Adoption of Integrated Farming Concept through Farmer –to- Farmer Extension Approach in Dry Zone of Sri Lanka
M. SuchiraSuranga[1], M. Ilangesinghe[2], A. M. Jayathilake[3]
Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture
University of Peradeniya
Abstract
Farmer to Farmer (FtF) extension approach in agriculture is systematical utilization of community leadership and informal communication between the farmers to strengthen information flow and enhance agricultural production. This paper will discuss some achievements and failures of one such practical situation where FtF Extension was utilized in Sri Lanka. Intergraded Farming and Sustainable Agricultural Development (IFSA) Project was introduced to the dry zone of Sri Lanka to provide rural low income farming households with knowledge and skills of improved agricultural technologies through the FAO methodology of FtFExtension.The general objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the FtF extension approach to introduce integrated farming concept in the dry zone of Sri Lanka whereas specific objectives were to determine the effectiveness of technology transfer, effectiveness of communication flow, the leadership development and to compare the success of followed farmers (FF) vs leader farmers (LF) in FtF extension model of IFSA Project
Two interview schedules were used to gather the general information from 25 LFs and 120 FFs separately. Six DS divisions and 20 respondents from each DS division were randomly selected for the study. So the sample size for this study was 120. Study areas were Galenbidunuwewa, Kebithigllewa, Horovipathana, Giribawa, Thanamalvila and Weeraketiya. The field data collection was done during March, 2010. The farmer trainings and capacity building have effective in technology transfer and the leader farmers have done a greater role in the model. The project could change the crops and cropping pattern of the farmers especially for vegetable and long term crops. But, there is not significant change in field crop cultivation. As government extension officers were involved in trainings, farmers especially LFs could build relationships with government extension officers. The project has not done an important role in leadership development. But, the project has effectively utilized the existing leadership of the community. There have been occasions FLs were invited by certain development agencies as resource persons to conduct training for farmers. So, even the project is not effective in leadership development, the project has developed a positive perception about the LFs role in the community. The majority of successful farmers are the FFs but no the LFs.
Key words: - Farmer to Farmer Extension, Integrated Farming, Sustainable Agriculture
Introduction and Background
Extensions is an ongoing process of getting useful information to people, and then in assisting those people to acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes to effectively utilize this information or technology (Swanson andClaur, 1984). Whereas agricultural extension seeks to enlarge and improve the abilities of farm people to adopt more appropriate and often new practices and to adjust to changing conditions and social needs (Jones andGarforth, 1997). Farmer to Farmer (FtF) extension approach in agriculture is systematic utilization of community leadership and informal communication between the farmers to strengthen information flow and enhances agricultural production. The FtF extension approach is utilizedall over the world for agricultural extension with location specific models. But, in Sri Lankan context there are very few success stories where FtF extension was used effectively and efficiently. So, this paper will discuss some achievements and failures of one such practical situation where FtF extension was utilized in Sri Lanka.
Intergraded Farming and Sustainable Agricultural Development (IFSA) project was introduced to the dry zone of Sri Lanka to provide rural low income farming households with knowledge and skills of improved agricultural technologies through the FAO methodology of FtF extension. The IFSA project was based on sustainable agricultural development concept that increases agricultural productivity and household income. The project was executed in 15 selected Divisional Secretariat areas (As two similar projects using the same concept) in the dry zone of the southern, Uva, Western, North-Western, North-Eastern, and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka. These are the rural areas where an average of 80% of the population is engaged in agricultural activities (WVL-USDA Project Proposal, 2005). In each DS division 385 framers, a total of 5775 farmers in the project area, who have about 2 acres of uncultivated upland were selected and formed into 35 small groups, a total of 525 small groups of 11 farmers in the project area. A FL for each group, 35 leaders per DS division, a total of 525 FLs in the project area, were selected by each group. FtF technology transfer approach was adopted and for each DS division an agriculture extension officer was assigned. FL was the main and most important link between the project and the farmers.
Problem Justification
High cost of extension and lack of farmer participation for agricultural extension are often said to be the most important concerns in any agricultural development approaches or models in the world. Although there is a large number of agricultural development programs implemented, success can be seen rarely. It is not enough only to develop agricultural technologies and research methodologies to handle that problem. Given that the FtF extension model is the best means to tackle the issue, the farmer participation in extension need to be connected with agricultural extension. A lot of experiences of FtF extension can be seen all over the world as well as in Sri Lanka. But, there are not enough studies conducted in Sri Lankan context to analyze the effectiveness of FtF extension models and its limitations. This study aims to contribute to a better understanding of FtF extension model and its effectiveness for the formulation of Agricultural Extension policies and programs in Sri Lanka. The results of the study will provide inputs into the formulation of agricultural extension plans and programs, particularly in the field of community development.
Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the FtF extension approach to introduce integrated farming concept in dry zone of Sri Lanka, whereas the specific objectives of this study are,
01.To determine the effectiveness of technology transfer in FtF extension model of IFSA Project.
02.To determine effectiveness of communication flow of IFSA FtF extension model.
03.To determine the leadership development through the IFSA FtF extension model.
04.To compare the success of FF vs LF in the project concept.
Review of Literature
This section presents a collection of information gathered by recent literature concerning FtF extension, FtF extension experiences in the world. There are some similarities in some extension models with the IFSA concept.
FtF extension is operational in Nepal since 2001. It was the Sustainable Soil Management Program (SSMP) that initiated FtF extension in 12 districts in 2001. The approach has now drawn attention in the national agricultural extension system. Recognizing the grass-root level effectiveness of FtF extension, the national agriculture strategy and the three year interim plan have provision of extending technologies through FtF approach. There are three institutional components in Nepal FtF approach, namely; DistrictFtF Committee (DFC) – comprise members from District Agriculture Development Office, Livestock Office, District Development Committee, one male and one female representative of farmers, Experience Leader Farmers (ELF) – trained and experience progressive farmer who has undergone a series of trainings covering both technical and social aspects. ELF is selected by using an focus group discussion, Demand Farmer Groups (DFG) – formed from among farmers who want extension help. It is a functional Group. (Saravanan, 2008).
In FtF extension in dry lands Kenya – The SOFEM (Social Forestry Extension Mode)lcore group farmers are selected and trained in practical skills of tree planting as well as communication skills to act as the extension agents to the neighboring farmers. The selected farmers are also expected to establish farm forests on their own farms to act as demonstration and teaching fields to their neighbors. The process contains the steps of farmer selection, farmer training, farm forest establishment (Sinja et al., 2004). One of the most effective ways to address farmers’ needs is through FtF extension approach that also encourages farmer experimentation. This is clear from Practical Action’s work in Peru. The Kamayoq are farmers selected by their communities, who receive specific training and then return to their villages to train neighboring farmers. They work with other farmers to develop solutions to local agricultural and veterinary problems, generally following a Participatory Technology Development approach. Positive results also include an increase in self-confidence among the Kamayoq and those working with them, something which further encourages local experimentation (Hellin et al., 1992)
Group Extension Method has an advantage over mass media because of better feedback which makes it possible to reduce some of the misunderstandings that may develop between an extension agent and a farmer. There is greater interaction between farmers themselves. This interaction provides the opportunity to exchange beneficial or useful experiences in order to integrate information fro farmers, and farmers and extension agents (Van Den Ben et al., 1996)
Research Methodology
Key Research Areas
The effectiveness of the IFSA FtF extension model on technology transfer was analyzed related to three major aspects. Those are the change in crops and cropping patterns due to the project intervention, farmer perception on their capacity building due to the project, diffusion of IFSA technologies among non beneficiary farmers. The effectiveness of communication of the IFSA FtF extension model was analyzed in term of sharing of knowledge between AEO, LF and FF and development of relationship between government and other venders. The leadership development through the IFSA extension model was analyzed farmers’ perception about the LFs and his role and LFs perception about his capacity (past and present) to work as the leader in the farmer group. The success of LFs and FFs was determined using the results of the end project farmer evaluation. The evaluation was conducted by the respective agricultural instructors (a third party) each separately on January, 2010. But, the evaluation criteria remained unchanged from DS division to DS division as, establishment of live fence around the farm, contour buds using "A" frame, planting girizidia on soil bunds, plant spacing according to Department of Agriculture recommendation, placing pitcher pots & using it, mulching, maintenance of the plants, cleanliness of the field, maintenance of the animal shed, practicing IPM, preparation and using compost (pit/heap), own creations / innovations of the farmers, cultivation of short term crops, maintenance of farmer record book and maintenance of water source.
Design of Survey Instruments
In this study, two interview schedules were used to gather the general information of the LFs and FFs separately.Astructured questionnaire was prepared to gather the required information from the FFs of the IFSA Project. It included mostly closed ended questions which can be analyzed quantitatively. Then preplanned questions to gatherer the information about; demographic profile of the respondents, knowledge on the project structure, pattern of crops and livestock before and after the project, knowledge and skill development by the project, transfer of knowledge, perception about the leader farmer, inputs and other trainings provided by the project, and etc. Simultaneously, a questionnaire was prepared to gather additional information from the LFs that are not in the FF questionnaire. It included most by close ended questions to gather the information on communication flow and leadership development.
Data Collection and Analysis
As discussed in the section one the project site for this study was six DS divisions out of twelve project sites of the IFSA project. Thepopulation for this study is the 5775 farm families living in 15 DSD areas in Dry Zone of Sri Lanka who have been in the IFSA project for last five years. SixDS divisions and 20 farmers from each DS division were randomly selected for the study. So, the sample size for this study was120. The sampling frame was the Farmer Registration list maintained in each ADP. Selected Six DS divisions were Galenbidunuwewa, Kebithigllewa, Horovipathana, Giribawa, Thanamalvila and Weeraketiya. At the same time 20 LFs were selected from Galenbidunuwewa to gather additional information.
A pre-test was conducted using ten respondents to test whether the respondent can understand the questions. Also, it helped to determine the errors in wording the questions.
The field data collection was done during March, 2010 using structured interview method. Farmers were interviewed and collected the data to gather the realistic information. The secondary data, especially the results of farmer evaluation were gathered from AEOs who worked in each DS divisionto compare the success of FFs and LFs in the project activities.
Results and Discussions
Effectiveness of Technology Transfer
Nearly three-fourth (74%)of farmers had not received any type of agriculture training before the project. Therefore, an estimated number of 4331 farmers out of 5775 farmers of project direct beneficiaries got the first opportunity in their life to undergo trainings in agriculture because of the project. One should not ignore the fact that those farmers are life time farmers and farming is their way of living. Almost all the farmers, (96%) accepted that their knowledge and skills in agriculture, knowledge in soil erosion and control measures, compost making skills and usage and knowledge of selection of proper planting material improved by following trainings organized by the project.
Change in Crops and Crop Pattern
Crop cultivation extents of annual crops; vegetables and field crops, medium and long term crops; perennials and forest trees before the project and after the project were collected and analyzed to understand the change in crop cultivation behavior of farmers.
- Vegetable Cultivation
% of Farmers
Before
Project / After the Project
No vegetable cultivation / 34.45 / 9.24
Cultivate less than ¼ ac / 13.45 / 12.61
Cultivate ¼ - ½ ac / 35.29 / 47.06
Cultivate ½ - 1 ac / 10.92 / 20.17
Cultivate more than 1ac / 5.88 / 10.92
Nearly one-third (34.45%) of farmers had not done any vegetable cultivation before project while only 9.20% farmers did not engage in any vegetables cultivation after the project. Therefore, an estimated number of 1455 farmers, more than 25%, have started cultivation of vegetables in their home gardens as a result of involving in the project. Above information also shows that there is an increase in extents of vegetable cultivations also due to project involvement.
- Field crop cultivation
% of Farmers
Before
Project / After the Project
No field crop cultivation / 17.65 / 14.29
Cultivate less than ¼ ac / 19.33 / 16.81
Cultivate ¼ - ½ ac / 40.34 / 47.90
Cultivate ½ - 1 ac / 14.29 / 12.61
Cultivate more than 1ac / 8.40 / 8.40
Behavior in cultivation of field crops, normally cultivated under slash and burn method, chena cultivation, had not been changed due to project involvement. Project did not encourage environmentally disastrous slash and burn cultivation. Continuous practice of slash and burn cultivation has resulted in soil erosion, soil infertility and upland rain fed cultivation very unproductive.
- Perennial crop cultivation
% of Farmers
Before
Project / After the Project
No perennial trees / 24.37 / 0.84
Less than 10 trees / 15.97 / 0.00
Trees 10 – 50 / 27.73 / 0.84
Trees 50 – 100 / 13.45 / 7.56
Trees 100 – 200 / 12.61 / 17.65
Trees More than 200 / 5.88 / 73.11
Information in table 03 very clearly shows the increase in tree crop cultivation by farmers. Almost all (98.31%) farmers interviewed have tree stands of over 100 in their lands. Perennial crops cultivated under the project support were; coconut, mango, orange, banana, teak, mahogany and other fruit trees. All the farmers interviewed stated that trees existed on their lands before project were not properly cultivated and did not have any value or give any incomes where as the trees established during project period were systematically cultivated and doing very well. Perennial crop stands give regular income to farmers and increase the value of lands. Converting unproductive farm lands into productive crop stands was the main objective of the project.
Effectiveness of Communication
Around one fourth of (26%) farmers ranked farmer leader as the number 1 knowledge source for them in improving their technical knowledge during the project period. Many LFs stated a lot of neighbor farmers not in their groupscame to them for technical advices. As project has trained 525 LFs assuming that 420 (80%) will continue as village resource persons and each leader caters to about 25 families, a total of 10500 families gain free and easy access to technical advices as a result of farmer leader development program implemented by the project. Sixty percent ranked training, 22% ranked farmer leader and 16% ranked extension officer as number one knowledge source while all accepted all capacity building activities carried out by the project were very effective and useful, 33% farmers stated training was the most important support provided to them by the project over the very expensive supports like water source and planting material.
Farmers Relationship with Agricultural Instructor before and after the Project
This is a good unexpected outcome of the project. As government extension officerswere involved in trainings, farmers especially LFs could build relationships with government extension officers. An estimated number of 2862 farmers came to know about government extension services. This relationship helps sustaining and continuing technology transfer activities introduced by the project. Some farmers have got opportunities to participate in farmer competitions organized by other agencies through government extension officers. There have been occasions where LFs were invited by certain development agencies as resource persons to conduct training for farmers.