Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Slideshows for you(20)

Similar to Innovative and successful Farmer Field Schools (FFS) experiences in Mali(20)

Advertisement

More from ICRISAT(20)

Advertisement

Innovative and successful Farmer Field Schools (FFS) experiences in Mali

  1. Innovative and successful Farmer Field Schools (FFS) experiences in Mali 28 August 2015 Dr John Rusagara Nzungize, ICRISAT
  2. Content of the presentation • Farmer Field Schools (FFS) Approach • Why FFS in Mali? • Key components & conditions for FFS success • Criteria for selection of candidate facilitators • Integration of research-extension system • Why FFS in Mali? • Principles of IPM methods • Reasons and strategy for FFS approach • Application of FFS in Mali • Conclusions
  3. Farmer Field Schools (FFS) Approach • Participatory extension approach • Non formal adult education methods – Discovery-based learning techniques – Experiential learning methods – Final decision based on recorded facts • Involvement of farmers at all steps • Farmers coming to learn together – Concept of learning by doing: conducting experiences – In the farmers’ areas/conditions
  4. Key components & conditions for FFS success Key components of FFS – Group of farmers – Study field/plot – Facilitator – Learning curriculum – Program leader Conditions / non negotiable points • Season long • AESA • Group dynamics • Special topics
  5. Criteria for selection of candidate facilitators • Done by farmers’ communities • Already active in the commodity • Recognized by other farmers as honest, accountable person • Minimum literacy (writing, reading etc….) » Ability to collect, analyse and disseminate data • Availability to attend season long training • Availability and patience to facilitate farmers groups
  6. Selection of farmers
  7. Season long Learning/discovering (planting- harvest)
  8. Season long learning/discovering (planting- harvest)
  9. FFS: Integration of research-extension system Top-down Research Extension Farmers FFS: Participatory& integrated Research FarmersExtension FFS
  10. Why FFS in Mali?
  11. Various biotic constraints • Decreasing productivity • Negative consequences » Decrease of farmers’ income » Food security affected • Necessity for a sustainable control » Which methods? » IPM: appropriate control strategy.
  12. Diversity of biotic constraints in Mali MHM (Millet Head Miner) Striga prevalence in some areas
  13. Principles of IPM methods • Growing a health crop on a health soil • Conservation of natural enemies • Visit the crop regulary and make observations/assessment • Improve continuously the soil fertility • Empowering farmers to make them becoming experts • Safely exploit the genetic diversity/crop varieties
  14. Why to choose IPM? • To ensure efficient and sustainable control of pests and diseases • Avoiding plant host resistance breakdown • Limiting the resistance to pesticides phenomenon • Reducing the negative impact on environment » Quality of environment » Preservation of natural resources » Health of workers and consumers • Increasing the farmers income » Disease control costs reduced » Production increased
  15. Reasons and strategy for FFS approach • Selected as an extension strategy to disseminate the IPM technology • Strategy: • Training of trainers » To avail the FFS facilitators • Training of farmers » To perform application of IPM methods
  16. Practical application of the FFS approach in the Malian context
  17. Application of FFS in Mali • IPM-ICM packages: entry point for FFS • Candidate facilitators: selected among the farmers’ communities • ToT on “season long” model • FFS on “season long” model – Groups formed by the facilitators – Study plot made available by participants – Input supplied by participants or by the program – Training curriculum developed according to the specific constraints
  18. Participatory identification of problems Inappropriate maintainance of diseased plants
  19. Active participation of beneficiaries • Participatory gap analysis » Designing the training curriculum based on the constraints to be addressed • Availing the study plot and inputs • Agreement on the field agenda to be respected • All operations achieved by participants
  20. Performing AESA and data analysis prior to decision making • Different parameters evaluated • Data collected and recorded • Discussion/analysis in sub groups • Presentation and decision making • Operations
  21. Achieved results in terms of training Years Facilitators FFS 2014 1700 11800 2015 2905 19600 Total 4605 31400
  22. 2.58 2.3 2 3.1 3.13 2.5 2.53 1.5 1.5 1.4 2 2 2 1.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Toroniou Guefoue 16 Grinkan Yerewolo Sewa Fadda Pablo Soumalenba Millet Sorghum Yield (T/Ha) in FFS conditions Yield (T/Ha) in farmer's conditions Yield at ToT
  23. Productivity increase & genetic resources conservation • Good agronomic practices • Higher productivity: market access » Whatever the crop » Whatever the variety • Increased income • Farmers interested by keeping the various genotypes • Active on-farm conservation of genetic resources » Diversity of products for families and market » A way for climate change mitigation » A tool for sustainable control of pests and diseases
  24. Conclusions • FFS is an appropriate tool for » Empowering and mobilizing farmers » Integration of research, extension & farmers » Availability of proximity extension agents in the communities • ICM packages easily disseminated » Exploitation of the full genetic potential » Sustainable control of all stresses (pests and diseases) • Productivity increases » Interest of farmers to maintain the different varieties • On farm conservation and management of genetic diversity » Climate change mitigation » Sustainable control of pests and diseases » Addressing the market needs
  25. Thank you very much for your attention
Advertisement