Farmer Water Schools of APFAMGS program

Farmer Water Schools Farmer Water Schools (FWS)(FWS)

FFS Approach: Origin & ObjectivesFFS 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

AESA: Heart of FFSAESA: Heart of FFS

Observation

Analysis

Decision-making

Adaptation of FFS to CWBAdaptation 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.

FFSFFS--CWB ImpactCWB 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.

FWS conceptualizationFWS conceptualizationAPFAMGS adopted FFS

approach:

• Discovery and experiential learning process

• Farmers master concepts of groundwater management

• Empower to effectively manage collective resource.

Goal of FWSGoal of FWS

• Farmers as experts• Farmers as PHM trainers

• Farmers as researchers/scientists

• Farmers as organizers, planners, advocates, activists

• Farmers as policymakers

FWS objectives: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

Farmer Water Schools [FWS]Farmer Water Schools [FWS]Participants discuss:• groundwater

concepts & availability,

• impact on crop growth,

• role of institutions in sustainability, and

• gender equity.

HydroHydro--ecosystem Analysisecosystem AnalysisObserve• 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

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

FWS: MultiFWS: Multi--cycle approachcycle approach

PNGO TeamsPNGO 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.

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

Typical FWS [contd.]: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

FWS & GMC/HUNFWS & 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

Intermediate results: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.

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

Intermediate resultsIntermediate results……

Thank You