rome, p7. Hall, A. J., and Yoganand B. (2004). New institutional arrangements in agricultural research and development in Africa: Concepts and case studies . In: Hall, A. J. Yoganand, B., Sulaiman, R. V., Raina, R. S., Prasad, C. S., Naik, G. C., and Clark, N. G. (Eds.), Innovations in Innovation: Reflections on Partnership, Institutions and Learning (pp. 105–131) . New Delhi and Andhra Pradesh, India: CPHP/ICRISAT/NCAP .
Hall, A., Mytelka, L. and Oyeyinka, B. (2006). Concepts and guidelines for diagnostic assessments of agricultural innovation capacity, Working paper series. United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and social Research and training centre on Innovation and Technology Keizer Karelplein, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Halla. A., Sulaimanb, R., Clarkc, N., Yogananda, B. (2003). From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems, 78 , 213–241. Hagmann, J.; Chuma, E.; Murwira, K.; Connolly, M. (1999). Putting process into practice: operationalising participatory extension. Network-Paper-Agricultural-Research-and- Extension-Network,-ODI (UK). 1999, no. 94, p23. Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S., Smits, R.E.H.M. (2007). Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 74, pp413–432.
Kayes, D. C. (2005). Internal Validity and Reliability of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory Version. Journal of Business and Psychology , 20 (2), pp 249-257.
Kibwika, P., Wals, A.E.J. and Nassuna-Musoke, M.G. (2009). Competence Challenges of Demand-Led Agricultural Research and Extension in Uganda, Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , 15 (1) pp 5-19.
Killough, S. (2009). Partnership for action research . In: Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. (eds.) Farmer First Revisited, innovation for agricultural research and development . Practical action, IDS, London.
Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jorsey. Kolb, D.A., Richard, E., Mainemelis, B. C. (2000). Department of Organizational Behaviour Weatherhead School of Management Case Western Reserve University Euclid Avenue. In: R. J. Sternberg and L. F. Zhang (eds.), Perspectives on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles. NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, Cleveland, OH.
Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. From: http://ag.arizona.edu/fcs/cyfernet/cyfar/focus .
Leeuwis, C. (2004). Innovation as a process of network building, social learning and negotiation: Implications for transdisciplinary research collaboration Presented at Trans- KARST, International Transdisciplinary Conference on Development and Conservation of Karst Regions, Hanoi, 13-18 September, 2004. Luther, G.C., Harris, C., Sherwood, S., Gallagher, K., Mangan, J. and Touré Gamby, K., (2005).Developments and Innovations in Farmer Field Schools and Training of Trainers. In:
82
Norton, G.W., E.A. Heinrichs, G. C. Luther and M.E. Irwin. Globalizing Integrated Pest Management - A Participatory Research Process. Blackwell Publishing, Iawa, USA. pp. 159-190. MOAC (2008). Statistical Information on Nepalese Agriculture (fiscal year 2007/08), Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative (MOAC). Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nassar-McMillan, S. C. and, DiAnne Borders, L. (2002). The Qualitative Report. From: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-1/nassar.html .
Ndoye, A. (2003). Experiential learning, self-beliefs and adult performance in Senegal Lifelong Education , 22 (4), pp 353–366.
Nederlof, E. S. and Odonkor, E. N. (2006). Lessons from an Experiential Learning Process: The Case of Cowpea Farmer Field Schools in Ghana , Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension , 12 (4), pp 249-271.
NPC, 2002. Tenth Five year Plan (2002-10), National Planning Commission (NPC), Government of Nepal, Kathmandu.
PPD (2008). Annual Progress Report, Plant Protection Directorate, Department of Agriculture (DOA), Harihar Bhawan, Nepal.
Pontius, J., Dilts, R., Bartlett, A. (eds.) (2000). Ten Years of Building Community: From Farmer Field Schools to Community IPM.
Pretty, J. (2000). Regenerating Agriculture In: Ten Years of IPM Training in Asia, FAO, 2000, p.6.
Quizon, J. and et. al (2002). A Note on the Sustainability of the Farmer Field School Approach to Agricultural Extension . Development Economics Group, The World Bank.
Roberts, T. G. (2006). A Philosophical Examination of Experiential Learning Theory for Agricultural Educators, Journal of Agricultural Education, 47 (1), pp 17-29.
Rajalahti, R., J. Willem, E. Pehu (2008). Agricultural Innovation Systems: From Diagnostics toward Operational Practices, Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 38, Agriculture & Rural Development Department, World Bank.
Rola, A.C, Jamias, S.B., Quizon, J.B. (2002). Do Farmer Field School Graduates Retain and Share What They Learn?: An Investigation in Iloilo, Philippines, Journal of International Agriculture and extension education , 9(1) , pp 65-76.
Simpson, B.M., (2002). Farmer field schools and the future of agricultural extension in Africa Faculty, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University and Consultant in Agriculture and Rural Development, Kevin Court Zionsville, USA.
Simpson, B. M. and Owens, M. (2000). Farmer Field Schools and the Future of Agricultural Extension in Africa, Proceedings of the 18th Annual Conference, 2000, Durban, South Africa . Spielman, D., Ekboir, J., Davis, K. (2006). Developing the Art and Science of Innovation Systems Inquiry: Alternative Tools and Methods and Applications to Sub-Saharan African Agriculture, International Food Policy Research Institute, Ethiopia, paper prepared for the Innovation Africa, 2006, Symposium Kampala, Uganda.
83
Spielman, D.J. (2005). Innovation Systems Perspectives on Developing-Country Agriculture: a critical review, ISNAR Discussion Paper- 2, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) division, International food policy institute (IFPRI). Stolzenbach, A., (1994). Learning by improvisation: Farmer experimentation in Mali In: Scoones, I. & J. Thompson (eds.). Beyond farmer first: rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice with a foreword by Robert Chambers Intermediate Technology: London . Sutherland A. (2000). Challenges in Institutionalising Farmer Participatory Research (in the context of a more participatory agricultural research and extension system). Paper prepared for the Second Farmer Participatory Research Forum, Awassa, Southern Region, Ethiopia 2000. Van den Berg, H. V.D. and Jiggins, J. (2007). Investing in Farmers: The Impacts of Farmer Field Schools in Relation to Integrated Pest Management, Wageningen University, The Netherlands World Development. 35 (4), pp663–686. Van Den Berg, H. and Jiggins, J. (2006). Investing in Farmers: The Impacts of Farmer Field Schools in Relation to Integrated Pest Management, World Development 35 (4), pp. 663– 686. Van de fliert, Dilts, E, R. and Pontius, J. (2002). Famer research terms, FFS and community IPM different platforms for different research learning objectives In: Leeuwis, C. and Rhiannon, P. (eds). Wheel barrow full of frogs: social learning in rural resource management, Business and economic . Koninklijke van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands pp121-134. Van Veldhuizen, L., Waters-Bayer, A., Killough,S. Espineli, M. Gonsalves, J. (2002). Institutionalizing Farmers Participatory Research. In: Leeuwis, C. & Pyburn, R. (eds.) (2002). Wheelbarrow Full of Frogs. Social Learning for natural Resource Management. Koninklijke van Gorcum, Assen, The Netherlands, pp 275-390. Wals, K., and Musoke, N., (2009). Competence Challenges of Demand-Led Agricultural Research and Extension in Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15 (1) pp 5-19. Wilsom, K. and Morren, G.E.B. (1990). Systems Approach for Improvement in agriculture and resource management. Macmillan, New York and Collier Macmillan, London. Winarto, Y. T. (1994). Encouraging knowledge exchange: integrated pest management in Indonesia, In: Scoones, I. & J. Thompson (eds.). Beyond farmer first: rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice with a foreword by Robert Chambers Intermediate Technology, London.
Winarto, Y.T (2009). Putting farmers first in Indonesia: the case of Farmer Field Schools. In: Scoones, I. and Thompson, J. (eds.) (2009). Farmer First Revisited, innovation for agricultural research and development. Practical action, IDS, London.
Wong, L.P. (2008). Data Analysis in Qualitative Research: a Brief Guide to Using Nvivo. Malaysian Family Physicians, 3 (1), pp 14-20. http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/2391/ .
World Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, World Bank.
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design & Method, Beverley Hills: Sage Publication.
84
Appendix
Name List of respondents (informal discussion and interview) S.N Name of the respondents Position Organizations 1 Bharat Prasad Upadhaya Director General DOA (also president of NCC) 2 Shiva Sundar Shrestha Ex-Director General DOA (NCC president) MOAC Present chief of AICC, 3 Bijaya Kumar Mallic Deputy Director General DOA (also member of NCC) 4 Laxman Poudel Chief of Planning section DOA 5 Dr. Suraj Pokharel Director PPD (Member-Secretary of NCC) 6 Dilliram Sharma Chief RPPL (member-secretary of RCC) 7 Dr. Binod Saha Coordinator FAO 1 st and 2 nd phase IPM-FFS project 8 Binod Hamal Plant protection officer PPD 9 Dhurba Bhatt Plant Protection officer Seed production and quality control centre, MOAC 9 Nalini SinghUpadhaya President TITAN (also member of NCC) 11 Shambhu Kumar Shrestha Chief CATC (also member of NCC) 12 Ganesh Kumar Shrestha Senior Training Officer CATC (RCC) 13 Prabin Lal Shrestha Senior Agricultural Dir ectorate of Agricultural Extension, Extension officer DOA (member of NCC) 14 Gita Koirala Extension Officer Directorate of Agricultural Extension, DOA 15 Tika Ram Mulicha Communication Agriculture Information and Officer/FFS facilitator Communication Centre (AICC) , MOAC 16 Ram Krishan Shrestha Agriculture extension officer DOA 17 Ratna Kumar Jha Plant Protection officer DOA/TITIAN member/Senior FFS facilitator 18 Yam Kumar Shrestha Plant protection officer Pesticide registration section DOA/FFS facilitator 19 Shankar Prasad Plant Protection officer DOA/TITAN member/FFS facilitator Naupanee 20 Janardhan Sharma Regional Director Regional Agriculture Directorate (RAD), Pokhara , western development region 21 Bishnu Prasad Arya Regional Director RAD, Harihar Bhawan 22 Kul Deep Ghimire Plant Protection officer RPPL (RCC), Kaski 23 Achute Dakal Chief DADO Kathmandu (president of DCC) 24 Basu Bhandari Plant Protection Officer DADO Kathmandu (member secretary of DCC Kathmandu) Naresh Chandra Extension Officer DADO Kathmandu Ghimire 25 Arjun Babu Naupane Chief DADO Tanahun (president of DCC Tanahun) 26 Krishna Prasad Khanal Extension Officer DADO Tanahun 27 Ram Chandra Sedai Agriculture Assistant DADO Tanahun 28 Bhola Man Singh Basnet Director Planning and Coordination Director NARC (NCC member) 29 Dil Prasad Serchand Director Agronomy and Horticulture, Division NARC/NCC 30 Hira Kaji Manandhar Chief Planning Division, NARC 31 Shree Baba Pradhan Chief Entomology Division, NARC 32 Suraj Baidhya Pathology Research officer Pathology Division, NARC 33 Rameshor Maharjan Entomology Research Entomology Division officer
85
34 Tej Basnet IPM officer Caritas-Nepal/NCC/RCC member 35 Anand Pyakurel IPM Technical assistant Caritas-Nepal/RCC/DCC member 36 Hari Dhungana IPM Technical assistant Caritas-Nepal/ DCC member 37 Krishna Kumar Tamang Field Assistant Caritas-Nepal/DCC member 38 Rita Bastakoti President, Regional, Mid Western Development Region farmer facilitators’ association 39 Sobha Humagai Farmer member TITAN/farmer facilitator/farmer association 40 Laxmi Wagle President Farmer facilitators’ association, Tanahun 41 Sarasoti Gautam Treasure Farmer facilitators’ association, Tanahun 42 Sarasoti Paudel Secretary Farmer facilitators’ association, Tanahun 43 Narayan Tiwari General member Farmer facilitators’ association, Tanahun 44 Shoba Koirala General member Farmer facilitators’ association, Tanahun 45 Nila Kantha Amatya President Farmer facilitators’ association, Kathmandu 46 Survarns Shrestha member Farmer facilitators’ association, Kathmandu (farmer member TITAN) 47 Bimala Karki member Farmer facilitators’ association, Kathmandu (farmer member TITAN) 48 Balanani Maharjan member Farmer facilitators’ association, Kathmandu 49 Madhunani Maharja member Farmer facilitators’ association, Kathmandu
List of FFS groups and numbers of farmer participated in focus group discussion in Kathmandu district 1. Name of FFS groups Total number of Actively participated members members present 2 Raksha Devi IPM-FFS, Kavresthali, Kathmandu 25 10 3 Bishnudevi IPM-FFS, Satungal, Kathmandu 12 7 4 Shankhapur IPM-FFS, Panga Dusi, Kathmandu 11 6 5 Shivapuri IPM-FFS, Gokarna, Kathmandu 23 10 6 Mulpani -PM-FFS, Mulpani, Kathmandu 10 6
List of FFS groups and numbers of farmers participated in the focus group discussion in Tanahun district S.N Name of IPM-FFS Total number of Actively participated members present members 1 Shiva IPM-FFS, Dumsi, Tanahun 18 8 2 Raktakali IPM-FFS, Bankewa, 13 6 Dulegauda, Tanahun 3 Janajagaran IPM-FFS, Hatiya, 24 10 Dulegauda, Tanahun 4 Kurinchaur, IPM-FFS, Jamune 20 8 Bhanjayan, Tanahun 5. Akala IPM-FFS, Manpang, Tanahun 21 9
86