Integrated Soil Water and Nutrient Management and Dry ... - Icrisat

This study conducted a comparative analysis of the impact of alternative
FFS, traditional MF, and PAE approaches on promoting adoption of ISWNM
technologies. Impact was measured using a number of indicators including
changes in farmers’ knowledge, farmer practices, extension agents’ practices,
farmer empowerment, and cost-effectiveness. Results show that the FFS
training had a positive impact. FFS graduates have higher knowledge scores for
improved rainwater harvesting and soil fertility management compared to
non-FFS farmers. Compared to non-FFS farmers, FFS graduates have higher
adoption rates of improved soil fertility management practices and average
yields that are 5% higher for sorghum and 32% higher for maize.
Farmer Field School graduates interviewed in this study indeed
expressed their strong preference for FFS because they find it is superior to
the traditional MF training and group approaches for inducing the adoption of
soil fertility and water management technologies. FFS increase knowledge and
sharing through farmers visiting each other in fields and evaluating whether or
not to apply what they learn in FFS plots to their fields. This is because
learning-by-doing develops farmers’ confidence to apply the techniques on
their own fields. The main role of government extension officers becomes to
facilitate rather than to teach; the farmers decide almost everything
themselves; no decisions are imposed on the farmers; discussion and sharing of
ideas among farmers helps to build an integrated, farmer-driven curriculum;
observing crops throughout the season as a group builds confidence of
individual farmers to apply the knowledge in their main arable fields; building
leadership and problem solving through doing is important to get all members
to support the program; farmer-farmer and farmer-extension officer
interaction builds diverse knowledge and skills in individual farmers and helps
them put theory into practice; and farmers’ contributions are put together and
therefore no-one feels inferior or superior. The FFS concepts make farmers
feel that what they do is theirs and they do it for themselves for their benefit.
Farmers also prefer the FFS approach because even illiterate and elderly
farmers are easily able to do practical work as compared to learning theory.
Field days and trials help promote adoption of technologies that permit
farmers to harvest better yields even if there is very little rainfall. FFS build
cohesion in groups and sharing of responsibilities.
The study makes three recommendations. The first is to restructure the
MF approach and integrate it with the FFS approach. The second is to expand
investments for the development of farmer-led FFS. The third
51