Training News

In this section we welcome all your experiences in working directly with the end-users of arthropod and microbial biocontrol agents or in educational activities on natural enemies aimed at students, farmers, extension staff or policymakers.

Feedback on Farmer Field Schools

Since 1998, we have reported on many participatory training and research initiatives around the world. In this issue, we are revisiting two programmes based on the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach, to report on what has happened since, and see if there are any general lessons to be learned. A message that comes through clearly in both these studies is that farmer commitment to biocontrol and IPM remains high, but follow-up training is crucial (for both trainers and farmers) to reinforce understanding of IPM and fill in the inevitable gaps in knowledge.

Keeping off the Treadmill

We begin with an update to the first article to be published in `Training News' [BNI 19(2), 41N-42N, `Stepping off the cotton pesticide treadmill']. The article described how, in 1997, a farmer participatory training programme involving Training of Trainers (TOT) and Farmer Field School (FFS) approaches had enabled cotton farmers from Vehari District of Punjab Province in Pakistan to become IPM practitioners. The trained farmers made decisions that lowered their input costs by 68% while maintaining or even increasing crop yield and quality.

The continuing impact of the programme was assessed at the beginning of the 1999 growing season. The aim was to find out what the FFS graduates were doing 2 years on - what aspects of training they were confident in and what needed reinforcing. A survey revealed that of the ten FFS farmer groups trained in 1997, five were still very active. At least 80% of the graduates were still involved in active FFS groups and the most visible effect of the training was that they were familiar with various stages of pests and beneficials and many were conducting agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA) in their own fields, outside the group sessions. At the five other sites, FFS groups were less active but insecticide application remained much reduced compared with before the training.

There was evidence for limited spread of IPM concepts and practices to farmers in districts neighbouring those targeted by the participatory research programme, although not sufficient to enable new farmers to carry out IPM in practice. Some of the farmers in adjacent districts who were interviewed were familiar with some beneficials, and even more were familiar with IPM terminology. But they had no understanding of the concepts, or how to practise IPM. It was concluded that insufficient dissemination of IPM technology had taken place to give untrained farmers a sound basis for changing their management practices.

Interviews were conducted with 15 FFS graduates from 1997 and 15 untrained farmers in each of the five localities where the FFS groups were still most active to assess farmer perceptions of the effectiveness of FFS training and IPM. The findings were used to revise the curriculum for 1999.

FFS training in 1999 was carried out in close collaboration with five community-based organizations (CBOs) coordinated by the NGO Catholic Relief Service. Five trainers from each CBO, many of whom are cotton farmers themselves, were trained as FFS facilitators, each taking responsibility for facilitating activities with five farmers in each FFS group. Good local networks have been built up as a result of this community-level participation and their effectiveness was demonstrated by the fact that over 90% of non-participating farmers in the five FFS communities also reduced or eliminated insecticide application on their cotton in 1999.

During the 1999 season, FFS groups again avoided early season insecticide application in all plots and were able to eliminate chemical control altogether in some of the IPM plots. Net profits for IPM and farmers' practice plots averaged 16,451 and 11,413 Rupees/ha, respectively, confirming again the economic benefits of IPM for a second season. In the Punjab context it is critical for FFS projects to convince farmers and extension staff that IPM can be viable over a range of pest pressure, climate and economic variability. However, there is now acceptance in wider circles in Pakistan of the FFS approach, and this recognition will help to facilitate implementation of future cotton IPM programmes.

When farmers were questioned about current problems in cotton production, high price of cottonseed was identified as the most severe constraint at all five sites, and at three sites pest control came second. However, at the other two, pest control was not considered a main issue, and most FFS-trained farmers said that the presence of beneficials meant that there was no need to apply insecticides. Most trained farmers at all sites were familiar with various, if not all, stages of pests and beneficials, while untrained farmers were overwhelmingly not. At one locality, most trained farmers had also retained an understanding of IPM terminology, its philosophy and importance. At other localities, the farmers' level of familiarity had dropped considerably, although it still greatly exceeded that of untrained farmers. However, when asked to assess, on a five-point scale, their confidence at making IPM decisions without back-stopping, one-third of all trained farmers expressed no confidence at all, and the median level of confidence was 50%.

The reasons for this lack of confidence may lie at least in part in the arsenal of pests that attacks cotton in the Punjab: pest status and levels can differ hugely between seasons. The 1997 season, for example, was marked by low Helicoverpa pressure in some areas while whitefly and associated viral disease was critical. Farmers who trained during that year will have had ample reinforcement during the season of IPM practices appropriate for whitefly outbreaks. However, in 1998 Helicoverpa bollworm caused havoc in most areas, but FFS-trained farmers had had little experience of this pest in the IPM context. Insecticide application frequency increased but in many cases failed to control the problem. Then in 1999, spotted bollworm (Earias spp.) was identified by many farmers as the major production constraint. Yields have also fluctuated considerably over the last 3 years. It is evident that one season's training alone is not sufficient to prepare farmers or facilitators to manage the variation. Follow-up and post-training support are therefore particularly important to help FFS graduates, farmer groups and facilitators cope with the huge variability in pest dynamics.

Contact: Ashraf Poswal,
CABI Bioscience Centre,
PO Box 8,
Rawalpindi,
Pakistan
Email:
Fax: +92 51 451 147

Extending Vegetable IPM

This second update is for a much more recent report [BNI 20(4), 119N-120N, `Vegetable IPM gains ground in Ghana'], which described the detailed planning that had gone into designing a season-long `Training of Trainers' (TOT) course in Weija in 1998. Since then, the trainers (as FFS facilitators) and master trainers have been developing and executing FFS activities in their respective districts of Ghana. In a more recent survey, IPM FFS graduates and their facilitators were asked what they felt they had gained from the training experience. Here we are able not only to describe farm-based results and on-going activities, but also to report the facilitators' and farmers' views.

Crops targeted by FFSs were mainly the TOT crops (tomato and cabbage), but validation trials and/or FFSs have been undertaken on other crops at other sites, for example, onion, hot pepper, aubergine [eggplant], okra and lettuce. In many locations, although tomato was a familiar crop, cabbage was rare if not completely new.

Farmers reported learning about a range of new or modified practices and ideas: about insect pests and beneficials, use of neem, mulching, regular monitoring through agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA), regular planting schemes, and nursery practices. Many also talked about learning to work together as a team. However, some techniques were mentioned less often, including balancing organic and inorganic fertilizers, composting, staking for tomatoes, how diseases spread, and the importance of good seed.

Benefits farmers reported were varied and many. There has been a significant cut in input costs because of reduced pesticide use combined with the switch to locally produced and cheaper neem-based products. Labour inputs have been cut because there are fewer pesticide applications, and time savings are also made through mulching (less watering and weeding). Farmers report improved health from less pesticide use and better working practices, but also from the addition of cabbage to the family diet. The training has enabled them to plan their work better, and they report better and more sustainable production from relatively small areas of land. Better crop sanitation has led to a reduction in disease and grasshopper attack. Overall, adoption of IPM has meant better quality produce with less rejected by the market, and farmers feel they have benefited by working together to solve problems.

Yields and farmer incomes both improved dramatically post-FFS. In most locations, farmers experienced a two- to three-fold increase in tomato production, and at one location the increase was four-fold. Cabbage production changed from none or hardly any to good (for example, 80% of plants producing marketable heads). Farmers' incomes also increased by up to four times, and this has meant not only an improvement in their living standards, but also further investment and diversification in their farms.

There are a few thorns in this otherwise rosy picture. The marketing situation (fluctuating prices and buyers monopolies) is not favourable, and credit is hard to come by. Farmers are perhaps currently over-reliant on neem, which they have tended to adopt as the answer to all pest (and disease!) problems. Whether this will lead to new problems remains to be seen. In some locations there are specific problems, and lack of irrigation facilities, access to land, or good quality seed were cited as impediments in various places. On the whole, though, farmers felt they had benefited greatly from FFSs, and agreed that more farmers should be exposed to its methods. But they stressed that it was important for trained farmers to continue to meet for discussion and information exchange.

Facilitators also felt their FFSs had been a success. They cited the information offered, training methods used and willingness of the farmers to learn as the key factors. Master trainers provided good back up during first FFSs, but there has been no refresher training. Facilitators also stressed the need for continuing learning for themselves, and suggested that they should meet once or twice a year for additional information and exchange of experiences. A more integrated approach to all pest management and improved facilitation of farmer decision-making could be addressed in workshops, which could focus on gaps in the current FFS curriculum.

Farmers, post-FFS, have adopted a wide range of practices, indicating that the FFS facilitators successfully addressed a wide range of topics. Not only have FFS-trained farmers gained economically from improvements in the target crops (tomato and cabbage) by adopting a wide range of practices learned in FFSs, but there has also been a clear adaptation of the cabbage and tomato IPM curricula to other crops (and this includes staples and cocoa, as well as other vegetables). If farmers are focusing now on some components of IPM and neglecting others, this can be addressed by appropriate follow-up activities.

All it takes is time, and particularly facilitators with more time on the ground and able to travel around their districts. If, as seems likely, the FFS approach is adopted as the common extension methodology in Ghana (a process that has already been initiated by the central Ministry of Food and Agriculture office), resources and time will be less tautly stretched between conventional extension and participatory approaches.

Contact: Janny Vos,
CABI Bioscience UK Centre,
Silwood Park,
Buckhurst Road,
Ascot,
Berks. SL5 7TA, UK
Email:
Fax: +44 1491 829123