Impact of farmers’ field schools on environment protection in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
RESEARCH PAPER
International Journal <strong>of</strong> Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR)
OPEN ACCESS
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>farmers’</strong> <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong> on environment protection in
Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) 2225-3610 (Online)
http://www.innspub.net
Vol. 10, No. 5, p. 45-52, 2017
Ijaz Ashraf 1 , Amir Khatam 2 , Ayesha Riaz 3 , Gulfam Hassan *1
1
Institute <strong>of</strong> Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University <strong>of</strong> Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
2
Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Swabi, Pakistan
3
Institute <strong>of</strong> Home Sciences, University <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan
Article published on May 22, 2017
Key words: <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> Farmers’ <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong>, Environment protection, Khyber-PakhtunKhawa.
Abstract
Farmers’ Field School (FFS) is an innovative extension approach, which is expected to play a critical role <strong>of</strong> non
formal education in educating farming community regarding protection <strong>of</strong> environment thereby leading to
healthier life <strong>of</strong> people. Keeping the importance <strong>of</strong> this very aspect in mind, a study was therefore, carried out to
determine the impact <strong>of</strong> FFS on environment protection. For this purpose, six districts from the central region <strong>of</strong>
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa including Peshawar, Charsadda, Nowshera, Mardan, Swabi and Kohat were selected. Data
were collected on various aspects <strong>of</strong> environment protection from 240 randomly selected FFS farmers with the
help <strong>of</strong> a pre-tested interview schedule using survey technique. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics
showing means and standard deviations besides using a paired t-test for comparison <strong>of</strong> the pre and post FFS
scenarios in this regard. The results showed that FFS had a significant positive impact on environment protection
through reduced use <strong>of</strong> pesticides and chemical fertilizers. It had helped in reduction <strong>of</strong> soil, water and aerial
pollution by establishing orchards and by using well decomposed farm yard manure, poultry waste, green manure
and compost manure as alternative sources <strong>of</strong> nutrients’ supply for plant growth in the <strong>field</strong>. Furthermore, FFS
had promoted local recipes for controlling insect/pests which had helped a lot in protecting the environment
from pollution. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to consider FFS strategy as an important instrument
to improve the environment for achieving better living conditions.
* Corresponding Author: Gulfam Hassan g.h.gullz@gmail.com
Ashraf et al. Page 45

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Introduction
Environment protection has become an area <strong>of</strong>
critical importance across the world. Environmental
problems are on the rise and affecting the natural
assets like biodiversity, range land, forest and fresh
water (Govt. <strong>of</strong> Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2005). CSE
(2003) reported that pesticide residues even in the
bottled drinking water and ground water. Similarly,
agricultural intensification in has caused degradation
<strong>of</strong> soil fertility, water depletion and contamination by
nitrate, phosphate and pesticide residues, and loss in
biodiversity (Mancini 2006). For curbing this very
menace, the government <strong>of</strong> Pakistan has launched
many programs but very few <strong>of</strong> them seem to be
successful in achieving the task. FFS has emerged as
an alternative extension approach, which is expected
to play a critical role in the protection <strong>of</strong> environment
by improving knowledge <strong>of</strong> farmers regarding
environment protection, discouraging the use <strong>of</strong>
pesticides and promoting local recipes for plant
protection (Khatam et al. 2010). Likewise, Simpson
and Owens (2002) stated that FFS approach had a
significant role in enabling farmers to understand
important concepts relating to the natural
environment. FFS participants have proved to be
willing and able to communicate; new plant
protection and production technologies to non-FFS
participants in their localities and beyond, and in
some cases had contributed significantly to social
development. Similarly, Buyu et al. (2003) concluded
that FFS facilitates understanding regarding
comparative analysis <strong>of</strong> new and existing technologies
in the surroundings. Mutandwa and Mpangwa (2004)
reported that yield <strong>of</strong> crops, income <strong>of</strong> cotton and
scores <strong>of</strong> technical knowledge for FFS participants
were higher than those non-FFS participants. In the
same way, Asiabaka and James (2003) stated that in
FFS, farmers had become researchers who test
various agricultural technologies and make decision
about the best possible option to adopt under specific
conditions. In this process, farmers take up the
central role and extension worker acts as a facilitator.
FFS give emphasize the need that training should be
designed in such a manner that conclusions can easily
be drawn by the participants.
This process will ultimately empower them in
improving their social as well as economic
environment. Equally important were the results <strong>of</strong>
Khatam et al. (2010) who concluded from their
studies that FFS approach develops knowledge <strong>of</strong>
farmers, facilitates them in learning by doing,
discourages them from use <strong>of</strong> pesticides, promotes
application <strong>of</strong> local plant protection recipes, provides
systematic training and learning procedure, helps
farmers in identification <strong>of</strong> problems themselves,
encourages using balanced dozes <strong>of</strong> fertilizers,
diminishes cost <strong>of</strong> production, encourages
community organization, inculcates better leadership,
instills communication and management skills,
improves linkages among all stakeholders i.e.
research, extension and farming community, helps in
filling gaps in local knowledge, facilitates farmers in
implementing their decisions, enables them to
systematically evaluate various technologies, builds
up <strong>farmers’</strong> capacity in situation analysis, develops
confidence in farming community, brings about
changes in <strong>farmers’</strong> attitude, improves the overall
socio-economic environment and augments per
capita income <strong>of</strong> farmers. Keeping the
aforementioned importance <strong>of</strong> FFS approach in view
the present study was conducted to determine the
impact <strong>of</strong> FFS approach on environment protection in
the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.
Materials and methods
Population
The study consisted <strong>of</strong> the farmers in the study area
comprising 6 districts <strong>of</strong> the central region <strong>of</strong> Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa i.e. Peshawar, Charsadda, Nowshera,
Mardan, Swabi, and Kohat.
Selection <strong>of</strong> Study Sample
On the basis <strong>of</strong> Table for selecting sample size
(Fitzgibbon and Morris 1987) 40 farmers were
selected at random from each district from the list <strong>of</strong>
FFS farmers provided by Agriculture Dept.
(Extension), thereby making a total <strong>of</strong> 240
respondents.
Ashraf et al. Page 46

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Instrumentation
Keeping in view the study objectives, a
comprehensive interview schedule was prepared and
used as research instrument for data collection. It was
also be pre-tested to check its validity and reliability.
Data Analysis
Collected data were analyzed using Statistical Package
for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive as well as
inferential statistics was applied to make the data
meaningful.
Data collection
The data were collected through face to face
interviews. Moreover, qualitative techniques like
observations and focused group discussions were also
be used for in-depth analysis.
Results and discussion
The respondents were asked about their perceptions
regarding the effect <strong>of</strong> different factors contributing
to environmental hazards both under pre and post
FFS scenarios. The data in this regard is presented in
Table 1.
Table 1. Farmers’ perception regarding the effect <strong>of</strong> different factors contributing to environmental hazards
under pre and post FFS scenarios.
Sr. Factors contributing to
Pre-FFS scenario WS Post-FFS scenario WS
No. environmental hazards V. low Low Medium High V. high V. low Low Medium High V. high
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
No.
%
1 Use <strong>of</strong> pesticides 1 1 151 72 15 819 0 0 54 145 41 947
0.4 0.4 62.9 30.0 6.3
0.0 0.0 22.5 60.4 17.1
2 Use <strong>of</strong> fertilizers 1 1 149 78 11 817 0 0 63 131 46 943
0.4 0.4 62.1 32.5 4.6
0.0 0.0 26.3 54.6 19.2
3 Water pollution 3 1 145 79 12 816 0 0 66 130 44 938
1.3 0.4 60.4 32.9 5.0
0.0 0.0 27.5 54.2 18.3
4 Soil pollution 2 1 151 73 13 814 0 0 70 123 47 937
0.8 0.4 62.9 30.4 5.4
0.0 0.0 29.2 51.3 19.6
5 Air pollution 0 1 147 90 2 813 0 0 63 143 34 931
0.0 0.4 61.3 37.5 0.8
0.0 0.0 26.3 59.6 14.2
6 Establishment <strong>of</strong>
1 3 154 69 13 810 0 1 63 142 34 929
orchards
0.4 1.3 64.2 28.8 5.4
0.0 0.4 26.3 59.2 14.2
7 Use <strong>of</strong> decomposed 1 0 150 87 2 809 0 1 62 145 32 928
farm yard manure 0.4 0.0 62.5 36.3 0.8
0.0 0.4 25.8 60.4 13.3
8 Use <strong>of</strong> decomposed 2 3 148 84 3 803 0 0 74 125 41 927
poultry waste
0.8 1.3 61.7 35.0 1.3
0.0 0.0 30.8 52.1 17.1
9 Use <strong>of</strong> green manure 2 2 154 80 2 798 0 0 77 134 29 912
0.8 0.8 64.2 33.3 0.8
0.0 0.0 32.1 55.8 12.1
10 Use <strong>of</strong> compost manure 1 2 168 65 4 789 0 0 88 123 29 901
0.4 0.8 70.0 27.1 1.7
0.0 0.0 36.7 51.3 12.1
11 Use <strong>of</strong> local recipes for 2 0 167 69 2 789 0 0 98 116 26 888
controlling insect/pests 0.8 0.0 69.6 28.8 0.8
0.0 0.0 40.8 48.3 10.8
n=240
1 2 3 4 5
Scale: V. low Low Medium High V. high.
The data exhibit that the weighted scores with respect
to all factors contributing to environmental hazards
were higher in the post FFS period than those <strong>of</strong> pre-
FFS period due to positive impact <strong>of</strong> FFS approach
launched in the project area. However, the highest
improvement in environment protection was
Ashraf et al. Page 47

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
recorded in the use <strong>of</strong> pesticides as is obvious from
the score values 819 and 947 followed by use <strong>of</strong>
fertilizers and water pollution with score values 817,
943 and 816, 938 in the pre and post FFS scenarios,
respectively. The findings <strong>of</strong> the present research are
supported with those <strong>of</strong> UNEP (2004) which stated
that natural resources have been polluted and
exploited to the point <strong>of</strong> compromising future
productivity. Water contamination has become one <strong>of</strong>
the major environmental issues in India. High levels
<strong>of</strong> nitrates have been found in ground water by the
Central Ground Water Board <strong>of</strong> the country, caused
by the use <strong>of</strong> fertilizers in many villages <strong>of</strong> the Punjab,
Haryana and Karnataka, three intensively cultivated
states <strong>of</strong> India (Singh 2000). The situation illustrated
above characterizes more than just a technological
failure. Non-availability <strong>of</strong> sufficient choice to farmers
and their access to information and extension
educational services also counts up for these
consequences.
Table 2. Mean ±SD with t-values for comparing impact <strong>of</strong> FFS on environment protection (paired t-test for
comparing pre and post FFS scenarios).
Aspects contributing to
Pre-FFS Post-FFS t-value Prob.
environment protection
Mean SD Mean SD
Use <strong>of</strong> pesticides 3.27 0.52 3.73 0.64 -11.40** 0.0000
Use <strong>of</strong> fertilizers 3.26 0.51 3.68 0.64 -10.50** 0.0000
Water pollution 3.31 0.54 3.78 0.63 -10.82** 0.0000
Soil pollution 3.35 0.52 3.86 0.62 -11.08** 0.0000
Air pollution 3.37 0.50 3.85 0.62 -10.54** 0.0000
Establishment <strong>of</strong> orchards 3.33 0.56 3.84 0.63 -10.38** 0.0000
Use <strong>of</strong> decomposed farm yard 3.38 0.60 3.91 0.66 -9.41** 0.0000
manure
Use <strong>of</strong> decomposed poultry 3.37 0.63 3.93 0.62 -10.23** 0.0000
waste
Use <strong>of</strong> green manure 3.39 0.62 3.89 0.65 -9.36** 0.0000
Use <strong>of</strong> compost manure 3.38 0.64 3.88 0.68 -9.90** 0.0000
Use <strong>of</strong> local recipes for
3.36 0.62 3.84 0.67 -10.37** 0.0000
controlling insect/pests
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
The data show that there existed a highly significant
difference in <strong>farmers’</strong> perceptions regarding various
aspects <strong>of</strong> environment protection between the pre
and post FFS scenarios. It means that FFS have
significantly protected the environment by reduced
use <strong>of</strong> pesticides and fertilizers. It has helped in
lessening soil, water and air pollution through
establishment <strong>of</strong> orchards and using decomposed
farm yard manure, poultry waste, green manure and
compost manure in the <strong>field</strong>. Furthermore, promoting
the use <strong>of</strong> local recipes for controlling insect/pests
have helped a lot in protecting the environment.
Sr. No.
Table 3. Farmers’ perception regarding the effect <strong>of</strong> environment protection on social conditions <strong>of</strong> farming
community under pre and post FFS scenarios.
Effect <strong>of</strong> environment
protection on social
conditions
1 Community health 0
2 Human food and
nutrition
3 Education <strong>of</strong> children 0
4 Tourists attraction 0
5 Social interaction 0
6 Transportation 0
0.0
n=240.
Pre-FFS scenario WS Post-FFS scenario WS
V. low Low Medium High V. high V. low Low Medium High V. high
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
0 147 89 4 817 0 1 111 118 10 857
0.0 0.0 61.3 37.1 1.7
0.0 0.4 46.3 49.2 4.2
0 0 147 93 0 813 0 4 111 118 7 848
0.0 0.0 61.3 38.8 0.0
0.0 1.7 46.3 49.2 2.9
0 149 89 2 811 0 1 125 109 5 838
0.0 0.0 62.1 37.1 0.8
0.0 0.4 52.1 45.4 2.1
1 156 82 1 803 0 2 146 89 3 813
0.0 0.4 65.0 34.2 0.4
0.0 0.8 60.8 37.1 1.3
1 179 60 0 779 0 1 168 67 5 2.1 788
0.0 0.4 74.6 25.0 0.0
0.0 0.4 70 27.9
1
0.4
193
80.4
46
19.2
0
0.0
765 0
0.0
1
0.4
181 70.0 54 22.5 5 2.1 774
The findings <strong>of</strong> the present research are supported by
those <strong>of</strong> WHO (1999) which stated that pesticides’
misuse has undermined human health. Every year,
about 1 to 5 million cases <strong>of</strong> pesticide poisoning occur
in the world, <strong>of</strong> which majority belongs to developing
countries where socio-economic and climatic
conditions increase occupational risks. Van den Berg
(2006) stated that FFS is a participatory extension
approach, which empowers farming community
through building their knowledge and skills regarding
various farming practices.
It reduces pesticides’ use, increases yield and <strong>farmers’</strong>
farm income and thus improves rural life. Feder et al.
(2004) stated that IPM-FFS have increased
knowledge <strong>of</strong> farmers that had led indeed to reduced
pesticide use. Godtland et al. (2004) evaluated the
impact <strong>of</strong> FFS on <strong>farmers’</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> IPM
practices used in potato cultivation. The results <strong>of</strong> the
study showed that FFS significantly enhanced
<strong>farmers’</strong> knowledge regarding pests, fungicides, and
resistant varieties. Two separate approaches used to
determine the impact <strong>of</strong> FFS yielded the same result
that knowledge score <strong>of</strong> FFS participants were
significantly increased.
Effect <strong>of</strong> environment protection on social conditions
<strong>of</strong> farming community
Data in Table iii show that the weighted scores with
respect to the effect <strong>of</strong> environmental protection were
higher in the post FFS period than those <strong>of</strong> pre-FFS
period due to positive impact <strong>of</strong> FFS approach.
However, the highest improvement in environment
protection was recorded in the community health as
is obvious from the score values 817 and 857 followed
by improvement in human food and nutrition and
education <strong>of</strong> children with score values 813, 811 and
848, 838 in the pre and post FFS scenarios,
respectively.
The findings <strong>of</strong> the present research are supported
with those <strong>of</strong> Kishi (2005) who stated that in
developing tropical countries the use <strong>of</strong> non- or less
toxic pesticides seems to be the only viable solution to
protect <strong>farmers’</strong> health.
Mohr, 1999 and Jiggins, 2003) stated that impact <strong>of</strong>
the cotton IPM FFSs cannot be limited to decrease in
pesticide use to effects on the environment, health <strong>of</strong>
farmers andtheir social organization.
Ashraf et al. Page 49

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Table 4. Mean ±SD with t-values for comparing impact <strong>of</strong> environment protection through FFS on social
conditions <strong>of</strong> farming community (paired t-test for comparing pre and post FFS scenarios).
<strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> environment protection Pre-FFS Post-FFS t-value Prob
through FFS on:
Mean SD Mean SD
Community health 3.19 0.40 3.48 0.50 -4.84 0.0000 **
Human food and nutrition 3.25 0.44 3.52 0.50 -4.13 0.0000 **
Education <strong>of</strong> children 3.35 0.49 3.58 0.50 -3.33 0.0010 **
Tourists attraction 3.39 0.49 3.60 0.49 -3.01 0.0028 **
Social interaction 3.39 0.51 3.55 0.50 -2.23 0.0264 *
Transportation 3.40 0.52 3.58 0.53 -2.36 0.0189 *
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Aslam M, Ahmad S, Baloach QB. 2006.
Sustainable crop improvement and integrated
management policies and strategies. International
symposium on sustainable crop improvement and
integrated management. September 14-16, 2006.
Faculty <strong>of</strong> agriculture, Univ. <strong>of</strong> Agic., Faisalabad,
Pakistan. 66-74.
Braun A, Deborah D. 2005. The farmer <strong>field</strong>
school approach – History, global assessment and
success stories. Background. Paper for the IFAD rural
poverty report 2011.
Braun AR, Jiggins J, Röling N. Van Den Berg
H, Snijders P. 2005. A global survey and review <strong>of</strong>
farmer <strong>field</strong> school experiences. International
livestock research institute, Nairobi.
Buyu G, Mango N, Ndiwa N, Romney D,
Minjauw B. 2003. The concept and application <strong>of</strong>
farmer <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong> for livestock research and
development. Working paper <strong>of</strong> international
livestock research institution (ILRI), Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).
2003. Pesticide residues in bottled water, CSE
Report. Centre for science and environment, New
Delhi, India.
David S. 2007. Learning to think for ourselves:
knowledge improvement and social benefits among
farmer <strong>field</strong> school participants in Cameroon. Journal
<strong>of</strong> International Agriculture and Extension Education
14, 35-49.
Duveskog D, Friis-Hansen E. 2008. Farmer <strong>field</strong>
<strong>schools</strong>: a platform for transformative learning in
rural Africa. In: Mezirow J. Taylor E., Editors
“Transformative learning in action: Handbook <strong>of</strong>
practice”, Jossey-Bass Press.
Jiggins JLS. 2003. New approaches to evaluation.
In CIP-UPWARD. Farmer <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong>: Emerging
issues and challenges. International potato center
users’ perspectives with agricultural research and
development, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines, 49-68.
Khatam A. Muhammad S, Chaudhry KM,
Mann AA. 2010. Farmers’ <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong>: An
alternative strategy to benefit resource poor
farmers in NWFP. Sarhad Journal <strong>of</strong> Agriculture
26, 689-692.
Khisa G. 2004. Farmers <strong>field</strong> school methodology:
Training <strong>of</strong> trainers manual (First Ed.) FAO, Kenya.
Kishi M. 2005. The health impacts <strong>of</strong> pesticides:
What do we know? What can be done? In: Pretty, J.
(Ed.), The Pesticide detoxification: Earthscan,
London, Sterling, VA., 23-38.
Mancini F. 2006. <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> IPM farmer <strong>field</strong>
<strong>schools</strong> on the environment, health and livelihoods <strong>of</strong>
cotton growers in Southern India. PhD thesis,
Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Mohr BM. 1999. The qualitative method <strong>of</strong> impact
analysis. American Journal <strong>of</strong> Evaluation 1, 69-84.
Mutandwa E, Mpangwa JF. 2004. An assessment
<strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> farmer <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong> on integrated
pest management dissemination and use: Evidence
from smallholder cotton farmers in the low veld area
<strong>of</strong> Zimbabwe. Journal <strong>of</strong> Sustainable Development in
Africa 6, 245-253.
Rai NA, Waqas A, Umar D. 2005. Comparison <strong>of</strong>
water saving in furrow bed with boarder irrigation for
wheat. Annual research report. Water Management
Research Centre, University <strong>of</strong> Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Fitzgibbon CT, Morris, L. 1987. Table for
determination <strong>of</strong> sample size from the given
population. How to design a programme evaluation.
Newbury Park CA: Sage publications.
Simpson B, Owens M. 2002. Farmer <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong>
and the future <strong>of</strong> agricultural extension in Africa.
Journal <strong>of</strong> International Agriculture Extension
Education 9, 29-36.
Ashraf et al. Page 51

Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
Singh RB. 2000. Environmental consequences <strong>of</strong>
agricultural development: a case study from the green
revolution state <strong>of</strong> Haryana, India. Agriculture
Ecosystems and Environment 82, 97-103.
Nnited Nation Environmental Program
(UNEP). 2004. Childhood pesticide poisoning.
Information for advocacy and action. Chemicals
programme <strong>of</strong> the UN Environ Progress. U.C. (Ed.).
Van DBH. 2004. IPM farmer <strong>field</strong> <strong>schools</strong>: A
synthesis <strong>of</strong> 25 impact evaluations. Wageningen
University, Netherlands.
World Health Organization (WHO). 1999.
Public health impact <strong>of</strong> pesticides used in agriculture.
WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Ashraf et al. Page 52