inventory of farmer study group initiatives in africa - Share4Dev.info

INVENTORY OF FARMER 

STUDY GROUP INITIATIVES 

IN AFRICA 

A SYNTHESIS REPORT 

REPORT PREPARED FOR THE CONFERENCE ON 

FARMER STUDY GROUP INITIATIVES IN AFRICA 

KADOMA, ZIMBABWE, 5-9 November 2006 

Arnoud Braun 

Final Report, 07 November 2006 

Endelea, Simon Vestdijkstraat 14, 6708 NW Wageningen, The Netherlands 

Tel. +31 (317) 451727; Fax. +31 (84) 7500302; Mobile: +31 (6) 30884640 

E-mail: arnoud.braun@planet.nl

Inventory of Farmer Study Group Initiatives in Africa – A Synthesis Report 

Arnoud R. Braun 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................. IV 

ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................... V 

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 

2. METHODOLGY...........................................................................................3 

3. FARMER STUDY GROUPS – AN OVERVIEW FOR AFRICA ...................4 

Study Circles.................................................................................................................4 

Study Circles in north America and Western Europe................................................4 

African Study Circle experiences ..............................................................................6 

Farmer Field Schools.................................................................................................10 

FFS in Africa............................................................................................................10 

Local Learning Groups (IED Afrique) ....................................................................13 

Farmer-To-Farmer Training Programme ..............................................................13 

Master Farmer Training Scheme.............................................................................14 

Farmer-To-Farmer Extension ..................................................................................14 

Zaï Field Schools - Burkina Faso.............................................................................14 

4. SYNTHESIS ..............................................................................................15 

Key Issues of FSGs.....................................................................................................15 

FSGs in the context of African demand-driven extension .....................................20 

Challenges and opportunities for FSGs ...................................................................21 

5. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................24 

6. REFERENCES ..........................................................................................25 

7. APPENDIXES ...........................................................................................28 

APPENDIX I Farmer Study Group Inventory Form, 2005...............................28 

APPENDIX II DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY CIRCLE 

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................30 

A study circle program.............................................................................................30 

ii



A study circle … ......................................................................................................30 

Study circles are based on the following principles.................................................30 

What are study circles right for?..............................................................................30 

Developing a study circle program..........................................................................31 

APPENDIX III 

SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE FFS APPROACH............34 

APPENDIX II KEY FSG CONTACTS ...............................................................37 

iii



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This report on Farmer Study Groups in Africa is a synthesis report of two 

sub-sub-regional reports, one for Eastern and Southern Africa prepared by 

Davison Masendeke and a second for Central and West Africa prepared by 

Femke Gordijn. I am grateful to Femke and Dave for their hard work during a 

difficult period to acquire information. During information collection many 

persons contacted were out of the office. 

Making an inventory study about West en Central Africa could not have done 

without the help of people that work in this region and/or have experience in 

this field of work. I would like to express a word of thanks to all of them: 

Ephraim Tekleab, Margriet Bredewold, Peter Ton, Herma Mulder, Annemarie 

van Paasen, Irene Guijt, William Settle, Ann Waters-Bayer, Brice Gbaguidi, 

Thea Hilhorst, Will Critchley, Marianna Wongtschowski, Henry Rene Diouf, 

Philippe de Leener, Jean-Marie Diop, Awa Faly Ba, Laurens van Veldhuizen, 

Femke Griffioen, Janice Jiggins, Niels Roling. Thank’s to all these people this 

report was made. 

In East and Southern Africa I will like to thank the following people: FAO 

Country Representatives and staff (too many to list) in Angola, Botswana, 

Burundi, the Congo, DR Congo, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, 

Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, 

Zambia, and Zimbabwe. I am also indebted to World Vision, SCC for 

providing data on FSGs. 

Various other persons in the countries covered, namely James Okoth, 

Julianus Thomas, Julia Chagunda, Betty Chinyamunyamu, Marie Widengard, 

Patricia Mukumbuta, Jens, Christian Riise, Mike Connolly, Jan Venema, 

Salome Nakazwe, Joseph Rusike, Julian Smith, Dumile Bhebhe and others 

not mentioned, made the results of this survey possible. 

A special thanks goes to Torsten Andersson from the Regional Resource 

Centre of SIDA in Nairobi, Kenya, for providing the assignment to Endelea 

and for providing guidance to the survey. 

Comments on the initial draft inventory were provided by SCC staff, which has 

been highly appreciated. 

Arnoud Braun 

Director 

Endelea 

iv



ABBREVIATIONS 

ADF 

Advanced Master Farmer 

AESA Agro-ecosystem Analysis 

ACDI Agricultural Cooperative Development International 

AfDB 

African Development Bank 

AGRITEX Agricultural Technical and Extension Services 

AMF 

Advanced Master farmer 

AREX Agricultural Research and extension (formerly AGRITEX) 

CBOs Community-based organisations 

CFC 

Common Fund for Commodities 

CIS 

Centre for International Co-operation 

COIF Community-owned innovation funds 

COTTCO Cotton Company of Zimbabwe 

CRS 

Catholic Relief Services 

DANIDA Danish International Development Agency 

DFID 

UK Department for International Development 

DRC 

Danish Refugee Council 

DSFL Dry Season Feeding of Livestock 

Dvet 

Department of veterinary Services 

ETC 

ETC Adviesgroep Nederland (Leusden) 

EU 

European Union 

FAIR 

Farmer Access to Innovation Resources 

FAO 

The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations 

FFS 

Farmer Field School 

FLG 

Farmer Learning Group 

FSG 

Farmer Support Group 

FTF 

Farmer-to- Farmer 

GIS 

Geographical Information System 

GoK 

Government of Kenya 

GoN 

Government of Namibia 

GoZ 

Government of Zimbabwe 

ICM 

Integrated Crop Management 

ICRISAT International Centre for Research in the Semi Arid Tropics 

IED 

Innovations, Environnement et Développement 

IFAD 

International Fund for Agricultural Development 

IIED 

International Institute for Environment and Development 

IIRR 

International Institute of Rural Reconstruction 

IITA 

International Institute for Tropical Agriculture 

IK 

indigenous knowledge 

ILRI 

International Livestock Research Institute 

INMASP Integrated nutrient management to attain sustainable productivity 

IPM 

Integrated Pest Management 

IPPM Integrated Production and Pest Management 

ISFs 

Innovation Support Funds 

IST 

International Support Team 

ISWNM Integrated Soil Water and Nutrient Management 

ITC 

International Trypanotolerant Centre 

JFFLS Junior Farmer Field and Life schools 

LBL 

Swiss Centre for Agricultural Extension 

MACO Ministry of Cooperatives 

MAFS Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 

MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 

v



MCP 

Multipurpose Consultancy 

MF 

Master farmer 

MoA 

Ministry of Agriculture 

MoE 

Ministry of Education 

MoH 

Ministry of Home Affairs 

MPC 

Multipurpose Consultancy 

NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems 

NGO 

Non governmental organisation 

NORAD Norwegian development co-operation 

NRM 

Natural Resource management 

NTPISSFM New approaches for technology, Policy and Institutions for Attaining 

Sustainable Improvements in Soil fertility Management in drought 

prone areas of Zimbabwe 

ORAP Organisation for Rural Associations in Progress 

PAN 

Pesticide Action Network 

RF 

Rockefeller Foundation 

PI 

Plan International 

PLA 

People living with HIV and AIDS 

PLWA People living with AIDS 

PPD 

Plant Protection Department 

PROFEIS Promotion de l’experimentation et l’innovation paysannes au Sahel 

PROFIEET Promoting Farmer Innovation and Experimentation in Ethiopia 

PROLINNOVA PROmoting Local INNOVAtion in ecologically-oriented agriculture 

and Natural Resource Management 

PRONAF Projet Niébé pour l’Afrique 

R&D 

Research and Development 

RRD 

Resource Centre for Rural Development 

SAAZ Semi Arid Areas of Zimbabwe 

SACCO Savings and Credit Cooperatives 

SCC 

Swedish Cooperative Center 

SC-UK Save the Children – United Kingdom 

SDC 

Switzerland’s agency for Development and Co-operation 

SIDA 

Swedish International Development cooperation 

STCP Sustainable Tree Crop Program 

ToT 

Training of Trainers 

UNDP United Nations Development Programme 

USA 

United States of America 

USAID United States Agency for International Development 

WB 

World Bank 

WFP 

World Food Programme 

vi



1. INTRODUCTION 

Among African countries 1 there is currently a strong focus on developing 

more effective and efficient agricultural extension services, moving gradually 

from top-down extension approaches, where the farmer is considered a 

recipient of technologies derived from National Agricultural Research and 

Extension Systems (NARES) to more participatory approaches that are 

farmer-driven or farmer-centred, where the farmer is involved in setting the 

research and extension agenda – empowering the farmer in decision-making. 

The principles, extent of farmer involvement, learning methodologies differ 

from approach to approach and from country to country. In this inventory the 

focus is on Farmer Study Groups. 

Group study approaches building on the study circle concept have had 

enormous impact in other regions of the world, such as Europe and USA, and 

currently there are also emerging initiatives in Africa that provide valuable 

lessons and experiences for how farmer-driven study groups can contribute to 

effective demand-driven extension in Africa. Study groups provide an 

opportunity for people to learn together, to strengthen their opportunities for 

influencing their own situation in life, and to fill gaps of knowledge and 

information in society. By managing processes themselves, participants 

practice democracy and systems of shared power in which they come to 

conclusions or make decisions by talking, listening and understanding. 

In view of scaling-up study group initiatives in Sub-Saharan African counties, 

the Resource Centre fro Rural Development (RRD) of SIDA, the Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) and the Swedish Cooperative 

Centre (SCC) plan to facilitate a sharing of experiences among study group 

initiatives in Sub-Saharan Africa, including a regional workshop for 

practitioners and policy makers. This inventory of farmer study group 

initiatives has been carried out in preparation for these activities as a step in 

identifying potential stakeholders and develop key issues that can be 

elaborated further in upcoming activities. 

Some initiatives that use farmer-driven study groups as an entry point for 

agricultural development and empowerment are Study Circles, Farmer Field 

Schools (FFS) 2 , Farmer to Farmer (FTF) Training, Master Farmer Training 

(MFT) and Local Learning Groups. These among other initiatives identified 

have been covered by this study. 

For the purpose of this study characteristics of Farmer Study Groups (FSG) 

have been defined as follows: 

• Groups of farmers (10-30 persons). 

• The group meets regularly over a longer period of time. 

1 In the context of this study reference is made to Sub-Saharan Africa; whenever Africa is 

mentioned in this document, reference is made to the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. 

2 Also including Farmer Field and Life Schools (FFLS) and Junior Farmer Filed and Life 

Schools (JFFLS). 

1



• Learning and knowledge creation takes place through participatory 

learning methods i.e. experiential learning, problem-based learning, 

training for transformation, etc. 

• Farmers set the agenda for the learning activities, and follow a 

curriculum or learning schedule/plan. 

• The entry point for learning is within the scope of rural development 

usually focusing on an agricultural enterprise/value chain, but even 

non-agricultural topics may be addressed by the group. 

• The expected outcome of such groups should be both agricultural 

enhancements as well as empowerment and group management skills. 

• If external resource persons are involved (such as extension staff or 

researchers) they should only have a facilitating role, i.e not be seen as 

leaders of the activity. 

2



2. METHODOLGY 

A team of three persons 3 carried out this FSG inventory. For practical 

reasons and for the purpose of this study Africa was divided in two regions, 

(1) Eastern and Southern Africa, and (2) Central and West Africa, the former 

being mainly Anglophone, the latter mainly Francophone. 

Information search and collection for this inventory was done through a 

literature search, an Internet search and by contacting persons and projects 

by e-mail and/or telephone. Specific contacts that were known to be working 

with FSG were sent the general background of the inventory, the FSG 

definition, general data requirements for the inventory and an FSG inventory 

form 4 (Appendix I) and were asked to (1) fill in the FSG inventory form, and (2) 

to provide a general overview of each FSG initiative. Sub-regional reports for 

Eastern and Southern Africa (Masendeke, 2006) and Central and West Africa 

(Gordijn, 2006) were produced, containing all the detailed inventory 

information for various projects per methodology, as collected through the 

inventory forms. The author acknowledges that this study may not cover all 

FSGs in Africa, since the inventory has not been exhaustive and has largely 

focussed on study circles and Farmer Field Schools. Any additional FSG 

methodologies, which are not covered by this inventory, but should be 

included, can be communicated to the author. 

Collected information and data was scrutinised to ascertain that the group 

methods complied with the FSG definition. Further consultations clarified grey 

areas such as the topical scope of learning, FSG principles and method of 

learning. Information and data was synthesized, grouping similar FSGs using 

mainly principles and the learning methodology or scope. Further analysis 

was done to identify key issues, challenges and opportunities for each of the 

groups. 

The various identified study group initiatives have been analysed to identify 

common or differing elements among the programmes, including aspects 

such as learning tools/methods applied, required facilitation, cost elements, 

impact of interventions, mainstreaming in government, market focus, inclusion 

of HIV/AIDS and other livelihood aspects in the learning. 

An evaluation was also done to what extent and in what way farmer study 

groups fit into the discussion in African countries on demand-driven extension 

services and privatisation. 

Based on the gathered information a synthesis of some key issues, 

challenges and opportunities has been made. This synthesis could be used 

as basis for further discussions and experience sharing among the various 

actors involved in farmer study group programmes, and that could serve as 

conference themes for an upcoming study group conference. 

3 Team composition: Arnoud Braun (coordinator), Davison Masendeke (Eastern and Southern 

Africa) and Femke Gordijn (Central and West Africa). 

4 The FSG inventory form includes a description of the program/institution, geographical 

scope, -the principles of the group study models, topical scope of the learning, materials 

published, brief cost estimate, general experiences and lessons learnt, and contact persons. 

3



3. FARMER STUDY GROUPS – An 

overview for Africa 

Study Circles 

Study circles provide an opportunity for people to learn together, to strengthen 

their opportunities for influencing their own situation in life, and to fill gaps of 

knowledge and information in society. A group of people meet regularly for a 

period of time, most often once per week, to study a certain subject or theme 

or to take part in a practical activity. Study circles are characterized by 

democratic values and are based upon the participants' taking responsibility 

for the work. Together they plan their studies, based on their own needs and 

interests. An important part of the study circle methodology is the exchange of 

experiences and ideas between participants and their own analysis of the 

subject studied where learning is based on the collected wisdom of the group. 

By managing the process themselves, participants practice democracy, and 

systems of shared power, where participants come to conclusions or make 

decisions by talking, listening and understanding. 

Unlike the traditional classroom – in which inequality affects the 

student/teacher relationship, in a study circle the technical expert has no more 

status than other group members. Often, there is a facilitator whose job is not 

to master the subject the group is discussing, but to keep the learning process 

going. Study circles focus on self-realization and social transformation by 

encouraging participants to blossom as individuals and to bring about change 

in society. 

A detailed description of the study circle methodology as developed by the 

Study Circle Resource Centre (http://www.studycircles.org/) is provided in 

Appendix II. The materials on this web site are based on “Organizing 

Community-wide Dialogue for Action and Change”, a comprehensive guide to 

develop a community-wide study circle program from start to finish (Campbell 

et al., 2001). 

Some positive aspects of the study circles (Campbell et al., 2001) are: 

• A simple way to establish direct contact with the grassroots level. 

• Promotion of frank and open discussions. 

• Building of self-confidence and awareness creation. 

• Equiping people with new ideas. 

• Development of critical analysis 

• Promotion of teamwork 

Study Circles in north America and Western Europe 

United States of America 

Study Circles originate from the civic and labour movements of the early 

1900’s in the United States of America and Canada. In 1989 the Study Circle 

4



Resource Centre (SCRC) 5 was established in the USA to find ways for all 

kinds of people to engage in dialogue and problem solving on critical social 

and political issues. SCRC helps communities by giving them the tools to 

organize productive dialogue, recruit diverse participants, find solutions, and 

work for action and change. SCRC works with many kinds of communities, on 

many different issues. In a large-scale study circle programme, people all over 

a neighborhood, city, county, school district, or region meet in diverse study 

circles over the same period of time. All the study circles work on the same 

issue and seek solutions for the whole community. At the end of the circles, 

people from all the groups work together on the action ideas that come out of 

the study circles. 

The main activities of the SCRC are to: 

• Provide consultation to community leaders, free of charge, at every stage 

of creating a study circle program. This includes advice on: how to develop 

a strong, diverse organizing coalition; how to set program goals and find 

ways to assess progress; how to develop or customize discussion guides; 

establishing the community’s capacity to train facilitators; connecting 

dialogue to action and change. 

• Publish how-to materials that are easy to use. These include: a 

comprehensive guide to organizing community-wide study circle programs; 

a guide to training facilitators; and study circle guides on a wide range of 

issues. 

The Netherlands 

The history of Dutch study circles reaches back to the late nineteenth century. 

Stories are known from that era about farmers who came together for 

instance after church on Sunday to discuss the season-related affairs on their 

farms. They would talk about everyday business but also about the prospects 

of innovations like the introduction of maize or fertiliser. Farmer study groups 

have been popular in the Netherlands since they first started. Horticulture saw 

the first consolidation, with such groups becoming the backbone of knowledge 

management for growers of vegetables, flowers and ornamentals in 

glasshouses. In this sector, research and extension could not produce results 

quickly enough for farmers. So farmers sought other ways to develop 

knowledge and exchange information on innovations, principally through 

study circles or groups (Guijt and Proost, 2002). 

Dutch agriculture today contains study circles or groups with a range of 

features. The smallest groups consist of no more than eight to twelve 

members. They focus on a specific crop or sector or on a related topic, such 

as marketing or soil fertilisation. The largest groups can be found in dairy 

farming with 80 to 100 farmers who meet a few times during the winter. 

Sweden 

5 A project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan foundation 

whose mission is "to advance deliberative democracy and improve the quality of public life in 

the United States." Annual budget: $1.4 million. SCRC's core budget is underwritten by The 

Paul J. Aicher Foundation. 

5



Sweden imported the idea of study circles from the USA at the end of the 19th 

century, when the approach was put forward as an answer to poverty and 

illiteracy in rural Sweden and to engage the society in democracy. In Sweden 

today the study circle is the most typical form of liberal adult education. Every 

year one-third of the Swedish adult population is engaged in some form of 

adult education through study circles. The government has subsidized this 

form of education since 1947. The study circle concept has developed into a 

broader education movement called “Education for the people” designed for 

personal growth and social responsibility. In Sweden this process has been 

shown to strongly contribute to democratic development in society and to be 

one of the main contributing factors to the village movement, which has lead 

to thousand of active local community groups organised as networks and 

associations, and to the development of one of the world’s strongest farmer 

cooperative movements. 

African Study Circle experiences 

After the successful introduction of the Study Circle concept in Sweden, since 

1997 the Swedish Cooperative Centre (SCC) has progressively promoted the 

concept and methodology as a tool for training and education among its 

partner organisations in Southern, and more recently also in Eastern Africa 

(see Table 1). By then the Zimbabwe Farmers Union (ZFU), the oldest SCC 

local partner in the region had already been using study circles for seven 

years. Currently six SCC local partner organisations and two SCC directly 

implemented projects are using the methodology. Three new partner 

organisations in South Africa and one in Malawi are in the process of 

developing and incorporating the methodology in their training and education 

programmes. 

In the SCC Southern Africa programme the study circle concept has 

developed into a main vehicle for agricultural development. In the African 

context the study circle is a small learning group of people (5-15) that come 

together to learn about a particular subject in which they are all interested and 

want to learn more about. The group identifies someone amongst them, the 

study circle leader, who is responsible for facilitating the discussion and 

learning in the group. The study circle leader is not a teacher but only a 

facilitator. The Study Circle leader is trained by the Study Group 

facilitator/Organiser on how to manage the learning process. This type of 

farmer-to-farmer training is an important element for the cost-effective and 

broad outreach seen in especially Zimbabwe. In essence study circles are 

community or member driven. Groups use study materials to guide and 

enhance the learning process. The material could be in written form such as 

handbooks adapted for study circles (e.g. the Small Holder Drought Mitigation 

self-study materials), pamphlets, magazines or an audiotape. Study material 

is meant to provide the necessary additional factual/technical information to 

the group. The emphasis for learning in the group is focussed on discussion, 

analysing the factual information, experimenting and relating it to own 

practical experience. A study group meets regularly for 2-3 hours to discuss 

and learn about their topic of interest. Topics covered by study circles are not 

only agricultural topics but also issues that are of concern to them as a group 

or as a community such as health, HIV/AIDS, savings and credit and human 

6



rights. By working in groups of mixed ages and sex in a participatory and 

democratic manner, these groups also stimulate collective action and 

individual self-confidence. A study circle is completed once the group finished 

studying the particular topic. A study season usually stretches over two 

months during the low peaks of farming activities. Next study season, new 

study circles starts with new topic based on the choice of the members of the 

group. Farmers that have completed their studies in a study circle may be 

awarded a certificate to acknowledge their accomplishment. 

Visible impact of study circles in SCC supported projects particularly in 

Zambia and Zimbabwe has steered interest from other NGOs to use the 

methodology with their partners, which also includes the government 

extension service. Examples are World Vision in Zimbabwe and PLAN 

International in Zambia. Organisations indicate that the main reasons why 

they find the method attractive are that: 

• Participation in study circles motivates people and empowers them to 

make demands for certain services. 

• In study circles awareness and learning is from within the group rather 

than from outside and therefore promotes self reliance. 

• The method is cost effective. You do not require a full time resource 

person, transportation of participants over long distances or costs for the 

venue. You can also reach more people particularly women. 

In response to demand from organisations using the method SCC in 2004 

established a Regional Resource Centre (RRC), which is based in Lusaka. 

The main role of the RRC is to support study circle activities through 

facilitating training and access to study circle facilitation guides. 

7



Table 1. Characterisitcs of African Study Circles initiatives 6 

Country Project Implemeting Institutions Donors 

Year 

started 

Year 

ended 

MTs 

(Cumm.) Facilitators FSGs 

Farmers 

Trained Contacts 

Kenya Community 

Empowerment and 

Enterprise Development 

through Cooperatives 

SCC, MoCDM SCC 2002 2005 30 96 179 nda George Onyango, 

george.onyango@africaonline.co.ke 

Malawi 

Capacity Building and 

Member Mobilisation 

Mozambique Farmers' Business 

Development and 

Capacity Building Project 

Malawi Union of Savings 

and Credit 

SCC 2002 2005 26 32 236 nda A. Ngwira, muscogm@eomw.net 

UCAMA SCC 2004 On-going 1 16 18 266 Saide Mapundo, 

saide77@hotmail.com 

Uganda 

FETAS/YEECO 

Uganda Cooperative 

Alliance 

SCC 2001 On-going 67 418 1795 nda Stephen Musinguzi, 

smusinguzi@uca.co.ug 

Uganda National Farmers 

Federation 

Zambia 

Eco-Regional 

Development Project 

Kasisi Agriculture Training 

Centre 

SCC 2001 On-going 4 206 80 884 Austin Chilala 

Local Level Farmers 

Business Development 

Project 

Zambia National Farmers 

Union 

SCC 2001 On-going 50 nda 1234 13450 

Zimbabwe 

Agricultural Support 

Programme 

MFP-Katete 

Smallholders Drought 

Mitigation Programme 

Ramboll Natura 

(consortium leader) 

Zambia National Farmers 

Union 

District Inter-sectoral 

Committees 

??? WVI, AREX, LPD, RDCs, 

Dvet 

Market Facilitation Project Zimbabwe National 

Farmers Union 

SCC 2003 2007 - 221 421 nda Reynolds Shula, rshula@asp.org.zm 

SCC 2005 On-going 1 4 8 nda 

SCC 1997 On-going 84 614 16328 ncda Marcus Hakutangwi, 

marcus.hakutangwi@sccrosa.org 

DFID 2002 On-going 385 5901 819 17477 Marcus Hakutangwi, 


SCC 2004 On-going 1 28 5 nda Elijah Mwale, 

znfupetauke@zamtel.zm 

6 This information was compiled based on the inventory information as presented in the sub-regional report for Eastern and Southern Africa 

(Masendeke, 2006). 

9



Farmer Field Schools 

The Farmer Field School (FFS) grew out of the Training and Visit (T&V) process 

in 1988 through improvements needed at the time to address the national threat 

of a rice insect outbreak in Indonesia that depended on local complex decision 

making by farmers in their fields. Under T&V, schooled extension staff were 

expected to be experts delivering messages from research to farmers, but many 

messages were inappropriate, too simple and the messengers not local experts. 

This “technology transfer” model was not functioning to manage large-scale 

outbreaks of the rice brown planthopper which threatened rice self-sufficiency in 

Asia, nor were the more than US$150 million in pesticide subsidies (FFS 

programmes cost significantly less). In FFS, extension staff became “facilitators” 

who assisted men and women farmers to merge local indigenous knowledge with 

modern scientific rice ecological knowledge. The changed relationship honored 

local farmer expertise and allowed for better relationship with their external 

extension staff while encouraging new ecological science to be incorporated into 

decision making. In these traditional cultures, it was also culturally inappropriate 

for young extension staff to instruct older farmers but not culturally inappropriate 

for them to lead learning activities. Other FFS changes included promotion of 

farmer facilitators who were often considered better than external extension 

agents because they knew local terms (e.g. terms from that particular village 

related to particular insects, pathogens, etc.) and knew participants better. The 

hands-on nature of FFS experiential learning is merely a good educational 

practice of using more senses in a learning process. The FFS form and structure 

therefore grew from the practical need for field observation and decision making 

practice, use of a facilitative leader, or formation of a local group to self-organise 

the study field and participants. Weekly (most annual crops and livestock), biweekly 

(some long-term crops) or monthly (most perennial crops) regular 

schedules of meeting developed as a compromise between learning cycles 

based on crop management timing and farmer schedules. It should be noted that 

models such as functional literacy, children’s primary health care and other 

practical programmes were used during design processes under an adult 

education team leader. Appendix III provides a short practical description of the 

FFS approach. 

FFS in Africa 7 

After a brief introduction in Sudan in 1993 and Kenya in 1995, a larger-scale 

launch of the FFS approach in Africa actually started in Zimbabwe in 1997. FFSs 

are presently being conducted by a wide range of institutions in Africa, including 

FAO, DANIDA, many national governments, and numerous NGOs. Unique 

challenges have arisen while attempting to apply this approach, first developed in 

Asia, in Africa. At its introduction in Africa the focus of FFSs was on integrated 

production and pest management (IPPM) because of the relatively low levels of 

production and pesticide usage. Cotton, vegetables and tobacco are the largest 

7 For detailed information on FFS development in Africa, see Appendix II of Braun et al. (2006) 

10



recipients of pesticide treatments. For example, in cotton IPPM, most farmers 

conclude that they are over-using pesticides and under-using quality seed, 

irrigation and fertilisers. 

In rice IPPM as well, 

farmers learn to improve 

yields without increasing 

use of (or beginning to 

use) costly pesticides. 

In Africa the problem of 

pesticide use was less 

apparent and as a result 

several innovations have 

taken place since FFSs 

were introduced from 

Asia. First is the 

inclusion of more health 

and nutrition “special 

topics” due to the low 

level of awareness by 

farmers about the 

dynamics of diseases 

such as HIV/AIDS and 

malaria that are crippling 

many rural communities. 

Basic nutrition, water 

boiling, intestinal 

parasites and women’s 

reproductive health are 

included in FFSs by non- 

IPPM extension officers 

or NGO guest 

facilitators. Perhaps the 

most exciting innovation, 

Table 2. Summary data of FFS implementation 

in Africa (1993-2005); for detailed information 

see Appendix II of Braun et al. (2006) 

Country Start Facilitators/ Farmers FFS 

Year Trainers trained 

Angola 2005 nda nda Nda 

Benin 2001 125 ~1500 80 

Burkina Faso 2001 > 217 > 6,253 360 

Cameroon 2003 58 nda 64 

DR Congo 2002 848 11,281 357 

Ethiopia 1999 > 500 > 2210 ~571 

Gambia 2004 nda nda Nda 

Ghana 1996 nda nda Nda 

Ivory Coast nda 41 nda 126 

Kenya 1996 ~1,660 nda ~2300 

Madagascar nda nda nda Nda 

Malawi 2001 32 nda >77 

Mali 1997 >179 >7,693 >430 

Mozambique 2001 >158 ~1,605 243 

Namibia 2004 40 240 8 

Niger 2001 ~50 ~500 25 

Nigeria 2001 >90 >1,000 >57 

Rwanda 2005 nda nda nda 

Senegal 2000 >277 >6,468 >370 

Sierra Leone 2003 260 18,400 736 

South Africa nda nda Nda Nda 

Sudan 1993 1,626 4,197 >812 

Tanzania 1997 >456 >10,000 >560 

Togo 2004 30 307 12 

Uganda 1999 >290 nda >500 

Zambia 1999 ~382 ~1,900 ~140 

Zimbabwe 1997 166 >3,500 >480 

Source: Braun et al. (2006) 

developed by womens’ groups in Western Kenya, are “commercial plots” which 

are group production plots adjacent to the FFS learning plots. Such commercial 

plots allow the groups to raise funds and become self-financing in their activities. 

Efforts are underway to institutionalise these commercial plots in the FFSs so 

that they will be largely self-financed from the outset of programs. The 

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is funding a four-country 

effort to develop the methodology by working with these innovative FFS groups. 

As a result of the interests shown by farmers in health and nutrition, FAO, 

Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR) and other institutions are in 

the process of adapting the approach to work with vector-borne diseases (Van 

den Berg and Knols, 2006) such as malaria and bilharzia, particularly in West 

Africa. The gender and development service of FAO has put a large effort in 

11



adapting the approach in the area of health, particularly on HIV/AIDS and, also 

working with young orphans. These so-called Farmer Life Schools (FLS) and 

Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools (JFFLS) have built on the experience in 

Cambodia; pilots are taking place in Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, 

Zambia and Zimbabwe (Djeddah, 2005). 

ILRI started adapting the FFS approach in Kenya in 2001 for similarly complex 

situations like animal health and production (Minjauw et al., 2002). As a result of 

the demand for livestock activities, ILRI now provides training and capacity 

building support in various other countries, such as Tanzania, Uganda, Pakistan, 

Costa Rica and others. 

The water and soil services of FAO, in collaboration with ICRISAT and national 

extension, have been especially active in Eastern and Southern Africa 

developing FFSs for soil husbandry, minimum tillage conservation agriculture, 

soil conservation, water harvesting and water moisture management in rain-fed 

systems (Hughes and Venema, 2005; FAO/IIRR, 2006), and a project in Kenya 

will also start to tackle land degradation. These new field schools combine both 

educational and participatory technology development (PTD) methods. 

In West Africa FFS developments have largely remained in deepening IPPM and 

diversification to other crops – cowpea by IITA though Projet Niébé pour l’Afrique 

(PRONAF) and cocoa by IITA through Sustainable Tree Crop Program (STCP). 

After the introduction in West Africa in Ghana in 1996 a steady increase in the 

number of West African countries has occurred since, mainly thanks to a number 

of regional programmes. 

Also in Africa, FFSs are becoming the foundation of field-based food security 

programmes and taking on a new role. Under IPM, farmers learn to better 

manage their crop for efficient use of resources (time, inputs, etc.). After the FFS, 

which is typically one to two seasons, farmers graduate with new skills. In fact, 

many groups of farmers in FFSs decide to continue their group as some type of 

informal or formal association as they have built trust and confidence together. 

This is a natural occurrence not unlike the emergence of alumni associations or 

the continuity of Lions or Rotary Clubs. A new trend that is emerging is marketing 

networks in FFSs that cooperate as a larger unit (Khisa and Heinemann, 2005; 

KIT/Faida MaLi/IIRR, 2006). FFS networks in Western Kenya consist of about 

3,000 farmers per district and have won supermarket contracts for IPM tomatoes. 

The skills required for shipping the right quality and quantity at the right time are 

new to these farmer-owned networks and therefore the FFS curriculum is moving 

towards management topics as well. 

A critical role of FFSs is the ability to up-scale by spreading out. A programme for 

250,000 farmers over 5 years is planned in Sierra Leone, another for over a 

million farmers in Kenya and larger programmes in Tanzania. Up-scaling is 

possible because farmers can lead the largely hands-on activities of a welldesigned 

FFS. In these programmes, the FFS complements other methodologies 

including farmer-to-farmer methods that have been found to be best for 

straightforward see-and-do methods such as water harvesting and storage as 

12



well as PTD methods for production systems where new solutions emerge from 

collaboration between farmers and researcher experts – the successful 

Agricultural Technology and Information Response Initiative (ATIRI) activities by 

the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) are a model system. Radio and 

other mass media play a role for motivation and information exchange especially 

where farmer interviews are used. 

Local Learning Groups (IED Afrique 8 ) 

Local Learning Groups have evolved as a methodology developed in the IIED 

West African Drylands Programme. The overall objective of this programme is 

promoting better and more sustainable livelihoods for people in Africa’s 

drylands 9 . It involves carrying out research together with African and European 

partners on policy issues of direct concern to poor people living in Africa, and 

building the capacities of these and other groups to act on the results of this 

knowledge in an informed and equitable manner. 

The programme covers six main fields: 

• Land rights and tenure 

• Managing the commons 

• Legal empowerment for secure resource access 

• Supporting pastoral civil society 

• Enhancing dryland livelihoods and market opportunities in a globalising world 

• Making decentralisation work 

Within these main fields, there are Farmer Support Group initiatives in the form of 

Learning Groups, particularly in the “making decentralisation work” subprogramme. 

These Local Learning Groups are particularly useful for reconciling 

divergent positions between different actors over shared resources and, if 

properly managed, they provide a very powerful instrument for addressing issues 

of conflict, equity and sustainable resource management. Through this approach, 

it is possible to create the conditions for informed dialogue at different levels - 

local, national and regional. This tool was designed in Phase I of the programme, 

tested and applied principally in Senegal and, to a lesser extent Mali and Burkina 

Faso. Phase II will aim to disseminate this approach in other countries and 

provide backstopping support in its adaptation and use. 

Farmer-To-Farmer Training Programme 

This is an extension approach that uses demonstration plots as a learning tool for 

a group of farmers usually organised into clubs. Facilitators are drawn from 

8 From 1 September 2005, IIED Sahel has become an independent organisation named IED 

Afrique (IED: Innovations, Environnement et Développement) 

9 The Drylands Programme focues on the dryland belt of Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly the 

Sahel (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger and Senegal), several coastal countries in West Africa (Ghana, 

Côte d’Ivoire, Benin, Nigeria), East Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda) and the Horn (Ethiopia). 

13



farmers who are trained to facilitate learning. The clubs meet once a week for 

training which ends with a visit to the demonstration plot where farmers observe 

and discuss crop management requirements. These have been reported in 

Malawi only. 

Master Farmer Training Scheme 

This is probably the oldest group approach that started in 1920 and is still on 

going. The approach where a group of 25-30 farmers undergo a two-year training 

programme in crop production, farm machinery, farm management and livestock 

is exclusive to Zimbabwe. Farmers have to practice what they learn as a group in 

their individual fields. The number of sessions attended and what the farmer 

practices in their individual plot forms the basis for qualifying for a Master Farmer 

Certificate. Literate farmers can proceed to a second stage- Advanced Master 

Farmer Scheme where there is a written exam at the end of a year to get an 

Advanced Master Farmer Certificate. The group meets twice a month four hours. 

The approach uses modules as training materials. The theoretical training is 

usually followed by demonstrations where possible. 

Farmer-To-Farmer Extension 

Zaï Field Schools - Burkina Faso 

In the village of Somyanga in Yatenga Region (Burkina Faso), Ousséni Zoromé 

initiated the “Zaï Field School” approach. In 1992, he started training some local 

farmers how to make good Zaï 10 . This farmer-to-farmer extension developed on 

the initiative of farmers, which have now become service providers without 

remuneration for their time. This programme is implemented without a donor or 

implementing organisation other than the innovative farmer himself: Ousséni 

Zoromé. Topical scope of learning is rehabilitating degraded land, soil fertility for 

growing millet and sorghum and re-establish woodlands. (Ouedraogo, A. and 

Sawadogo, H. 2000. Three models of extension by farmer innovators in Burkina 

Faso. LEISA Magzine 16-2: 21-22.) 

Regarding the costs: each farmer group pays a contribution of 5000 CFA (US$ 8) 

to become a member of a regional union. 

Formal researchers and extensionists who have witnessed the success of this 

initiative recognise that it is a practical model for participatory innovation 

development that puts the farmers at the centre of a self-directed process of 

learning and sharing. Farmers in Yatenga Region and in other parts of the 

densely populated Central Plateau of Burkina Faso are becoming increasingly 

interested in Zaï. 

10 Zaï is a planting pit with a diameter of 20-40 cm and a depth of 10-20 cm 

14



4. SYNTHESIS 

This inventory of Farmer Study Groups has a large bias towards study circles 

and FFS 11 . Both study circles and FFS have potential to be scaled-up and 

institutionalised through mainstream agricultural development programmes and 

through farmer/producer organisations. This section deals with key issues, 

challenges and opportunities, in light of scaling-up, institutionalistion and 

demand-driven extension. Table 3 presents some key differences and similarities 

of Farmer Study Group approaches, including aspects such as learning 

tools/methods, facilitation and focus areas. 

Key Issues of FSGs 

Adult education principles. Both study circles and FFSs rely for their effects on 

the development of learner-centred curricula for experiential learning that takes 

place in the field, allowing producers to observe, measure, analyse, assess and 

interpret key (agro-ecosystem) relationships as the basis for making informed 

management decisions. The adult education concepts and principles 12 that 

underlie the design of curricula and of the learning cycle process have proven 

robust in all areas where FFSs have been developed. Study Circles largely rely 

for their success on wide community involvement, demonstrating that the whole 

community is welcome and needed. 

Wide range of curricula. Study circles and FFSs have developed a wide range of 

agricultural and non-agricultural curricula and learning processes. However, the 

origins of both approaches remain different. The study circle concept in Africa 

had a broad range of entry points from the onset – ranging from agricultural 

topics to HIV/Aids, financial management, marketing and leaderships skills. The 

FFS concept – originating from a failing extension system to cope with a pest 

problem in rice – has spread widely over the African continent and has been 

adapted for a wide range of crops other than rice (including tree crops such as 

bananas, various high value crops such as vegetables and fruits, industrial crops 

such as cotton and cocoa). Since the introduction in Africa FFS curricula and 

learning processes have also been further developed for the livestock sector 

(dairying, veterinary care, poultry and integrated rice-duck systems, goat 

husbandry, aquaculture and fishing), for land productivity issues (land and water 

management, soil fertility, land degradation), for a range of social and health, 

such as food security, HIV/AIDS and vector-born diseases, and environmental 

issues, such as water quality. These innovations have brought new types of 

participants within its ambit, including school children. In the course of the 

spread, adaptations have been made not only to suit the content and specific 

11 The sub-regional reports (Gordijn, 2006; Masendeke, 2006) largely focus on study circles and 

FFS. 

12 Adult-education concepts and principles used in FFS are explained in CIP-UPWARD (2003) 

and Module 1.1 of FAO/IIRR (2006) 

15



Table 3. Major differences and similarities in the FSG initiatives 13 

Parameter FFS Study Circles Farmer to farmer 

Target farmers and 

type of approach 

• Smallholder farmers 

• Group approach 

• All categories of 

farmers 

Learning method/tool • Experimenting/compari 

ng technologies 

• Participating and doing 

• Discovering 

• Experiencing 

• Based on the subject 

of learning –crop, 

livestock 

Training venue • Subject of learning 

field, crop, animal, 

rangeland 

Focus areas • Crops/livestock and 

associated disciplines 

• HIV and AIDS 

• Business 

entrepreneurial skills 

• Capacity building 

• Entrepreneurial skills 

• Smallholder farmers 


• All categories of farmers 

• Observations 

• Discussions based on 

experiences 

• Demonstrations 

• Study materials, booklets, 

field visits, exchange of 

farmer experiences are an 

important input 

• One of the group members 

( leader) who is accepted / 

chosen by the group and 

trained facilitates the 

discussion 

• Shade 

• Demonstration site 

• Crops/livestock and 



• Capacity building 

• Business entrepreneurial 

skills 

• Marketing 

training programme 

• Small holder farmers 

linked to farmer 

associations 


• Observations 

• Discussions on 

Demonstrations 

• Teaching/lecturing 

• Shade, Demonstration 

site 




Master farmer Training 

Scheme 



• Tends to favour wellto-do 



• Teaching/Lecturing/list 

ening 

• Training shade 




• Farm management 

• Mechanisation 

Conventional extension 

approach 14 


• Individual. 


• Tends to favour wellto-do 


• Lecturing / Teaching / 

Listening 


• Discussions 

• Training shade 




• Farm management 

• Mechanisation 

13 Adapted from Masendeke (2006) 

14 Included for comparison since it is still the most commonly used extension approach in the region. 

16



Table 3. Major differences and similarities in the study group initiatives (continued) 



Meeting schedule • Meetings are 

• Usually have a fixed day • Usually have a fixed 

scheduled to coincide decided upon by the group day decided upon by 

with critical 

the group 

management 

requirements of 

enterprise 

• Most meetings 

targeted at critical 

stage of enterprise 

Duration of course • Season long 

• Complete study 

Curriculum 

development process 

and ownership 

Farmer and their role 

in the learning 

process 

• Farmer originated 

• Learner centred 

• Participator 

• Contributor 

• Decision maker 

Facilitator • Usually drawn from 

government extension 

systems and NGOs in 

the first year 

• Include farmer 

facilitators in 

subsequent years 

• Depends on the number of 

sessions that the group 

chooses to cover and the 

depth of coverage 

• Usually 10 sessions 

• Farmer originated 

• Farmer learning needs 

centred 




• Season long • 2 years to complete 

ordinary master farmer 

and another 1 year for 

AMF 

• Training and Crop 

production Units 

originated 

• Training material 

centred 





Scheme 


approach 15 

• Scheduled • Adhoc 

• Extension/program 

originated 

• Training scheme 

programme centred 

• Passive Participator 

• Management decisions 

usually prescribed 

• Study Circle leader/farmer • Farmer trainers • Government extension 

system 

• Continuous and not 

focused. 

• Repetitive year in year 

out 

• Extension originated 

• None existent 

• Observer 

• Listener 

• Management decisions 

prescribed 

• Government extension 

systems 

• NGOs 


17



Table 3. Major differences and similarities in the study group initiatives (continued) 



Facilitator and their 

role 

Expertise of 

Facilitator on the 

subject 

Qualification to 

participate 

Evaluation and 

adoption 

• Facilitates learning 

• Spends time helping 

farmers convince 

themselves that a 

given technology works 

• Expert in the subject at 

hand 

• Practically trained over 

a long season period 

on the subject 

• None discriminatory 

• No preconditions set 

• Together with farmers 

• Adoption farmer’s 

choice 


• Encourages open 

discussion, probing 

searching to arrive at 

farmers own conclusions 

• Trained in most areas to be 

covered 

• Usually theoretically trained 

over a short period of time 


• No preconditions set 


• Adoption farmer’s choice 


• Teaches/ lectures 

• Strives to convince 

farmers that a given 

technology works 

• Trained in most areas 

to be covered 

• Usually theoretically 

trained over a short 

period of time 


• Need to belong to the 

Association 


• Adoption- peer 

pressure from 

Association colleagues 


Scheme 

• Teaches/lectures 

• Has to convince the 

farmer that they need 

to attend 24 session 

and pass to qualify 

• Generally trained in 

Agriculture 

• A jack of all trades and 

master of none 

• Need to be able to 

write to advance to 

AMF 

• Evaluated by extension 

using a MF trainee 

Record Book 

• Adoption influenced by 

the need to pass the 

evaluation. 


approach 16 

• Teaches/lectures 

• Spends their time 

trying to convince 

farmers that a given 

technology works 

• Generally trained in 

Agriculture 

• A jack of all trades and 

master of none 

• Evaluation usually 

office work 

• Adoption - persuasion, 

influenced by 

Extension for salary 

increments/ 

advancement 


18



purpose but also in the methodology. Innovations here include community-based 

selection of participants, “commercial plots” that enable participants to recover 

(some of) the costs of running a school, farmer facilitators, spatially clustered 

FFFs, and a range of community-based institutional developments that capitalize 

on the self-confidence and leadership capacities created through the FFSs. 

Quality. Farmer Field Schools are vulnerable to loss of quality (and thus impact) 

in terms of (i) poor and inappropriate curriculum design, (ii) inadequate attention 

to the quality of the learning process, and (iii) poor or inappropriate facilitation. A 

crucial element in the implementation of FFS programmes is a training of 

facilitators (ToF) course by experienced trainers 17 . Such a course is preferably 

season-long, but as a consequence of decreasing budgets, such course are 

reduced to short courses to a minimum of two weeks. Backstopping of FFS 

programmes is often not carried out by such experienced MTs, which 

consequently reduces the quality of the programme. 

Costs. Study circles are relatively cheap in comparison to FFS, although no 

usable data of study circles were available to make a comparison. In Africa FFS 

are still largely criticized for being too expensive (as an extension method). If 

FFS are considered an (non-formal adult) educational method, costs are 

relatively low compared to traditional education systems. No comparative studies 

of FFS and other approaches have been done in Africa. Moreover, if costs were 

to be compared among approaches, a relation to the impact achieved – 

economic, social, environmental and production – would be required. 

Impact. Impact assessments of study circles in Africa have not been carried out 

so far. Masendeke (2006) reports that study circles have generally considerably 

increased yields, created powerful independent farmers, increased skills and 

increased profits. FFS impact studies have only sparsely been done and reported 

(Mureithi et al., 2005; Mwagi et al., 2003) and do not have a wide (geographical 

and institutional) coverage for justified conclusions. Two studies are in process, 

an ILRI study of a livestock FFS project in Kenya and an IFPRI study of FFS 

programmes in East Africa. Despite the fact that impact is not quantitatively 

proven at national level through research, the current rush to support FFS and 

study circles is based more on direct field observation 18 . 

Sustainability. A concern is the sustainability of FFS and study circle impacts. 

There is insufficient long time series data to assess this definitively but the weight 

of the global evidence so far suggests a potential for significant longer-term 

impact. Within the FFS approach in Africa this appears to be achieved principally 

through the institutional innovations FFS alumni are able to set in place – for 

instance the FFS networks in Western Kenya (Gustafson, 2004; Khisa and 

17 All experienced trainers, also called “Master Trainers”, should have followed at least a seasonlong 

training 

18 Organisations that have taken up FFS mention that the starting point for them to take up the 

approach was the “word of mouth” going on at local level i.e. farmers and field staff seeing FFS 

projects and putting pressure on their local coordinators to include FFS and then this demand 

transmitting to higher levels. 

19



Heinemann, 2005; KIT/Faida MaLi/IIRR, 2006) or the development of selffinancing 

mechanisms (Okoth et al., 2002). The chances of such innovations 

occurring appear to be strengthened if care is given in the implementation phase 

to the longer term prospects (e.g. in the processes and criteria used for 

participant selection and site selection), follow up support is given to farmer 

facilitators and FFS alumni, and farmer-driven network development is 

encouraged. 

Up-scaling. Study circles and FFS are in high demand by farmers, NGOs, 

farmer/producer organisations and projects in Africa at the moment. 

FFS have spread to almost all countries around the continent, with programmes 

implemented by a vast number and type of organisations. Implementation of FFS 

projects and programmes has largely been through government organisations 19 

and NGOs. Up-scaling of FFS through large scale governement programmes 

and mainstreaming has not yet occurred in Africa. A large programme in Kenya 

with 30,000 farmers is still small compared to the population of farmers and 

should not be expected to have national impact – although local impact is 

present. The inertia of T&V “technology transfer” in most countries has yet to 

subside so there are yet to be any adult education national efforts using FFS that 

might register national impact. Tanzania is about to set-off with a national 

programme 20 , which has an “empowerment” component that is based on 

principles and concepts of Farmer Field Schools – among other approaches 

(URT, 2003). In Uganda FFS are slowly being up-scaled through the National 

Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) Programme, particularly in a number of 

districts in Eastern Uganda through an NGO named Africa 2000 Network. 

Producer and farmer organizations are now also starting-up pilot FFS 

programmes, which is another 

The study circle concept has a different mode of mainstreaming – through farmer 

or producer organizations. Having been introduced through the cooperative 

movement in Sweden, introduction through cooperatives and farmer/producer 

organizations has been the most logical step. Although various projects and 

programmes have implemented a large number of study circles (Table 1), 

national coverage is still modest. 

FSGs in the context of African demand-driven extension 

The trend among governments in East Africa is to promote demand-driven and 

decentralized services for resource poor farmers in line with the concepts and 

principles worked out by the Neuchatel Group (Neuchatel Group, 2002; 

Christoplos, 2003; Chipeta, 2006). There are several innovative and progressive 

initiatives going on in the region such as NAADS in Uganda, ASSP in Tanzania, 

and NALEP and KAPP in Kenya. The Sub-Saharan Africa National Agricultural 

Advisory Services (SSANAAS) network was established in 2004 and provides a 

19 With technical assistance of FAO or other organisations. 

20 Known as the Agricultural Services Support Programme 

20



forum for Government policy makers from a wide range of African countries to 

share experiences on agricultural advisory services. 

While demand-driven extension is now widely believed to improve the 

effectiveness of conventional extension approaches it still remains unclear how 

demand-driven services can be put into practice effectively (Neuchatel Group, 

2004). Further, as the system of extension changes, increased attention is given 

to the question what kind of services are in demand by farmers. In addition, 

increased knowledge about poor people’s livelihoods has shown that the poor 

draw on multiple strategies to secure a livelihood that go far beyond simply 

production (Farrington et al., 2002; Christoplos, 2003), and extension therefore 

needs to adjust accordingly. 

To achieve agricultural and rural development new approaches to extension are 

needed that make better use of knowledge among farmers, and provide them 

with a stronger voice to demand for advice and services, and negotiating power 

(Christoplos, 2003). Emergent questions are how poor, weak and vulnerable 

groups can be strengthened to experiment, enhance, share and spread their own 

knowledge and how they better can articulate their needs. This requires a shift 

from previous perceptions where farmers were seen mainly as ‘adopters’ or 

‘rejecters’ of technologies but not as providers of knowledge and improved 

practices (Leeuwis, 2000). One of the main goals of demand-driven extension is 

to develop independent producer organisations that can articulate demands and 

negotiate for services. However, such organisations cannot be established from 

the outside, but have to grow from the ground though social mobilisation. 

Various programmes and initiatives in the region are involved in farmer education 

in which various aspects of demand-driven extension are being applied. The 

concept of community participation is generally very well incorporated in such 

initiatives. However, participatory tools and methods are often limited to initial 

community development activities, such as visioning of goals, identification of 

problems, opportunities and intervention priorities. Actual training and capacity 

building activities that follow are often done through conventional training in 

which an expert trains farmers on the identified topics. There has not been a 

widespread recognition of problem-based, experiential learning techniques, nor 

has there generally been recognition for the fact that facilitating such type of 

learning often requires very different set of skills by the field worker than the ones 

of the traditional extension worker. Even though agriculture is a good entry point 

for community development, it is imperative that extension provision broadens 

out to cover a larger spectrum of livelihood issues. 

Challenges and opportunities for FSGs 

Changing extension systems. Extension staff who long have been involved in 

T&V type of extension approaches tend to have a strong technical bias and even 

though participation is a common concept for most staff, they still often lack 

capacity to put participatory learning into practice. This affects the level to which 

study group initiatives are demand-driven and farmer-centred. In FFS this is a 

21



serious challenge due to the key role extension staffs play as facilitators of FFS. 

However, even in study circles this challenge appears since groups often invite 

guest speakers when technical gaps arise. Well-trained farmers are often better 

facilitators as they are more practical, have the respect of the community and 

know local conditions better. 

Agricultural extension worldwide is undergoing a major transition and shift in 

paradigm, where participatory learning and group approaches are being put 

forward as means to improve effectiveness of extension. In this context farmer 

study group approaches have a great potential in offering policy makers and 

development actors concrete approaches for putting the new extension paradigm 

into practice. 

Agricultural extension have historically been largely executed though the public 

sector and Ministries of Agriculture. However, both FFS and study circle 

initiatives have shown that as extension becomes more farmer-driven and 

community based, the scope of learning quickly broadens up to cover aspects far 

beyond the mandate of individual government agencies. This constitutes a 

challenge for study group initiatives since one might end up with a situation 

where the technical scope becomes so broad that the initiatives suddenly 

becomes “everybody’s and nobody’s” business, and line ministries might find it 

difficult to justify investment in such programmes. Broad-based truly farmercentred 

study group initiatives run by the public sector require high level 

cooperation among Government ministries, such as education, agriculture, health 

etc. in order to respond effectively to all farmers’ demands and such cooperation 

is still lacking in many countries, where line ministries often work in isolation. 

Decentralisation is underway in many African countries, and this provides a great 

opportunity for community-based study programmes, in which farmers are the 

main actors in organising and carrying out learning activities, since it makes it 

easier for local groups to access funding, as in for example the case of NAADS 

in Uganda. FSGs have been found to work best in the context of a progressive 

demand-driven extension policy process, in which accountability among 

extension staff is towards farmers rather than towards their superiors (often 

achieved by allowing farmers to decide about the allocations of extension funds) 

and when there is a policy environment that encourages organizational growth 

and favorable market conditions for smallholders. For example the 

complementarities between the NAADS system in Uganda and FFS have been 

found to cater for greater impact than each of the two systems could have 

achieved separately, in which FFS supports local learning and building a social 

capital base while NAADS provides the right institutional and policy framework 

for farmers to move a step further (Friis-Hansen, 2005). 

Up-scaling and institutionalization of study circles and FFS is an irreversible 

process – farmers’ demand for both approaches demands the need to especially 

support institutionalisation. Up-scaling and institutionalisation can be done in two 

ways, through mainstreaming 1) in farmer or producer organisations, or 2) 

through agricultural development programmes. However, such mainstreaming 

22



requires major shifts in policies; policies that support farmer-centred learning 

approaches (see section on changing extension systems above). In the majority 

of the Eastern and Southern African countries the FFS approach is considered 

an extension system, yet some (see Braun et al., 2006) consider the FFS 

approach more an education approach than an extension approach. This 

education concept can be found in the “empowerment” component of the ASSP 

in Tanzania (URT, 2004), in which farmer learning approaches are being scaledup 

and institutionalised to empower farmers/producers with the objective to 

ensure they can demand for services fro the extension system. Obviously the 

ASSP example should not be seen as a blue-print – each country, region or 

district has a specific context, which needs specific solutions. However, specific 

mechanisms and strategies used in study circles and FFS need to be considered 

when scaling-up and institutionalising – the main ones are: 

• The presence of sufficient quality master trainers. 

• Quality and sustainable (season-) long training of facilitators. 

• Favourable policy environment of government and/or farmer/producer 

organisations. 

• National coordination, networking and information exchange. 

• Sustainability mechanisms and strategies such as (semi-)self-financing 

through revolving funds (group, enterprises, long-term environmental). 

• Quality control and backstopping mechanisms and strategies. 

• Coordinated curriculum development. 

• Training material development/updating. 

• Innovative methodologies and strategies to reduce costs. 

• Research on impact. 

23



5. CONCLUSION 

The inventory shows that there are a multitude of initiatives in the regions 

applying study group approaches, with great success. However, many of these 

experiences have not been well documented nor evaluated for impact. They also 

do not seem to appear in the ongoing policy discussions. Study group 

stakeholders have been weak at documenting experiences and raise awareness 

about the methods developed. Therefore there is a great need for deliberate 

impact documentation and advocacy to bring study group learning into the policy 

agenda in agricultural extension. 

Even though the various study group approaches in this inventory have many 

common aspects, there are some major differences that make the approaches 

suit different purposes. For example the study circle approach provides an 

excellent forum for self-learning and suit simple topics with available best 

practices that can be put into study materials. However, for technical aspects that 

are highly site specific, and where no clear answers exist the FFS approach 

provides an excellent forum for farmers to actively experiment and discover their 

own solutions to problems. 

24



6. References 

Aicher, P., 1990. The Study Circle experience in Sweden compared with the 

United States. Journal of the Folk Education Association of America 15-2: 

17-23. 

Braun, Arnoud R., J. Jiggins, N. Roling, H. van den Berg and P. Snijders, 2006. A 

Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. Final 

Draft. 

Campbell, S., A. Malick, and M. McLoy, 2001. Organizing community-wide 

dialogue for action and change: A step-by-step process. Topsfield 

Foundation, Pomfret, CT 

Chipeta, S., 2006. Demand driven agricultural advisory services. Nechatel 

Group, Lindau, Switzerland. 

Christoplos, I., 2003. Common framework fo supporting pro-poor extension. 

Nechatel Group, Lindau, Switzerland. 

CIP-UPWARD, 2003. Farmer Field Schools: From IPMN to Platforms for 

Learning and Empowerment. International Potato Center – Users’ 

Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development, Los Banos, 

Laguna, Phillippines. 87 pp. 

Davis, K., 2006. Farmer Field Schools: A Boon or Bust for Extension in Africa? 

Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 13-1: 91-97. 

Djeddah, C., 2005. Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools: Empowering orphans’ 

and vulnerable children. Draft Concept Note. FAO, Rome, Italy. 13 pp. 

FAO/IIRR, forthcoming 2006. Discovery-based Learning on Land and Water 

Management – A Practical Guide for Farmer Field Schools. FAO, Rome, 

Italy. 

Farrington, J., I. Christoplos, A. Kidd and M. Beckman, 2002. Can extension 

contribute to rural poverty reduction? Synthesis of six-country study. 

Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 123. 

Friis-Hansen, E., 2005, Agricultural development among poor farmers in Soroti 

district, Uganda: Impact assessment of agricultural technology, farmer 

empowerment and changes in opportunity structures, DIIS, Denmark 

Gallagher, K.D., 2003. Fundamental elements of a farmer field school. LEISA 

Magazine 19-1: 5-6. 

Gallagher, K.D., and Arnoud R. Braun, 2006. Demystifying Farmer Field School 

Concepts. 

Gordijn, F., 2006. Inventory of Farmer Study Group Initiatives in Africa – Sub- 

Regional Report: Central and West Africa. Final Draft. 

Guijt, I. and J. Proost, 2002. Monitoring for social learning. In: Leeuwis, C. and R. 

Pyburn (Eds.). Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs: Social Learning in Rural 

Resource Management. The Netherlands. Koninkljke Van Gorcum Ltd., 

The Netherlands. Pp. 215-231. 

25



Gustafson, D.J., 2004. Supporting the Demand for Change: Recent Project 

Experience with Farmer Learning Grants in Kenya. In: Rivera, W., and G. 

Alex. Demand-Driven Approaches to Agriculture Extension. Agriculture 

and Rural Development Discussion Paper 10. World Bank, Washington, 

USA. 

Hughes, O. and J.H. Venema (eds), 2005. Integrated soil, water and nutrient 

management in semi-arid Zimbabwe. Farmer Field Schools Facilitators' 

Manual, Vol 1. FAO, Harare, Zimbabwe. 

Khisa, G. and E. Heineman, 2004. Farmer Empowerment through Farmer Field 

Schools: A Case Study of IFAD/FAO IPPM FFS Programme in Kenya. 

Paper presented at the NEPAD-IGAD Conference on Agricultural 

Successes in the Greater Horn of Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 22-25 November 

2004. 13 pp. 

KIT/Faida MaLi/IIRR, 2006. Farmer Field School Networks in Western Kenya. In: 

Chain empowerment: Supporting African farmers to develop markets. 

Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam; Faida Market Link, Arusha; and 

International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Nairobi. p. 94-99. 

Leeuwis, C., 2000. Re-conceptualizing participation for sustainable rural 

development. Towards a negotiation approach. Development and Change 

31-5: 931-959. 

Masendeke, D., 2006. Inventory of Farmer Study Group Initiatives in Africa – 

Sub-Regional Report: Eastern and Southern Africa. Final Draft. 

Minjauw, B., H.G. Muriuki and D. Romney, 2002. Development of the Farmer 

Field School Methodology for Smallholder Dairy Farmers in Kenya. Paper 

presented at International Learning Workshop on Farmer Field Schools 

(FFS): Emerging Issues and Challenges, 21-25 October 2002, 

Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 

Mureithi, J. G., G.O. Mwagi, D.K. Bunyatta, E. Nyambati, N. Kidula and J. 

Wamuongo, 2005. Farmer field school approach for scaling-up agricultural 

technologies in Kenya: Experiences of the soil management project. 

Paper presented at the 10 th Southern and Eastern African Association for 

Farming Systems Research-Extension (SEAAFSRE), Lilongwe, Malawi. 

Mwagi, G. O., C.A. Onyango, J.G. Mureithi and P.C. Mungai, 2003. Effectiveness 

of FFS approach on technology adoption & empowerment of farmers: A 

case of farmer groups in Kisii District, Kenya. Proceedings of the 21 st 

Annual Conference of the Soil Science Society of East Africa, Eldoret, 

Kenya. 

Neuchatel Group, 2002. Common framework on financing agricultural and rural 

extension. Nechatel Group. 

Neuchatel Group, 2004. Minutes of the 10th Annual meeting of the Neuchatel 

Inititaive – Aarhus, 2004. Neuchatel Group, Aarhus, Denmark. 

Okoth, J.R., G.S. Khisa and J. Thomas, 2002. The Journey towards Selffinanced 

Farmer Field Schools in East Africa. Paper presented at 

26



International Learning Workshop on Farmer Field Schools (FFS): Emerging 

Issues and Challenges, 21-25 October 2002, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 

Oliver, L.P., 1987. Study Circles: Coming Together for Personal Growth and 

Social Change. Seven Locks Press, Cabin John, MD. 

Ouedraogo, A. and H. Sawadogo, 2000. Three models of extension by farmer 

innovators in Burkina Faso. LEISA Magzine 16-2: 21-22. 

URT, 2004. Tanzania Agricultural Services Support Programme - Programme 

Document and IFAD Appraisal Report, Working Paper Supplement I: 

Farmer Empowerment. 82 pp. 

Van den Berg, H. and B.G.J. Knols, 2006. The farmer field school: A method for 

enhancing the role of rural communities in malaria control? Malaria 

Journal 5-3. 

27



7. APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

2005 

Project/Programme Name: 

Donor(s): 

Implementing institution(s): 

Country 22 : 

Starting year of FSG project activities: 

End year of FSG Project activities: 

Total project funding: 

Farmer Study Group 21 Inventory Form, 

Year 

[Administrative 

Unit] 

No. Master 

Trainers 

No. trained 

facilitators 

No. trained farmer 

facilitators 

No. implemented 

FSGs 

Description of the Project/Programme: 

FSG principles: 

21 For the purpose of this inventory Farmer Study Groups are defined as: 

• Groups of farmers (10-30 pers) 

• The group meets regularly over a longer period of time 

• Learning and knowledge creation takes place through participatory learning methods i.e 

experiential learning, problem based learning, training for transformation etc. 

• Farmers set the agenda for the learning activities, and follow a curriculum or learning 

schedule/plan. 

• The entry point for learning is with in the scope of rural development usually focusing on an 

agricultural enterprise/value chain, but even non-agricultural topics may be addressed by the 

group. 

• The expected outcome of such groups should be both agricultural enhancements as well as 

empowerment and group management skills. 

• If external resource persons are involved (such as extension staff or researchers) they should only 

have a facilitating role, i.e not be seen as leaders of the activity. 

22 If a FSG approach is implemented in more countries, fill in a form for each country. 

28



Topical scope of the learning: 

Materials published 23 

Brief cost estimate: 

General experiences and lessons learnt: 

Contacts: 

23 Include a soft copy of the publications. Else send a hard copy by fax to +31 (84) 7500302 

29



APPENDIX II DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY CIRCLE 

METHODOLOGY 24 

Study Circles are at the heart of a process for public dialogue and community 

change. This process begins with community organizing, and is followed by 

facilitated, small-group dialogue that leads to a range of outcomes. Study circles 

don't advocate a particular solution. Instead, they welcome many points of view 

around a shared concern. 

A study circle program... 

• is organized by a diverse group of people from the whole community. 

• includes a large number of people from all walks of life. 

• has easy-to-use, fair-minded discussion materials. 

• uses trained facilitators who reflect the community’s diversity. 

• moves a community to action when the study circles conclude. 

A study circle … 

• is a small, diverse group of 8 to 12 people. 

• meets together for several, two-hour sessions. 

• sets its own ground rules. This helps the group share responsibility for the 

quality of the discussion. 

• is led by an impartial facilitator who helps manage the discussion. He or she 

is not there to teach the group about the issue. 

• starts with personal stories, then helps the group look at a problem from many 

points of view. Next, the group explores possible solutions. Finally, they make 

plans for action and change. 

Study circles are based on the following principles... 

• Involve everyone. Demonstrate that the whole community is welcome and 

needed. 

• Embrace diversity. Reach out to all kinds of people. 

• Share knowledge, resources, power, and decision making. 

• Combine dialogue and deliberation. Create public talk that builds 

understanding and explores a range of solutions. 

• Connect deliberative dialogue to social, political, and policy change. 

What are study circles right for? 

While there are many important issues and causes, not all of them lend 

themselves to large-scale community-wide dialogue and problem solving. Issues 

that work best for a community-wide study circle program… 

24 Source: http://www.studycircles.org/ ; the web site materials have been adapted from Campbell 

et al. (2001) 

30



• relate to the concerns and daily lives of many different types of people in the 

community – that is, they are genuinely public issues. 

• capture widespread public attention because they are timely. 

• are best addressed by many people through multiple forms of social, political, 

and policy change, including: 

o changes in individual behavior and attitudes 

o new relationships and networks 

o institutional changes 

o changes in public policy 

Developing a study circle program 

Overview 

When getting started, it’s often helpful to think about study circle programs in 

three phases: 

• Comprehensive community organizing (team development, planning, 

recruitment) 

• Dialogue (study circles) 

• Change (personal, collective, and policy-level change) 

No single organization or person can create an effective program without help. 

To ensure diverse, large-scale participation, the program organizing must be 

driven by a group of community leaders and organizations who mirror the 

diversity of the whole community. 

Ready to get started? Take the first steps: 

Comprehensive community organizing 

Leaders approach community organizing in a variety of ways, depending on the 

local situation, the issue at hand, the political climate and the people involved. 

Study circle organizers approach their work with the following principles in mind: 

• The most effective efforts are lead by a cross-sector group of leaders who 

come from all parts of the community and hold a range of viewpoints. 

31



• These organizers include traditional leaders/decision-makers, who are part of 

the power structure, and non-traditional or grass-roots leaders, who may be 

perceived to be outside the "power structure." 

• Measurable action and change is more likely to happen when key leaders are 

on board from the beginning. 

• Change is more lasting and effective when it happens at many levels— 

individual, group, institutional, and policy. 

Here are some resources to help you take the first steps in organizing your 

steering committee: 

• Getting started 

• Build a strong and diverse team 

• Plan and carry out communications 

• Develop a budget and plan for fundraising 

• Document and evaluate your program 

• Recruit participants and form diverse groups 

• Recruit, train, and support facilitators 

Dialogue 

Study circle programs embody an approach to community change that puts 

small-group facilitated dialogue at the center. Study circles work because they 

bring different kinds of people together around a public concern, and create a 

space that enables constructive, respectful conversation. Circles meet over time, 

and people develop trust and relationships, as well as a shared understanding of 

the issue under discussion. 

The dialogue is guided by trained facilitators who manage the discussion and 

make room for all voices. Study circles rely on ground rules, created by the 

group, to help make the conversation work for everyone. 

Study circles use discussion materials which set up a framework for the 

conversation. People begin with personal stories, move on to a discussion of the 

issue, including data or other relevant factual material. Participants examine the 

issue from many points of view, consider many possible approaches, and 

ultimately, develop ideas for action and change. 

Here are some resources to help you learn more: 

• Plan the kickoff 

• Find sites and handle logistics 

• Hold a round of study circles 

Connecting dialogue to action and change 

Study circle dialogues lead to a range of possible outcomes. Early on, organizers 

consider questions like “What are we hoping to accomplish? “What would 

success look like in our community?” and “How can we support the ideas that 

are generated through study circles?” 

All kinds of change can result from a study circle program: 

32



• Changes in individual behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes 

• New relationships and networks 

• Institutional changes 

• Changes in public policy 

• Plan for action, including action forum 

33



APPENDIX III SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE FFS 

APPROACH 25 

In general, Farmer Field Schools (FFS) consist of groups of people with a 

common interest, who get together on a regular basis to study the “how and why” 

of a particular topic. The topics covered can vary considerably - from IPM, 

organic agriculture, animal husbandry, and soil husbandry, to income-generating 

activities such as handicrafts. The FFS, however, are particularly suited for field 

studies, where specific hands-on management skills and conceptual 

understanding (based on non-formal adult education principles) is required. So 

what are the essential elements of a FFS? Below is a list of elements that 

commonly appear in successful FFS programmes: 

The group. A group of people with a common interest form the core of the FFS. 

The group may be mixed with men and women together, or separated, 

depending on culture and topic. The group could be an established one, such as 

a self-help, women’s, or youth group. Participatory technology groups, for 

example, sometimes undertake a season of study in FFSs before starting their 

research. The FFS tends to strengthen existing groups or may lead to the 

formation of new groups. Some FFS groups do not continue after the study 

period. The FFS is not developed with the intention of creating a long-term 

organisation - although it often becomes one. 

The field. FFSs are about practical, hands-on topics. In the FFS, the field is the 

teacher, and it provides most of the training materials like plants, pests, soil 

particles and real problems. Any new “language” learned in the course of study 

can be applied directly to real objects, and local names can be used and agreed 

on. Farmers are usually much more comfortable in field situations than in 

classrooms. In most cases, communities can provide a study site with a shaded 

area for follow-up discussions. 

The facilitator. Each FFS needs a technically competent facilitator to lead 

members through the hands-on exercises. There is no lecturing involved, so the 

facilitator can be an extension officer or a Farmer Field School graduate. 

Extension officers with different organisational backgrounds, for example 

government, NGOs and private companies, have all been involved in FFS. In 

most programmes, a key objective is to move towards farmer facilitators, 

because they are often better facilitators than outside extension staff - they know 

the community and its members, speak a similar language, are recognised by 

members as colleagues, and know the area well. From a financial perspective, 

farmer facilitators require less transport and other financial support than formal 

extensionists. They can also operate more independently (and therefore 

cheaply), outside formal hierarchical structures. 

All facilitators need training. Extension facilitators need season-long training to 

(re)learn facilitation skills, learn to grow crops with their own hands, and develop 

25 Adapted from Gallagher (2003). 

34



management skills such as fund-raising and development of local programmes. 

Computer literacy is often included in the training of facilitators, especially for 

preparing local training materials, budgets and project proposals. Email is also 

becoming more widely available. Once the facilitators have completed their 

training and are leading the FFS process, it is easy to identify capable farmers 

who are interested in becoming facilitators. Farmer Field School graduates are 

usually given special farmer facilitator training (10-14 days) to improve technical, 

facilitation and organisational skills. 

The curriculum. The FFS curriculum follows the natural cycle of its subject, be it 

crop, animal, soil, or handicrafts. For example, the cycle may be “seed to seed” 

or “egg to egg”. This approach allows all aspects of the subject to be covered, in 

parallel with what is happening in the FFS member’s field. For example, rice 

transplanting in the FFS takes place at the same time as farmers are 

transplanting their own crops - the lessons learned can be applied directly. One 

key factor in the success of the FFS has been that there are no lectures – all 

activities are based on experiential (learning-by-doing), participatory, hands-on 

work. This builds on adult learning theory and practice. Each activity has a 

procedure for action, observation, analysis and decision making. The emphasis 

is not only on “how” but also on “why”. Experience has shown that structured, 

hands-on activities provide a sound basis for continued innovation and local 

adaptation, after the FFS itself has been completed. It is also one of the main 

reasons that farmer facilitators can easily run FFSs - once they know how to 

facilitate an activity, the outcomes become obvious from the exercise itself. 

Activities are sometimes season-long experiments – especially those related to 

soils or plant physiology (for example soil or variety trials, plant compensation 

trials). Other activities in the curriculum include 30-120 minutes for specific 

topics. Icebreakers, energisers, and team/organisation building exercises are 

also included in each session. The curriculum of many FFSs is combined with 

other topics. In Kenya, for example, the FFSs follow a one-year cycle including 

cash crops, food crops, chickens or goats and special topics on nutrition, 

HIV/AIDS, water sanitation and marketing. FFSs for literacy are also promoted 

where there is a need. 

The programme leader. Most FFS programmes exist within a larger 

programme, run by government or a civil society organisation. It is essential to 

have a good programme leader who can support the training of facilitators, get 

materials organised for the field, solve problems in participatory ways and nurture 

field staff facilitators. This person needs to keep a close watch on the FFSs for 

potential technical or human relations problems. They are also the person likely 

to be responsible for monitoring and evaluation. The programme leader must be 

a good leader and an empowering person. He or she is the key to successful 

programme development and needs support and training to develop the 

necessary skills. 

Financing. FFSs can be expensive or low-cost, depending on who implements 

them and how they are conducted. Due to high allowances, transportation costs 

35



and several layers of supervision programmes can end up being expensive 

(about US$30-50 per farmer). Obviously, the greater the distance that facilitators 

need to travel to get to the field, the higher the cost of transport. Transport is one 

of the biggest costs in any extension programme. However, in FFS programmes 

training is a key recurrent component, which takes up a large portion of the 

budget. When the FFS is carried out by local organisations and farmer 

facilitators, initial start-up costs may be moderate, but the running costs will be 

much lower (about US$1-20 per farmer). A trend in East Africa is to manage 

small commercial plots alongside the FFS study plots, so that the FFS can 

actually raise more funds than it uses for inputs and stationery. In some cases in 

East Africa farmers have also cost-shared training expenses by buying their own 

exercise books, offering training sites and other locally available training 

materials (e.g. planting materials and labour). 

36

APPENDIX II KEY FSG CONTACTS 26 

Name Function 27 Institution Address Telephone E-mail 

Study Circles/Groups 

Andersson, Carina Regional Director SCC, Regional Office 

for Eastern Africa 

Box 45767 GPO, Nairobi, 

Kenya 

+254 (20) 4182430 carina.andersson@scckenya.or.ke 

Andersson, Torsten Regional Advisor RRD, SIDA - 

Embassy of Sweden 

P.O. Box 30600 

00100 Nairobi, Kenya 

+254 (20) 4234000 torsten.andersson@sida.se 

Bhebhe, Dumile +263 (9) 8842168 dumile_bhebhe@wvi.org 

Chilala, Austin KATC POBox 30652, Lusaka, 

Zambia 

+260 (1) 233101 

+260 (1) 97808709 

(mobile) 

Dube, Francis +263 (9) 8842168 francis_dube@wvi.org 

Hakutangwi, Marcus 

Coordinator, Regional 

Study Circle Support 

and Smallholder 

Drought Mitigation 

Programmes 

SCC, Regional Office 

for Southern Africa 

70 Livingstone Avenue, 

Iverona Gardens, Harare, 

Zimbabwe 

Mapundo, Saide Project Officer UCAMA P.O. Box 138, Chimoio, 

Mozambique 

Msemakweli, Leonard Uganda Co-operative POB ox 2215, Kampala, 

Alliance Ltd 

Uganda 

+263 (4) 707494 

+263 (114) 10078 (mobile) 

+256 (41) 258898 

+256 (77) 591976 (mobile) 


saide77@hotmail .com 

lmsemakweli@uca.co.ug 

Mukumbuta, Patricia 

Musinguzi, Stephen 

Zambia Country 

Coordinator/ 

Regional Study Circle 

Coordinator 

Study Circle Initiative 

Co-ordinator 


for Southern Africa, 

Zambia Office 

Uganda Co-operative 

Alliance Ltd 

P.O. Box 32012, Lusaka, 

Zambia 

POBox 2215, Kampala, 

Uganda 

+260 (1) 260577 Patricia.Mukumbuta@sccfo.org.zm 

+256 (41) 258898 

+256 (77) 451574 (mobile) 

smusinguzi@uca.co.ug 

Mutinda, Gerald gerald.mutinda@africaonline.co.ke 

Mwale, Elijah ZNFU Agribusiness 

Box 560213, Petauke, +260 (6) 371260 

znfupetauke@zamtel.zm 

Manager 

Zambia 

+260 (97) 394129 (mobile) 

Ngwira, A. Malawi Union of 

Savings and Credit 

Malawi +265 (1) 756 000 muscogm@eomw.net 

amngwira@hotmail.com 

26 Other FSG contacts are provided for each project in the sub-regional reports (Griffioen, 2006; Masendeke, 2006) 

27 In relation to this FSG inventory 

37




Study Circles/Groups 

Onyango, George Programme Officer - 

Agricultural Production, 

Food Security and 

Business Developmen 


for Eastern Africa 

P.O. Box 45767, GPO-00100 

Nairobi, Kenya 

+254 (20) 4180201/37 

+254 (733) 497444 

(mobile) 

george.onyango@africaonline.co.ke 

Widengård, Marie Study Circle Officer SCC, Regional Office 

for Southern Africa, 

Zambia Office 

Farmer Field Schools 29 

Alimi, Rahim 

FFS Resource Person 

– Togo 

Assefa, Fantahun FFS Resource Person - 

Ethiopia 

Braun, Arnoud FFS Resource Person FFS Foundation / 

Endelea 

David, Sonii 

Researcher / FFS 

Resource Person - 

West Africa 

Duveskog, Deborah FFS Resource Person / 

Programme Officer 

Friis-Hansen, Esbern FFS Resource Person / 

Researcher 

PO Box 32012 

Lusaka, Zambia 

+260 (1) 260577 

+260 (97) 650982 (mobile) 

marie.widengard@sccfo.org.zm 

Togo adourahimalimi@yahoo.fr 

Ethiopia Fat46@ethionet.et 

Simon Vestdijkstraat 14 

6708 NW Wageningen 

The Netherlands 

+31 (317) 451727 arnoud.braun@farmerfieldschool.net 

STCP, IITA Yaounde, Cameroon s.david@cgiar.org 

FAOR-Kenya POBox 30470 

Nairobi, Kenya 

+254 (20) 2725069 Deborah.Duveskog@fao.org 

Danish Institute for Copenhagen, Denmark efh@diis.dk 

International Studies 

Gallagher, Kevin FFS Resource Person / 


Garba Hama, Mohamed FFS Resource Person - 

West Africa / 


Gbaguidi, Brice FFS Master Trainer / 


West Africa 

Khalid, Arwa FFS Resource Person - 

Sudan 

Macamo, Eugenio FFS Resource Person 

– Mozambique / 


Special Programme 

for Food Security, 

FAO 

Viale delle Terme di 

Caracalla 

00100 Rome, Italy 

Enda Pronat BP 28221 

Dakar, Senegal 

+39 (06) 57056269 Kevin.Gallagher@fao.org 

+221 8225565 hamag@enda.sn 

PRONAF, IITA Benin b.gbaguidi@cgiar.org 

Sudan arwa94@hotmail.com 

FAO-Mozambique Mozambique eugenio.macamo@fao.org 


29 This list contains the main contacts for each country. A complete list of FFS contacts can be found on the FFSnet database 

(http://infobridge.org/ffsnet/) 

38


Farmer Field Schools 31 

Masendeke, Davison 

AREX 

Government 

Programme Officer / 


– Zimbabwe 

Mudhara, Maxwell FFS Resource Person 

– South Africa 

Ngeve, Jacob 


– Cameroon 

Nzeza, Koko FFS Resource Person - 

DRC/ Programme 

Officer 

Okoth, James FFS Master Trainer / 



– Uganda 

Randriarilala, Thierry FFS Resource Person 

– Madagascar / 


Settle, William 


– West Africa / 


Thomas, Julianus FFS Master Trainer / 



– Tanzania 

Yajima, Midori 


– Malawi / Researcher 

PO Box 1927, Bulawayo, 

Zimbabwe 

+263 91 360144 (cell) 

+263 9 884199 (bus) 

+263 9 483 982 (home) 

davemas@mweb.co.zw 

South Africa mudhara@ukzn.ac.za 

Cameroon jmngeve2000@yahoo.fr 

FAO-DR Congo DR Congo faoffs.rdc@ic.cd, 

ckokonzeza@yahoo.fr 

FAO-Uganda 

GCP/RAF/399/IFA - FFS 

Programme 

PO Box 521 

Kampala 

Uganda 

+256 (41) 349916/7 (office) 

+256 (772) 442773 

(mobile) 

James.okoth@fao.org 

FAO-Madagascar Madagascar thierry.randriarilala@fao.mg 

FAO/AGPP 

FAO-Tanzania 

Bunda College / WUR 

Rome 

Italy 

Bukoba 

Tanzania 

Lilingwe 

Malawi 

William.settle@fao.org 

+255 (741/8) 233423 ffskagera@hotmail.com 

+265 (8) 547233 (mobile) midori.yajima@gmail.com 


31 This list contains the main contacts for each country. A complete list of FFS contacts can be found on the FFSnet database 

(http://infobridge.org/ffsnet/) 

39

inventory of farmer study group initiatives in africa - Share4Dev.info

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?