Farmer Water Schools of APFAMGS program


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Farmer Water Schools of APFAMGS program

  1. 1. Farmer Water Schools (FWS)
  2. 2. FFS Approach: Origin & Objectives • FFS: brown plant hopper infestation in paddy • Main objectives: – Improve farmers analytical and decision-making skills, – Develop an understanding of ecological principles & pest population dynamics – End dependency on pesticides • Principles of Nonformal education & Discovery Learning • Farmers select/transform technologies – to fit the specific ecological and economic conditions, and – contribute to overall food production. • Farmers understand: – issues affecting their livelihood – Need for debate and concerted action to protect their interests
  3. 3. AESA: Heart of FFS Observation Analysis Decision- making
  4. 4. Adaptation of FFS to CWB • FFS facilitators – subject knowledge and facilitation skills • FFS-TOT May 2005, build skills of the project staff – master facilitators. • By mid 2005, Farmers: – familiar with the PHM activities and – able to record PHM data into HMR books. – GMCs formed – capacities strengthened to monitor the PHM activities at habitation and HUN level. • Experiment adaptation of FFS to CWB Exercise.
  5. 5. FFS-CWB Impact • Farmer participants showed increased initiative to: – understand and discuss groundwater dynamics; – analyze the PHM data; – calculate water balance estimation; – share the learning of each session in GMCs; – present water balance estimation results in CWB workshops; and – disseminate key messages.
  6. 6. FWS conceptualization APFAMGS adopted FFS approach: • Discovery and experiential learning process • Farmers master concepts of groundwater management • Empower to effectively manage collective resource.
  7. 7. Goal of FWS • Farmers as experts • Farmers as PHM trainers • Farmers as researchers/scientists • Farmers as organizers, planners, advocates, activists • Farmers as policymakers
  8. 8. FWS objectives: • Empower farmers with knowledge and skills to measure recharge & draft • Sensitize farmers on the need for collective action • Sharpen the farmers’ ability to make critical and informed decisions on crop plans • Sensitize farmers on new ways of thinking and resolving issues
  9. 9. Farmer Water Schools [FWS] Participants discuss: • groundwater concepts & availability, • impact on crop growth, • role of institutions in sustainability, and • gender equity.
  10. 10. Hydro-ecosystem Analysis Observe • Recharge factors, like amount of rainfall, surface water, and rock & soil formation. • Discharge factors – no. of borewells, pumping hours/days, average discharge Analyze data [Discussion / Sharing] Reach decisions on crop plans & management of groundwater
  11. 11. FWS: Multi-cycle approach Reach large number of farmers; Simultaneous learning-teaching process: Farmer participants of first cycle facilitate 2nd cycle. FWS cycles one and two run simultaneously with gap of two to four days First cycle: FWS – 34; Second cycle: FWS– 272
  12. 12. PNGO Teams • identified content appropriate to local needs • involved farmers in development of session guides, identifying methods and dev. Models • made efforts to make farmer training sessions an exercise in discovery-learning • organized sessions where farmers could observe geological formations and structures • encouraged farmers to recap learnings at the start of each session.
  13. 13. Typical FWS: • Lasts a full hydrological year [June– May] • Between 25 and 30 farmers participate in an FWS • Farmers meet once every 15/20 days • Primary learning material: HU & farmer field • Field school close to the farming plots • Participants learn together in small groups of five to maximize participation • FFS educational methods are experiential, participatory and learner-centered
  14. 14. Typical FWS [contd.]: • Each FWS meeting includes at least three activities: hydro- ecosystem analysis, a special topic, and group dynamics activity • FWS participants conduct a study comparing farmer and experimental plots • FWS often includes several additional field studies depending on local field problems • Ballot Box Exercise: Pre- and post-test are conducted • Field Day: share learning and results of their studies
  15. 15. FWS & GMC/HUN • GMCs involved in FWS preparation meetings to determine needs, recruit participants and discuss logistics • Farmer participants share their learning from each FWS session at GMC meetings • HUNs take lead in the organization and conduct of Field Day
  16. 16. Intermediate results: PNGO Staff: • Acknowledge and value the use of nonformal education methods and experiential learning process in engaging farmers; • Focus on sharing the ‘Must Know’ and ‘Useful to Know’ information with farmers; • Actively involved lead farmers in making decisions on FWS sessions; • Encouraged farmers to participate in design of sessions, development of visuals and models.
  17. 17. Intermediate results… Farmer Outcomes: • Farmers are lead facilitators • HUN members are taking lead • Women emerged as facilitators and decision makers • Farmer participation improved the quality of FWS • Discuss sensitive issues like migration and vulnerability to HIV & AIDS • Farmers aware of the need to collectively assess and make decisions
  18. 18. Thank You