Lessons from an interactive research process: the case of Cowpea Farmer Field Schools

Nederlof*, E.S. and Odonkor^, E.N.

* Engeline Suzanne Nederlof, (Corresponding author) PhD student Convergence of Sciences Project (WUR/University of Legon), c/o BP 779 Ouagadougou 09, Burkina Faso. E-mail:l: 00 226 70 72 6103

^ Ezekiehl Narh Odonkor, c/o Agricultural ExtensionDepartment, University of Ghana, P.O.Box LG 68,Legon,Accra.

Abstract

The Farmer Field School (FFS) approach is a form of adult education, aimed at building farmers’ decision making capacity through discovery learning. It is an innovative tool to facilitate interactive learning. A National Research Institute in West Africa conducted Farmer Field Schools in cowpea cultivation. In the present article, we use this experience to analyse the implementation of the FFS approach. How does it work in practice? The curriculum deployed is compared to the ‘standard’ for FFS curricula and the process of curriculum development is analysed. To evaluate the impact of the FFS, the adoption of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices was assessed. The appreciation of different stakeholders was recorded. The analysis shows that the implementation emphasised the use of the FFS as an extension tool, i.e., a tool to transfer messages considered useful by public agencies, rather than discovery learning by farmers. The article seeks to analyse the reasons for this shift in objectives. Using FFS as tools for extension is generally recognised as unsustainable in terms of cost per farmer reached. The study is relevant because of the debate about the fiscal sustainability of FFS and also because understanding FFS curriculum building is becoming more relevant as FFS are increasingly used for other crops and issues.

Keywords

Adult education, Case study Analysis, Farmers’ livelihoods, Integrated Pest Management, Resource-Poor farmers, West Africa

Lessons from an interactive research process: the Case of Cowpea Farmer Field Schools

Nederlof, E.S. and Odonkor, E.N.

Introduction

Although agricultural research and development (R&D) in West Africa aim at improving the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers, the intended beneficiaries are often too poorly organised and consequently have limited political clout to influence the R&D agenda. The authors are not aware of farmers in West Africa funding agricultural R&D projects; this in contrast to farmers in Northern America and Europe[1]. Therefore, West African farmers are not part of the decision process about R&D topics. Participatory methods may only partly improve this situation. Among these methods to assess farmers’ needs and to compensate for the lack of countervailing power of Farmer Based Organisations are Farming Systems Research (Collinson, 2000), Participatory Rural Appraisal (Chambers, 1990) and Participatory Technology Development (Reijntjes et al, 1992).Another, more recent, tool developed to improve farmers’ livelihoods is the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. FFSs are season-long, field-based groups of approximately 25 to 30 farmers, who meet regularly to learn together through discovery and experience. FFSs ensure a convergence between local and scientific knowledge and aim to make farmers better decision-makers. Whereas the conventional ‘transfer of technology’ approach focused primarily on developing technologies that work and on transferring these to farmers, the FFSs approach belongs to another paradigm oriented towards helping farmers become better decision-makers and towards developing or adapting technologies that work and also are acceptable to farmers (see also Nederlof et al, 2004; Röling, 2002; Röling et al, 2004). FFSs purposely aim to develop farmers into more knowledgeable and empowered partners, or co-producers of knowledge. What can we learn from the analysis of the implementation of such an interactive approach in a situation?

This article discusses cowpea FFSs. The cowpea FFSs in Northern Ghanawere conducted by the National Research Institute (NRI) and supported by different donors and programs to introduce Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. Because the project has ended it provides an interesting case to study an attempt to use an interactive approach. What problems occur when using a discovery learning approach? How do researchers perceive farmers and knowledge generation? Do farmers become better decision-makers? This article tries to analyse FFS implementation as an interactive multiple stakeholder process. Scientists have tried to work in an interactive way with farmers, how did this work out? What can we learn from experiences with such a method?

First the literature is reviewed to better understand the concept of FFS, andthe role of cowpea in the farming system. The cowpea FFS project is introduced. The article then presents the methodology and data collection used for the study reported in this article. The analysis compares the development of the curriculum with the internationally established ‘standard’ components of a FFS curriculum. To evaluate the impact of the cowpea FFS, the study looked into farmers’ adoption of IPM practices and assessed the appreciation of the FFSapproach by different stakeholders, e.g., researchers, extension workers/facilitators and farmers. The results of our study motivated a further analysis of the process by which the curriculum for the cowpea FFS was developed and the role of researchers in this process. The article concludes by drawing some general lessons.

Literature review

FarmerFieldSchool

The FFS approach was originally developed in Indonesia in the late eighties as a tool for IPM (Van de Fliert, 1993) and as a reaction to second-generation problems of the Green Revolution, such as pesticide resistance,pest resurgence, and secondary pest outbreaks. In an IPM FFS, farmers meet regularly –generally once a week- during a cropping season. The key ingredients of a FFS are a group of about 25 to 30farmers with a common interest, a field and a facilitator. The facilitator, often an extension agent who has received a special Training of Trainers (ToT), focuses on the process, not on the content. The farmers analyse the condition of the crop in several fields: one in which they apply IPM methods and one in which conventional cultivation methods are followed. Often there is a third field for participatory experiments. The latter two are referred to as IPM practice fields. They discuss the results of this analysis and draw conclusions about the management of the IPM field (ibid). The facilitator asks questions rather than provides answers. The FFS approach assumes that farmers experiment as experts, learn systematically, and value their own knowledge (Van den Berg et al, 2001). FFSs aim at farmer educationand differ from the conventional practice of transferring technology through extension. It is not a question of ‘delivering’ science-based technology to ‘ultimate users’. In FFSs, farmers learn to draw reasoned conclusions from their own observations. Thus they learn practices that they can apply in diverse conditions. The emphasis of some FFSs is on developing new locally adapted technologies; in others, discovery and experimentation are methods to enhance learning but they are not expected to yield new insight by scientific standards. The ultimate aim of FFSs is not to carry out scientific research. The discovery learning by farmers is guided by a curriculum that is often based on the latest scientific knowledge and on farmers’ own field observations. Hence the FFS is science informed (Röling and Van de Fliert, 1998). The FFS often develops into a support group so that participants can support one another even when the FFS is over (Gallagher, 1999).

Many FFSs[2]beyond the scope of IPM have been established, following Indonesia’s success example. Even though FFS are applied in a variety of circumstances and for a variety of objectives (Bruin and Meerman, 2001; CIP-UPWARD, 2003; LEISA, 2003; Pontius et al, 2002) common principles of FFSs are (Van de Fliert, 1993):

(1)Grow a healthy crop

(2)Observe the field weekly

(3)Build on natural processes and,

(4)Farmers become (IPM) experts.

During a CIP-UPWARD workshop the non-negotiables for FFS were identified (see box 1). Whereas many studies highlight the positive impact of FFS on such criteria as reduced pesticide use and increased yields (Van de Berg, 2003), others argue that pesticide use has not significantly decreased or yields increased (Feder et al, 2003). Feder et al (ibid) also state that FFS are expensive and therefore unsustainable. Indeed, compared to the conventional ‘transfer of technology’ approach, the costs of the FFS approach per farmer reached seem high. Others do not agree with this criticism (Regional Seminar on IPM Impact Assessment, 2003; Global IPM Facility, 2003). They argue, for example, that the cost of ineffective extension even if the extension worker might talk to more farmers per unit of time is always higher than an effective FFS. Whether the FFS is seen as an adult education or as an extension method depends on the goals that the observer ascribes to FFS and the value given to that goal. Economists who see technology as the driver of economic growth tend to emphasise the importance of technology transfer (e.g., Feder et al, 2002), while others give more emphasis to farmer empowerment and their ability to experiment and take effective decisions (e.g., Röling, 2002). In this article, we consider FFSs as an adult education approach. FFSs are a method to empower and capacitate farmers through discovery learning, farmer research and experimentation and have an impact beyond
‘transferring technologies that work (e.g. on experimental fields of research stations) to farmers’.

Through the FFS, farmers become better partners for researchers and extension workers. The difficulty often is for extension workers to become facilitators and not to fall back on the ‘transfer of technology’ approach and to order farmers what to do. Measuring success of FFSs in terms of adult education requires additional parameters such as the quality of produce, marketability, ground water quality, pesticide-related health effects, agricultural biodiversity effects, agricultural sustainability, policy effects, gender effects, farmer-to-farmer diffusion, education and empowerment effects (Van de Berg, 2003).

The role of the curriculum in Farmer Field Schools

FFSs are usually conducted on a common plot in the proximity of the community, rather than on several individual farmers’ plots, so as to allow for collective decision-making and discovery. A collective field stimulates discussion and responsibilities about the management of the plot are taken jointly by the participating farmers.

The plot is divided in a ‘farmers’ practices’ plot, on which farmers cultivate in their traditional way (often using insecticides), and plots on which farmersapply IPM or other alternative strategies. These plots are the main tools for farmer education and allow for comparison of practices. Differences between farmers’ practices and the introduced IPM practices are easily observed and interpreted. Care must be taken to ensure that farmers do not start using the novel practices on the ‘farmers’ practices’ plot once they become convinced of the usefulness of the new practices. In order for the plots to remain comparative also for fellow villagers, the ‘farmers’ practices’ must be carefully negotiated and agreed upon from the start.

FFS have a flexible curriculum, best described by a basket of tools for discovery learning. Standard tools are insect zoos, Agro Eco System Analysis (AESA) and special topics:

-Insect zoos allow identification of (living) natural enemies and observation of their action against insect pests. In this way they become aware of foodweb relationships in their agro-ecosystems.

-AESA consists of a series of observations of smaller groups of farmers on the subject in the field on both the conventional and the novel practices plot and a structured discussion about the findings in a subsequent meeting. AESA stimulates deliberation between farmers and as such reinforces informed decision-making.

-Special topics are those that farmers find relevant in addition to the work on the plot. They include subjects such as seed selection, post-harvesting handling and storage methods, soil management, farm record keeping and economic analysis. Sometimes an expert is invited to explain a topic to the FFS group.

-The FFS often includes a group dynamics exercise to help farmers become more aware of group processes, the value of co-operation, etc. These are also called ‘icebreakers’.

Brief history of the FFSs project

In 1994, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations organised a study trip for African scientists and governmental officials to Asia, to make them aware about the possibilities of farmer participatory training in IPM for sustainable and environmental friendly rice production. Several West African countries expressed their interest to establish such IPM training in their own countries and were supported through FAO’s Technical Co-operation programs in collaboration with the West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA)(Youdeowei, 1996).Ghana requested FAO’s assistance to increase its national capacity to implement IPM in intensified production. Project activities started in March 1995 with a project at Dawhenya (ibid). Following the success of this project, the United Nations Development Project supported projects for additional IPM training of farmers from five districts in rice, vegetables and plantain. Youdeowei (2001) reported that, by the end of the year 2000, 106 agricultural extension agents and 77 Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) field staff were trained as FFS facilitators. These trainers trained farmers in ecologically sound production of rice, cassava, vegetables and plantain. NGOs, such as the Ghana Organic Agriculture Network, TechnoServe, CARE International, and ECASARD, as well as the University of Cape Coast, and the University of Ghana, also adopted the FFS approach. In 1996, the NRI started cowpea FFS as part of a larger regional cowpea project.

The government of Ghana adopted FFSs as a major strategy for implementing the Food Security and Poverty Reduction Programmes. Consequently, the Ministry for Food and Agriculture (MOFA) officially recognised FFSs as a national extension method (Youdeowei, 1999a).

From this literature review some pertinent questions and study areas emerge, which we aim to address in this article:

(1)How was the curriculum for cowpea FFSs in the project developed and implemented? Were the non-negotiables for FFSs respected?

(2)Were FFS practices (partly) adopted by farmers and for what reason?

(3)How did the different stakeholders appreciate FFSs?

(4)What are problems emerging with implementing this interactive approach, and consequently what lessons can be drawn?

3. Case study Cowpea FFS project

The role of cowpea in the farming system

Based on both literature and interviews with stakeholders we conclude that cowpea[3], which has high protein content, is an important food crop in West and Central Africa. It is a multiple purpose crop: leaves, pods, peas and grains are used for food; the remainder of the plant serves as an animal fodder during the dry season. In addition, some cowpea cultivars have beneficial effects on soil fertility and weed reduction because of this species’ good soil cover, its atmospheric nitrogen-fixing abilities, and its impact on organic matter content. Cowpea is often intercropped[4] with sorghum or maize and tolerates drought, but is very susceptible to damage by insect pests, diseases, and parasitic weeds. Cowpea has benefited from limited research interventions (FIDA, 2000) compared to other cash crops.

In Ghana, cowpea is mainly cultivated in the Northern, Upper East and Upper West regions. The rains in these regions fall between May and October with an average annual rainfall between 900 and 1100 mm (PEDUNE project, 2000). The cowpea seasons are from April to July and from July to October. Cowpea is therefore the first crop to be harvested in that part of the country and as a result it bridges the ‘hunger gap’ between two rainy seasons.

Farmers in our study listed the following problems in cowpea production in order of their relative importance during the participatory appraisal: lack of labour to cultivate it in a proper manner, low prices for the produce, limited access to markets, difficulties to store the produce due to pests, pests and diseases during cultivation, danger snake infested field, difficulty to reach the bush plots (where cowpea is usually cultivated) and difficulty of transporting the produce to the market. To manage cowpea pests, farmers routinely use synthetic pesticides, mainly the Pyrethroid insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin (PRONAF project, 2002; PEDUNE project, 2000). Cowpea has become one of the most intensively sprayed crops. Fertiliser is not commonly used on cowpea because farmers generally do not think it is needed. One farmer explained why he would not use fertiliser on his cowpea:

‘Cowpea already is a fertiliser in itself, because if I plant maize after it, the maize yields more than it would do on another plot where cowpea was not previously cultivated’.

The focus of cowpea research in West Africa over the preceding fifteen to twenty years was mainly to develop cowpea cultivars that are resistant to heat, pests and diseases within a sustainable farming system (Hammond, 2002). However, when the efforts were evaluated, it appeared that most improved cowpea varieties are yet to be adopted by farmers (IITA, 1997). The reason for this lack of adoption was sought in the method used to promote the research outcomes. FFSs were introduced “to bridge the gap between technology development on the one hand and dissemination/ adoption on the other hand” (Hammond, 2002: 3). Asante et al (no date: 2) explain: [the cowpea FFS project] “is a technology transfer and adoption project in which results of research on sustainable cowpea production and protection technologies are harnessed and made available to farmers”. They continue: “before the advent of [the cowpea FFS project] however the problem of how to transfer these technologies […] existed”.