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
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. 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. FWS conceptualization
APFAMGS adopted FFS
approach:
• Discovery and experiential
learning process
• Farmers master concepts
of groundwater
management
• Empower to effectively
manage collective resource.
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. 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. Farmer Water Schools [FWS]
Participants discuss:
• groundwater
concepts &
availability,
• impact on crop
growth,
• role of institutions
in sustainability,
and
• gender equity.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
