Hugh Waddington Farmer field schools

Howard White
From agricultural extension
to adult education
March 2014

Systematic Agriculture and adult education

Review
Summary 1

International Initiative
for Impact Evaluation
About 3ie
The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) was set up in 2008 to
meet growing demand for more and better evidence of what development
interventions in low- and middle-income countries work and why. By funding
rigorous impact evaluations and systematic reviews and by making evidence
accessible and useful to policymakers and practitioners, 3ie is helping to
improve the lives of people living in poverty.

3ie Systematic Reviews

3ie-funded and in-house reviews examine the range of available evidence
of the effects of social and economic development interventions in low-
and middle-income countries. 3ie-supported systematic reviews follow
Campbell Collaboration-recognised review methods. Published reviews are
registered with the Campbell Collaboration or another recognised review
registry. 3ie is providing leadership in demonstrating rigorous review
methodologies for combining different types of evidence suitable for
complex and dynamic development contexts and challenges, such as
using theory-based review designs.

About this summary report

This report, Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult
education, 3ie Systematic Review Summary 1, is a summary of the full
review that is designed to be useful to policymakers and practitioners.
The full review and all of its appendixes will be available through the Campbell
Collaboration in early May 2014. All content is the sole responsibility of the
authors and does not represent the opinions of 3ie, its donors or the 3ie
Board of Commissioners. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the
authors. Questions or comments about this review should be directed to the
corresponding author, Hugh Waddington at hwaddington@3ieimpact.org.
Suggested citation: Waddington, H and White, H, 2014. Farmer field schools:
from agricultural extension to adult education, 3ie Systematic Review
Summary 1. London: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).
Funding for this review was provided by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.

3ie Systematic Review Summary Series

Executive editors: Philip Davies and Beryl Leach
Managing editors: Beryl Leach and Hugh Waddington
Assistant managing editor: Stuti Tripathi
Production manager: Lorna Fray
Assistant production manager: Rajesh Sharma
Copy editor: Lucy Southwood
Proofreader: Warren Davis
Design: John F McGill
Photography:
Cover, p.x, p.24: John T Monibah/Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
p.xii, p.6, p.21: Neil Palmer/CIAT
p.12: FAO

© International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2014

Farmer field schools
From agricultural extension
to adult education
3ie Systematic Review Summary 1
March 2014

Hugh Waddington
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation
Howard White
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation

International Initiative
for Impact Evaluation
 Acknowledgements

This study is based on the following four reviews prepared by 3ie staff:
Farmer field schools: global project portfolio systematic review,
„„
by Daniel Phillips, Gracia Pacillo and Howard White*
Why targeting matters: a systematic review of farmer field school targeting,
„„
by Daniel Phillips, Hugh Waddington and Howard White**
Farmer field schools: results of qualitative synthesis, by Birte Snilstveit,
„„
Martina Vojtkova, Daniel Phillips and Philip Davies*
Farmer field schools for improving farming practices and farmer
„„
outcomes: results of effectiveness synthesis, by Hugh Waddington and
Jorge Garcia Hombrados*

Thanks are due to Daniel Phillips, Birte Snilstveit and Martina Vojtkova for
their assistance in preparing this report.
We would also like to thank the Millennium Challenge Corporation for
its financial support, and Wafaa El Khoury for facilitating access to
International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) project documents.
We would also like to thank Jock Anderson, Kristin Davis, Gershon Feder,
Elske van der Fliert, Francesca Mancini, Ephraim Nkonya, Jake Ricker-Gilbert,
Scott Swinton and the researchers for their support to the Campbell review
on which this report is based. Beryl Leach and Stuti Tripathi kindly provided
helpful comments on this report. Thanks also go to the external peer
reviewers at the Campbell Collaboration, in particular Sandra-Jo Wilson.

* Published as chapters in: Waddington, H,

Snilstveit, B, Hombrados, J, Vojtkova, M,
Phillips, D, Davies, P and White, H, 2014.
Farmer field schools for improving
farming practices and farmer outcomes:
A systematic review. Campbell
Systematic Reviews, The Campbell
Collaboration, Oslo. Available at:
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/
lib/project/203/
** Phillips, D, Waddington, H and White, H,
forthcoming. Why targeting matters: a
systematic review of farmer field schools
targeting. New Delhi: International
Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie).

ii Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 Contents

Acknowledgements ii 1
Farmer field schools: from agricultural 1
Abbreviations and acronyms vi extension to adult education
1.1
Foreword vii The need for a new approach for smallholders 1
Executive summary viii 1.2
The FFS approach 2
1.3
The effectiveness of FFS 2
1.4
The systematic review approach and structure 2
of this report

2
The design of farmer field schools 4
2.1
FFS objectives 4
2.2
Crop management technologies used in FFSs 5
2.3
Components of FFS projects 6
2.4
Who funds and implements FFS programmes 7
and projects?

3
Theory of change for farmer field schools 8

4
Who benefits from farmer field schools? 10
Targeting design and performance
4.1
Approaches to targeting 10
4.2
Effectiveness of targeting 12
4.3
Targeting women 13
4.4
Summary 13

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education iii

5 7
How are farmer field schools implemented? 14 Cost-effectiveness 23
5.1 7.1
Context and policy environment 14 How much do FFSs cost? 23
5.2 7.2
Project inputs and site selection 14 FFS cost-benefit analysis 23
5.3 7.3
Curriculum development and group formation 14 Summary 24
5.4
Training facilitators 15 8
Implications for policy, programme design 25
5.5 and future evaluations
Farmer training 15
8.1
5.6 Implications for policy 25
Farmer participation and attendance 15
8.2
5.7 Implications for programme implementation 25
Activities to support dissemination 16
and diffusion 8.3
Implications for evaluation and 26
5.8 research funding
Summary 16
8.4
6 Reporting study methods and findings 27
What difference do farmer field schools make? 17
References 28
6.1
Knowledge 17 Endnotes 35
6.2
Capabilities and empowerment 17
6.3
Adoption of new practices 18
6.4
Agricultural and other impacts 19
and sustainability
6.5
Diffusion of integrated pest 20
management practices
6.6
Summary 21

iv Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

List of figures, tables and boxes

Figure 1
Global coverage of FFS projects 1
Figure 2
Reviews used in the study 3
Figure 3
FFS project objectives 4
Figure 4
Percentage of FFS projects with an 4
empowerment objective
Figure 5
Technology incorporated in FFS projects 5
Figure 6
Components of FFS intervention 6
Figure 7
Organisations funding and implementing 7
FFS projects
Figure 8
FFS theory of change 9
Figure 9
Criteria used to target FFS farmers 10
Figure 10
Targeting mechanisms used in FFS projects 11
Figure 11
Summary meta-analysis findings for 17
FFS participants
Figure 12
Summary meta-analysis findings for IPM 20
FFS neighbours
Figure 13
FFS funnel of attrition 22
Figure 14
Studies with a high risk of bias find greater 26
impacts than those with a medium risk of bias

Table 1
Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) estimates for IPM 23
FFS programmes

Box 1
Varieties of crop management technology 5
Box 2
The Indonesia national FFS programme: 18
results from study replication  

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education v

Abbreviations and acronyms

AFFOREST African farmers’ organic research and training

BCR benefit-cost ratio
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FFS farmer field school
FFSs farmer field schools
ICM integrated crop management
ICPM integrated crop and pest management
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPM integrated pest management
IPPM integrated production and pest management
NGO non-governmental organisation

vi Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 Foreword

The 3ie systematic review of farmer field school (FFS) interventions is a welcome
addition to development literature. As an approach that has reportedly reached
an estimated 12 million farmers in over 90 countries, it is an important review
to undertake. Since FFSs were introduced in Indonesia in the late 1980s, there has
been much debate among academics, scholars and policymakers regarding the
approach. As a development approach, FFS has been used – and abused – in many
ways. Some people see FFS as a type of agricultural extension, some see it solely
as an adult education approach, and others see it as an attractive way to dress up
transfer of technology.
In reality, FFS has a very particular philosophy and methodology that is
based on (among other things) discovery-based experiential learning and group
approaches. It is a rather special approach that uses elements of pedagogy
and social capital to influence agricultural practices, and includes a growing
emphasis on empowerment. For these reasons, FFSs are quite difficult to
evaluate, simply because they are difficult to define. Once operationally defined
by reviewers, teasing out the different elements (technical and agricultural,
social and educational) and separating the FFS component from the often broader
interventions of which they may be a part – for example, a food security project
including research, extension and input supply – is also problematic.
Both academic and grey literature abounds with cases of FFS. This 3ie FFS
systematic review summary report brings all of this together using rigorous
methodology to provide both technical and policy messages to bear on this
important topic. While long, the policy report condenses some 500 papers on
the topic into a manageable document with clear messages for policymakers
and understandable figures and tables, written in clear language without jargon.
The report gives information on the background and history of FFS, design,
theory of change, targeting, implementation, effectiveness and finally, implications.
The chapter highlights provide succinct messages on each of the sections.
Importantly, the authors point out the dangers of falling into a one-size-fits-all
approach that some countries and donors have taken when adopting FFS as their
main approach. Instead, they point out the need for a more thoughtful, best
fit approach, using FFS selectively where it best suits local situations and needs.
Those looking for a quick fix or formulæ on how to achieve instant reduction
of food insecurity or other development outcomes will be disappointed. But for
those willing to explore and thoughtfully analyse what they really want – and
if and how FFS could help them achieve it – this report will help.

Kristin Davis
Executive Secretary, Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services
Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education vii

Executive summary

Since the late 1980s, support to agriculture has UN organisations with a special interest in agriculture,
moved from top-down agricultural extension towards the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the
more participatory approaches which better suit International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD),
smallholders. One such approach is the farmer field have led the way in the expansion of FFS.
school (FFS), an adult education intervention which
uses intensive discovery-based learning to promote Project design
skills. Although an estimated 12 million farmers FFS projects have three stages:
have been trained by FFS in over 90 countries across
Asia, Africa and Latin America, the effectiveness In the inception phase, facilitators are trained, a
„„
of this approach has long been a subject of debate. curriculum is developed and farmer groups formed.

Drawing on a systematic review of over 500 In the training phase, farmers attend weekly sessions
„„
documents, this study finds that, although FFSs have in a nearby field, preferably with a control plot, where
changed practices and raised yields in pilot projects, an FFS facilitator oversees curriculum implementation.
they have not been effective when taken to scale. Finally, many FFSs aim to disseminate knowledge to
„„
The FFS approach requires a degree of facilitation and the wider community, through informal communication
skilled facilitators, which are difficult to sustain beyond or formal methods such as training of farmer trainers.
the life of the pilot programmes. FFS typically promotes
better use of pesticides, which requires hands-on Theory of change
experience to encourage adoption. As a result, diffusion
FFS programmes aim to provide skills to improve
is unlikely and has rarely occurred in practice.
agricultural, health and environmental outcomes, and
empower farmers. Achieving these outcomes means
Farmer field schools
training suitable facilitators, targeting appropriate
Objectives farmers to attend the full training schedule and
undertaking activities to promote dissemination
FFS projects aim to curb the over-use of pesticides and and diffusion.
other harmful practices, to empower disadvantaged
farmers such as women, and to build farmers’ skills Participants should gain knowledge and adopt
to become more resilient and adaptive to shocks. The new practices, which in turn should increase yields.
share of projects that have empowerment objectives The policy environment should be conducive to impacts
has risen to over 80 per cent in the last decade. being achieved, which means input prices and other
incentives should not discourage farmers from adopting
The FFS approach aims to provide skills in crop FFS-promoted practices. Where production is for
cultivation and resource management using sustainable market, there should be reasonable market access.
agricultural production methods such as integrated
pest management (IPM).

viii Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Systematic review findings Cost-effectiveness

Targeting farmers FFSs are unlikely to be cost-effective in comparison

with other approaches such as agricultural extension.
The majority of FFS projects targeted better-off Although FFSs may be a more cost-effective way of
farmers, which appears to have been successful. empowering the poor, there is insufficient evidence on
Half of the projects used pro-poor targeting, which empowerment impacts to say whether this is the case.
did not always succeed in reaching the target groups
because targeting mechanisms favoured elites or the Implications
characteristics of more disadvantaged target groups
made it difficult for them to participate. Programmes For policy
have had mixed success in reaching women.
The FFS approach will not solve the problems
Implementation experiences encountered by large-scale agricultural extension
programmes, and should be used selectively to solve
Design and implementation range from FAO- particular problems in particular contexts. When
promoted participatory adult education programmes FFS is used – for example, to address farming practices
to approaches that are closer to top-down ‘chalk which are especially damaging to the environment –
and talk’ agricultural extension. efforts should not be counteracted by price distortions
Facilitator selection and training are crucial or other factors.
components in determining the quality of FFS
For practice
training. Many programmes are closer to traditional
extension approaches than the participatory Recruitment of appropriate facilitators is crucial for
learning approach advocated by the FFS programme effective implementation. Training of facilitators should
founders, partly because of problems in identifying focus on participatory techniques and facilitation skills
appropriate facilitators and training them in the and emphasise the need to use language and concepts
necessary skills and approaches. which are familiar to farmers. Facilitators should
also have access to ongoing support and back-stopping
Only a minority of FFS programmes support
from experts.
activities to institutionalise the FFS approach at
the community level through farmer clubs, and Different objectives of FFS are best met through
so encourage sustainable adoption and diffusion. different targeting approaches. Targeting better-off
farmers is more conducive to agricultural impacts,
Impacts for participating farmers since they are better able to adopt the practices.
Farmers participating in FFS projects typically Empowerment goals may be better met by targeting
benefit from improved outcomes along the causal disadvantaged farmers, although there is very little
chain, including knowledge and adoption of beneficial evidence on empowerment outcomes of FFS.
practices, agricultural production and profits. However,
For research
this evidence mostly comes from smaller-scale pilots.
For larger FFS programmes implemented at national The rigorous evidence base is small. There are
scale over longer periods there is no evidence of few rigorous impact evaluations, especially for
positive effects. Problems in recruiting and training programmes at scale, and there are none based
appropriate facilitators and a lack of back-stopping on cluster-randomised assignment, a feasible approach
and support for community-based approaches have for FFS. Moreover, there is very little evidence about
impeded scaled-up programmes. other important benefits of FFS, such as empowerment,
environment and health. There is a need for rigorous
Diffusion to non-participant farmers evaluations measuring these broad outcomes, and
Neighbouring farmers who do not participate in FFS for mixed-method evaluations which interrogate the
projects do not benefit from diffusion of knowledge causal chain to determine whether FFS programmes
about IPM from trained farmers. The experience-based can be made effective at scale.
nature of the training and the importance of observing
advantages over conventional farmer practices
prevent diffusion to neighbours.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education ix

 Farmer field schools: from agricultural
extension to adult education 1
1.1
Chapter highlights
The need for a new approach for smallholders
The Green Revolution in the 1960s and 1970s
Farmer field schools (FFSs) are a bottom-up
„„
improved agricultural yields, raising production and
participatory approach that aim to empower
food security. However, two challenges also emerged.
farmers and improve agricultural outcomes.
First, modernisation was associated with adverse
Since the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
„„ environmental and health consequences, as a result
first introduced them in Indonesia in 1989, FFSs of water pollution, declining soil quality, soil erosion,
have reached over 12 million farmers in 90 countries. pest resistance and loss of biodiversity.3 Second, poor
farmers were being left behind. In particular, many
This report presents a systematic review of over
„„
of the technologies promoted at this time were not
500 documents to assess the effectiveness of FFS.
appropriate for African smallholders, and women in
particular.4 Existing agricultural extension and advisory
services were ineffective in meeting these challenges.5
According to the World Development Report on
Agriculture, after a long period of decline in Agricultural extension has traditionally transferred farm
development support, agriculture and agricultural management practices and technologies developed in
extension in particular are now back in favour.1 Poverty research stations to farmers. The approach has largely
reduction strategies in 24 African countries have listed been top-down, as characterised, for example, by
extension as a top agricultural priority.2 Nevertheless, the World Bank’s Training and Visit System. Following
the age-old question about what works in supporting the perceived failure of such top-down approaches,6
agriculture remains unanswered. This study aims different – more participatory – approaches have
to help answer this question for FFS, a relatively new emerged, notably FFS.
approach to reaching smallholders around the world.

Figure 1: Global coverage of FFS projects

Low- and middle-income

country coverage of
FFS projects
1985–1989
1990–1994
1995–1999
2000–2004
2005–2009
2010 onwards
Start date not available

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 1

1.2 1.4
The FFS approach The systematic review approach and structure
of this report
Since the 1980s, more participatory training methods
have been adopted to create spaces for farmer self- A systematic review collects and synthesises all
learning and sharing, and also to allow agents and available high-quality evidence, appraises it and uses
agricultural researchers to learn from farmers.7 One transparent synthesis methods to draw conclusions
such approach is FFS, an adult education method for policy and practice.16 There are no previous
rooted in Paulo Friere’s dialogical education approach.8 systematic reviews of the evidence regarding farmer
field schools.17
FAO developed FFSs as a means of empowering
farmers by improving their analytical and decision- This report summarises a systematic review of
making skills. FFSs are used to communicate complex evidence on the effectiveness of FFS. It uses a
ideas such as integrated crop management (IPM) 9 theory-based approach to examine evidence along
while also empowering farmers by strengthening their the causal chain from programme design and
skills, problem-solving capabilities and confidence. implementation through to impacts.18 We address the
overall question of effectiveness by asking the following:
Starting with Indonesian rice farmers in 1989,
FFSs have been introduced in at least 90 countries What are the main objectives and design features
„„
worldwide (see Figure 1), and have produced over of FFS?
12 million graduates.10 Around 60 per cent of
What is the theory of change by which FFS is supposed
„„
beneficiaries have been in Asia, including many rice
to work?
and cotton farmers.11 However, over half of all FFS
projects have been in Africa, starting with the FAO’s How do FFS projects target beneficiaries? What types
„„
Gezira Scheme in Sudan in 1993. African FFSs cover of farmers participate? How effective is FFS targeting?
staples, vegetables and tree crops (cocoa and tea).
What are the experiences of implementing FFSs?
„„
The International Potato Center first introduced
What are the facilitators of, and barriers to, effective
FFS in Latin America in 1999.
and sustainable implementation?
1.3 What are the effects of FFSs on participating farmers?
„„
The effectiveness of FFS Is there diffusion to neighbouring farmers?
There have been hundreds of evaluations of FFS design „„ Is FFS a cost-effective approach?
and implementation. These studies have conflicting
findings, so the effectiveness of FFS remains a matter This summary report (referred to herein as the report)
of debate. is based on the following four reviews:
1
An influential impact evaluation of Indonesia’s
a global portfolio review including studies and
IPM-FFS programme concluded that ‘the programme
evaluations of FFSs and project documents19
did not have significant impacts on the performance
of graduates and their neighbours’ in promoting 2
appropriate pesticide use, or yields.12 These negative a review of FFS targeting objectives, mechanisms
findings contributed to the World Bank pulling out and outcomes20
of the Global IPM Facility multi-donor trust fund.13 3
a qualitative review of the barriers and facilitators
However, reviews drawing on multiple studies
for FFS projects21
report more positive findings. A review of 25
IPM-FFS evaluations concluded that ‘studies reported 4
substantial and consistent reductions in pesticide an effectiveness review of quantitative studies on the
use attributable to the effect of training… Results impact of FFSs22
demonstrated remarkable, widespread and lasting
In addition to the above, data on cost-effectiveness
developmental impacts’.14
from four projects were also analysed.
In addition to the debate on effectiveness, the
As shown in Figure 2, initial search identified some
scalability and financial sustainability of FFS has
28,000 papers, the majority of which were not
been questioned. While pilot projects have sometimes
about FFS programmes and therefore excluded from
been effective, it is not clear whether farmers have
the analysis. Nearly 500 (460) potentially relevant
the time and resources to participate in field schools,
studies were reviewed in detail; 195 of which were
or whether public agricultural systems have the
included in the systematic review, along with 337
capacity and resources to manage the fiscal obligations
FFS project documents.
required for a long-term public training programme.15
This report aims to address this unresolved debate.

2 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 28,000 study titles and
abstracts screened

460 relevant
FFS studies screened
at full text

Review of global Review of targeting: Review of effects: Review of barriers Review of benefit-cost
project portfolio: 92 projects 134 studies and facilitators: estimates: 4 projects
337 projects (including 34 (71 projects) 27 studies
projects not covered (20 projects)
in other reviews)

Figure 2: Reviews used in the study Chapter 2 draws on the global portfolio review of
Note: Three of the four reviews are 337 projects to present the design of FFSs, following
chapters in the full systematic review, which Chapter 3 discusses the theory of change.
Farmer field schools for improving Chapters 4 and 5 discuss FFS targeting and other
farming practices and farmer outcomes:
a systematic review, on which this aspects of implementation respectively, drawing on
summary report has been based. the qualitative synthesis of 27 studies (20 projects)
Waddington, H, Snilstveit, B, Hombrados, and the targeting review, which covered 92 projects.
J, Vojtkova, M, Phillips, D, Davies, P and
White, H, 2014. Farmer field schools for Chapter 6 examines the impact of FFS on beneficiaries
improving farming practices and farmer and their neighbours, drawing on the effectiveness
outcomes: a systematic review. Campbell review of 134 studies of 71 FFS projects and the
Systematic Reviews, The Campbell
Collaboration, Oslo. Available at: http:// qualitative synthesis of barriers and facilitators.
www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/ Chapter 7 discusses cost-effectiveness, using cost
project/203/ data from the global portfolio review and four cases
of benefit-cost analysis. Finally, Chapter 8 draws
out implications for policy, programme design and
future research.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 3

 The design of farmer field schools
2
2.1
Chapter highlights
FFS objectives
FFSs aim to provide training in agricultural techniques
FFS projects have empowerment objectives, as well
„„
and develop skills to empower farmers.
as objectives related to agricultural production.
An FAO manual describes a FFS as a school without
The majority of FFSs focus on pesticide management.
„„
walls where farmers learn in groups by trying out
FFS projects have three stages: inception, farmer
„„ new ideas in their own fields, where this process
training and dissemination. empowers farmers to develop their own solutions to
their own problems.23 Figure 3 shows how, despite
FFS has been mostly funded by FAO and International
„„
being essentially agricultural projects with production
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
or food security objectives, 67 per cent of FFS projects
also have empowerment objectives.24

FFS is an intensive approach in which farmers learn The FAO-EU Pest Management Programme for Cotton
to manage their crops using more natural methods in Asia, for example, aimed to promote sustainable,
such as IPM. Various organisations have implemented profitable and environmentally sound cotton production
FFS with different objectives, including improving by encouraging farmers and extension staff to practise
agricultural outcomes and empowering farmers. This IPM.25 Its other agricultural objectives included
chapter presents evidence on FFS design. improving agricultural practices such as pesticide use,
soil management, animal healthcare, improving the
Figure 3: FFS project objectives public extension system and increasing market access.
Note: Most projects have multiple Cambodia’s national IPM programme, on the other
objectives, therefore total sums hand, aimed ‘to empower people to actively solve…
to greater than 100 per cent.
problems by encouraging active participation, self-
confidence, dialogue instead of lectures, joint decision
Production 96.5% making and self-determination.’26 Likewise, one of the
Empowerment 66.9% Bangladesh Agriculture Sector Support Programme’s
objectives was ‘to empower farmers to become
Market access 50.8% experts on their own farms and to be more confident
Food security 70.8% in solving their own problems’.27

Environment 63.8% Figure 4 shows how the share of FFS projects with an
empowerment objective has risen in the last decade.
Social/community 69.2% Projects have been reoriented in this direction. For
Institutionalisation 47.3% example, the objectives of the first phase (1999–2002)
of the IFAD-FAO FFS project in East Africa were
Health 49.2% ‘to increase the competence of the extension system,
Pest/pesticide/soil 62.7% establishing networking capacity for exchanging
FFS experiences and contribute to knowledge on the
Animal healthcare 2.7% effectiveness of the approach.’28 The second phase
(2005–2008) included empowerment objectives
Percentage of projects
to ‘broaden the scope of FFS, and establish the skills
Figure 4: FFS projects with an empowerment objective and methodologies necessary to enable the FFS to
respond to farmers’ demands’.29
100
Other FFS objectives include reducing gender inequality,
80 targeting minority groups, community development
86.2%
and strengthening producer groups. In Bangladesh,
60 67.8% the agricultural extension programme’s immediate
50.0%
45.5% objectives were ‘Improved, demand-driven, integrated,
40 and decentralised extension systems developed to
37.4% support poor, marginal and small farmer households’.30
20

0
1989–1994 1995–1999 2000–2004 2005–2009 2010–2013

4 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Almost half of the FFS projects analysed in the
Box 1:
systematic review had a health objective, either
Varieties of crop management technology
through education or by reducing harmful chemicals
used in agriculture. In addition, nearly two-thirds
(64 per cent) included an environmental objective Integrated pest management (IPM): Based
through education on the environment and climate on the life cycles of pests and their interaction
change, sustainable land and water use, reduction with the environment to manage pest populations
of negative environmental impacts from farming economically, while minimising risks to the
and protection of the local environment and existing environment or human health.
natural assets.
Integrated production and pest management
(IPPM): A variant of IPM that has evolved
2.2
in Africa, emphasising pest management and
Crop management technologies used in FFSs
growing healthy crops.
The first FFSs in Asia introduced IPM to tackle
Integrated crop management (ICM): Based
overreliance on chemical pesticides.31 An FFS seeks
on the interactions between soil, the natural
to communicate the perhaps counter-intuitive
environment and biological pests or weeds to
message that using less pesticide results in higher
promote sustainable crop production.
yields, a message which is contrary to what farmers
hear from commercial agents. Integrated crop and pest management (ICPM):
Combines chemical, biological and cultural pest
Although FFSs have evolved, and many focus
control methods with crop management strategies.
their training on different soil management
or production techniques (see box, opposite), pest Other pesticide management: Chemical or
management remains the focus of the large majority pesticide management techniques.
of FFS projects (see Figure 5), with variations
Soil management: Soil or crop management
reflecting regional priorities and contexts. Over half
techniques.
(54 per cent) of the FFSs focused on IPM. Integrated
production and pest management (IPPM) projects Other: This category includes other variants
implemented in Africa – such as the IFAD-FAO of IPM or other general references to management
FFS projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda – techniques. Examples include: integrated disease
comprise nine per cent of all FFS programmes management; integrated water management;
worldwide. Techniques such as ICM (4 per cent of all integrated pest and vector management;
FFS programmes) and ICPM (2 per cent) have been and integrated pest biosystem management.
primarily implemented in Africa and Latin America.
All these approaches share a focus on cultivating
crops and managing resources through the
application of scientifically developed techniques,
usually based on natural processes and developed
by agricultural researchers.
While the first FFSs targeted rice farmers, as the
approach has spread to other regions it has been
adapted to a wide variety of crops and livestock.
The majority of projects reviewed (92 per cent)
target specific crops, in particular cotton, cereal
crops such as maize, root crops such as potatoes,
vegetables, tree crops (cocoa, tea or coffee) and
fruit. Over a third of the projects have supported
livestock farming – mainly poultry, cattle and
sheep and goats. Figure 5: Technology incorporated in FFS projects

Integrated pest management (IPM) 53.6%

Other pesticide management 19.2%
Soil management 9.4%
Integrated production and pest management (IPPM) 8.9%
Integrated crop management (ICM) 4.0%
Other pest, pesticide or soil management 2.7%
Integrated crop and pest management (ICPM) 2.2%

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 5

2.3 According to FAO guidelines, there is plenty of room
Components of FFS projects for variation in FFS, as long as it results in a learner-
centred, participatory process that relies on an
Figure 6 illustrates the three stages of an FFS project:
experiential learning approach.32 Curricula can also be
inception, farmer training and dissemination.
developed using participatory technology development
Inception methods, in which communities identify problems
and test solutions and learning materials which are
This initial stage includes recruiting and training made by farmers and consistent with local conditions.33
facilitators, developing the curriculum, group
formation activities and setting up project management Facilitators can be recruited from extension agency
functions such as monitoring and financial systems. staff or selected FFS graduates of a training-of-trainers
course. The latter is more likely in larger scale, longer-
The curriculum defines the programme’s main term projects. For example, in the Indonesian IPM
focus. It is built around a flexible set of techniques programme, an initial cohort of extension trainers
and components; content is determined in consultation helped to train groups of farmer trainers. Around
with farmers and consistent with local conditions. 20 per cent of projects distinguish between extension
The curriculum can include additional field studies, and farmer trainers, and for these projects half of
depending on local field problems. A FFS curriculum FFS facilitators are farmer trainers. However, in Africa
should commonly also include special topics tailored 70 per cent of facilitators are extension workers.
for each FFS.
Nearly all projects (90 per cent) included activities
to form farmer groups.

Figure 6: Components of FFS intervention

Inception Farmer training Dissemination

„„ Recruitment and „„ Season-long training „„ Field days,
season-long training attended by farmers exchange visits
of facilitators „„ Facilitation through „„ Platform buildaing
„„ Curriculum developed discovery-based group (e.g. support
partially by farmers learning (e.g. agro- to local networks)
„„ Group formation
ecosystem analysis, „„ Training of farmer
experimentation, trainers
„„ Other inputs: financial group dynamics,
and monitoring systems special topics)

6 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Figure 7: Organisations funding and implementing FFS projects

Funding
Implementation Multilateral agency 68%
28%

Bilateral agency 32%

4%

Research institute 6%
29%

Host government 23%

53%

NGO 17%
38%

Community-based organisation 11%

15%

Private sector 4%
15%

Other 13%
8%

No information 2%
4%

Percentage of projects

Farmer training FFSs may also attempt to promote diffusion

to neighbouring non-participating farmers by
The standard FFS training involves a field-based,
encouraging FFS graduates to engage in informal
season-long programme overseen by an FFS
farmer-to-farmer communication or through
facilitator, with weekly meetings near the plots of
attempts at local institutionalisation. A third of
participating farmers. Each FFS typically has 20–25
projects provided platform-building activities,
participants, with farmers working together in groups
organising farmers’ clubs or building local networks
of five. Facilitators are supposed to use experiential,
to encourage continued local collective action.
participatory and learner-centred training methods,34
Training of farmer trainers has also been used
designed to enable farmers to learn to make better
to support diffusion to the broader community.
decisions for themselves.35
Around half of programmes provided additional
More than half the project designs used agro-
inputs such as seeds or tools and one-third offered
ecosystems analysis (AESA), a common component
complementary marketing training.
of FFS training that involves pictorial presentations
of factors that affect crops.
2.4
FFS facilitation should ideally involve experimentation, Who funds and implements FFS programmes
comparing business-as-usual farmer practice in control and projects?
plots with new practices based on FFS technology in
UN organisations with a special interest in agriculture
demonstration plots. However, only one-quarter of the
have led the way in the expansion of FFSs: 31 per cent
projects reported incorporating farmer practice plots
of projects were funded by FAO and 19 per cent by
alongside the experimental FFS plot.
IFAD. Figure 7 shows other organisations that have
Standard field school design activities also include provided funding and been involved in project
group dynamics ‘to strengthen group cohesion, implementation. Host governments implemented
maintain motivation and help participants develop over half the projects in the portfolio, followed by
organizational skills’.36 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with 40 per
cent. International research institutes with a specific
Dissemination interest in FFSs have also played a significant role in
Many FFS projects include dissemination activities project implementation or coordination. One example
such as farmer exchange visits to other field schools is the International Potato Center’s programmes
(40 per cent), and field days focusing on specific in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador, which led the way in
local problems, providing farmers the opportunity managing late blight and other diseases in potatoes.
to present course material and the results of their
studies to their communities (60 per cent).

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 7

 Theory of change for farmer field schools
3
8
Chapter highlights
Impact: Higher yields, higher net farm income,
improved health and environmental outcomes, and
For FFSs to work, key assumptions regarding the
„„ farmer empowerment through skills development,
trainers, the farmers and the incentive environment group activities and collective action.
are needed. 9
FFS are multi-component interventions designed
„„ Sustainability: Farmers are able to adapt to new
in different ways. challenges using the skills learned by participating
in FFS.
A theory of change helps to clarify the intervention
„„
components and how a FFS is supposed to work. Each step in the theory of change is based on
assumptions, which are needed for the outcomes
to be realised from the activities. These assumptions
FFS programmes aim to build farmers’ capacity and can be grouped into three categories: design;
promote the adoption of better practices, to improve implementation; and context and local characteristics,
agricultural outcomes, health, the environment and which include those of the farmers themselves.
farmer empowerment.
Design
Figure 8 illustrates our theory of change to achieve
The curriculum should be relevant to local needs.
these outcomes. We developed this theory through an
This requires FFS facilitators not to provide lectures,
iterative process of how FFSs are explained in project
but to facilitate the learning process. It is assumed
documents and issues that emerged from the data.37
that this bottom-up participatory approach to learning,
The theory of change has the following main with a focus on helping farmers identify appropriate
components: methods and build their problem-solving capabilities,
1 ensures that they internalise the message through
Inception: Identify, recruit and train facilitators. learning by doing.
Develop the curriculum.
Implementation
2
Targeting: Establish targeting mechanisms. Form It is assumed that the target farmers know of the
new groups or identify existing ones. FFS programme and are willing and able to take
part. To develop skills, farmers must attend sufficient
3
meetings with a skilled facilitator over the planting
Farmer training: Farmers attend the sessions, which
season. To adopt the new techniques, farmers compare
are run as planned by suitably qualified facilitators.
the benefits of new practices in experimental FFS plots
4 with the conventional farming approaches on farmer
Dissemination: Promote community-wide diffusion practice plots. The techniques need to be appropriate
to non-participant neighbour farmers. to farmers’ resources, including labour, and should
5 improve yields and incomes.
Capacity building: Participants gain knowledge and
For FFS to lead to improved knowledge and skills,
other skills.
facilitators should be adequately trained, involving
6 season-long theoretical and practical training.
Adoption: Participants adopt the farming practices It is vital that they – and traditional extension agents
promoted through the FFS. in particular – become familiar with, and adopt,
7 a more participatory, learner-centred approach.
Diffusion: Non-participants become aware of new
The theory of change assumes that farmers who
techniques through observation, word of mouth or
are targeted and reached by FFSs are willing and able
formal diffusion activities, and so adopt these practices.
to participate in training throughout the season and
able to implement FFS practices in their own fields. The
process of group formation, or using existing groups,
should not conflict with these targeting objectives.

8 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 FAO community IPM guidelines focus on Context and local characteristics
institutionalising IPM and point to the need for adopting
The policy environment affects a project’s ability
formal approaches involving FFS alumni: ‘without
to have the desired impact. Since the majority of FFSs
post-FFS educational opportunities, there will be
promote the proper use of pesticides and fertiliser,
no community movement’.38 Whether a project has
it is important that prices and interactions between
an informal or formal diffusion mechanism has
private sector producers and public sector extension
implications for beneficiary targeting.39 Without
workers do not create adverse incentives. Where
formal mechanisms, participants should ideally have
production is for the market, there should be
characteristics which will enhance diffusion – such
reasonable market access.
as being respected in their communities and having
strong social networks. In the absence of formalised For IPM to be sustainable, it has to be adopted by
community building and training-of-trainers the whole community. This requires FFS participants
programmes for FFS alumni, the degree of diffusion to diffuse knowledge and practices to neighbouring
of IPM knowledge and practices from participants farmers who are not able to participate in the
to non-participants will depend on existing field schools.40
social networks.

Figure 8: FFS theory of change

Context
„„ Policy: prices of inputs (pesticides, fertiliser); regulations
„„ Relationship between private sector producers and extension or training system
„„ Market access
„„ Existing farmer practices

1 2 3 4
Inception Targeting Farmer training Dissemination
„„ Recruitment and „„ Effective targeting „„ Season-long training „„ Field days,
season-long training mechanisms attended by farmers exchange visits
of facilitators „„ Target farmers know „„ Facilitation through „„ Platform building
„„ Curriculum developed of the programme discovery-based group (e.g. support to
partially by farmers and are willing and learning (e.g. AESA, local networks)
„„ Other inputs: financial
able to take part experimentation, „„ Training of
and monitoring systems „„ Farmer group formation
group dynamics, farmer trainers
special topics)

5
Capacity building
„„ Participants gain knowledge
and improve analytical
decision-making skills

Key

Policy environment 6 7
Adoption Diffusion
„„ Participants adopt the „„ Neighbours become aware
Intervention components technology and management of new practices; through
practices promoted observation, word of mouth or
community institutionalisation
Intermediate outcomes „„ Neighbours adopt new practices

Impacts
8 9
Impact Sustainability
„„ Higher yields and net „„ Sustainability of practices
farm income and outcomes (including
„„ Improved health and by neighbours)
environment „„ Farmers able to adapt to new
„„ Empowerment through skills challenges using skills learned
development, group activities by participating in FFS
and collective action

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 9

 Who benefits from farmer field schools?
Targeting design and performance 4
4.1
Chapter highlights
Approaches to targeting
Figure 9 shows the four main types of targeting
The majority of FFSs have targeted better-off
„„
criteria used in FFSs:
farmers, as they are more likely to benefit
from and disseminate FFS approaches. But over 1
half of the reviewed projects also targeted more Efficiency: Many projects targeted farmers who
disadvantaged groups. were best able to make use of the training – a quarter
targeted members of existing farmer groups while
FFS projects commonly use categorical targeting
„„ 85 per cent focused on farmers with other desired
(based, for example, on literacy levels or type of crop), characteristics. For example, Cambodia’s national
often combined with an additional assessment. IPM programme was among the 7 per cent of projects
FFS succeeds in reaching better-off target
„„ that targeted more prosperous farmers or those with
groups. There has been mixed success in reaching high social standing. The IPM programme in Indonesia,
disadvantaged populations. on the other hand, targeted literate farmers since
it was assumed that they would best learn and diffuse
the FFS knowledge.
Should FFSs select experienced and educated 2
farmers with productive assets, who may be best able Equity: 55 per cent of programmes targeted
to benefit? Or should they promote poverty reduction marginal or poorer groups. Over a quarter
objectives and target poor farmers and priority of programmes – such as Nepal’s and Ghana’s
groups such as women? Are the targeting mechanisms national IPM programmes – explicitly targeted women,
consistent with targeting objectives? This chapter while 15 per cent, including Zimbabwe’s AFFOREST
presents evidence on how FFS projects have targeted (African Farmers’ Organic Research and Training) FFS,
farmers and whether they succeeded in reaching directly targeted the poor. A further 10 per cent of
the intended beneficiaries. programmes were designed to include all farmers –
for example, the Lipton Tea-Kenya Tea Development
Agency FFS included different farm sizes.

Figure 9: Criteria used to target FFS farmers

Note: Percentages
add up to more than Effectiveness Pre-existing groups 25.0%
100 per cent due
to programmes Educated 20.5%
implementing multiple Innovative 18.2%
targeting criteria.
Disseminate 15.9%

Resources 13.6%

Prosperous or medium scale 6.8%

Social standing 6.8%

Equity Women 27.3%

Poor 15.9%

Inclusive 9.1%

Farming system Crop 52.3%

Disease or pest 25.0%

Pesticide 15.9%

Practical criteria Accessibility 20.5%

Convenience 15.9%

Availability 13.6%

Interest 11.4%

Percentage of projects

10 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 3 Targeting mechanisms are approaches that make
Farming systems: 95 per cent of programmes the targeting criteria operational. Figure 10 illustrates
targeted farmers of particular crops, those the three broad types of targeting mechanisms for
experiencing pest or crop disease problems, or which data is available from 58 projects:41
those who were over-reliant on chemical pesticides. 1
A quarter of programmes, including the Striga Control Individual or household assessment selects
Programme in Nigeria, targeted farmers who were participants, either using a means test or according
over-reliant on chemical pesticides, and 16 per cent, to explicit criteria set by community leaders or
such as the FAO-EU IPM Programme for Cotton in Asia, programme implementers. This mechanism was
targeted high pesticide use areas. The single most used in just under half of the projects.
common targeting criterion was that farmers should
2
be growing a particular crop – most commonly rice, but
Categorical targeting uses easily identifiable criteria
also often other staples. The IPM Collaborative Research
at either individual or household level – such as
Support Project in Ecuador, for example, targeted
sex, age, land ownership, farmer group membership –
farmers for whom potatoes were a principle crop.
or at community level – including specific locations,
4 or areas with pest or pesticide problems. Categorical
Practical criteria: Many programmes also included targeting is the most common approach, used by
practical criteria based on the motivation (11 per cent) 83 per cent of the projects.
and availability (14 per cent) of farmers; convenience to
3
implementing agencies (16 per cent); and accessibility
Self-selection occurs where a programme is
(21 per cent) of farmers’ locations. One programme
universally available, and was used in just under
in Bangladesh was implemented in areas where the
one-third of the projects.
NGO Care International already had ongoing operations,
while the FFS for IPM programme in Sri Lanka targeted Targeting mechanisms are typically used in
areas that were accessible to FFS facilitators. combination: 22 of the 48 projects that used categorical
targeting combined it with assessment, typically
using a two-step procedure for identifying potential
participants. Categorical targeting was followed by
individual or household assessment or self-selection.
Assessments were usually through community-
or implementer-based selection, rather than a formal
means test. For example, the Cambodian national
IPM programme used categorical targeting of rice
farmers, then asked the host NGO to select numerate
Figure 10: Targeting mechanisms used in FFS projects and literate FFS participants in collaboration with
village leaders.

Categorical
16

10 20

Means test: 1

Self-selection 1 Individual Community-based selection: 5

5 or household Implementer selection: 4
assessment Community and implementer: 8
4
Unspecified: 9

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 11

4.2 But even when FFS programmes target the less
Effectiveness of targeting well-off, the process may exclude them in the end.
While some pro-poor programmes successfully
FFS participants are disproportionately better-
targeted resource-poor or socially marginalised
educated and more likely to live nearer roads and
groups, in other cases these groups were excluded;45
be members of an agricultural association.
in particular, women, people without access to land
The mean years of schooling of FFS participants is (such as day labourers), the poorest farmers, illiterate
6.8 years, compared to 6.4 years for non-participant and uneducated farmers, young people and those
neighbours and 5.7 years for those in comparison in poor health. For example, in Uganda, although
communities. The few studies that provided information selection was intended to be open to all, in practice
about local amenities showed that FFS participants community leaders’ involvement in the recruitment
lived, on average, 0.3 kilometre from the road process meant that ultimately most participants
compared to 0.5 kilometre for their neighbours, had social connections to them or belonged to pre-
and 41 per cent were members of agricultural existing community groups.46
associations, compared to just 13 per cent of non-
Even where community members played no part
FFS neighbours.42 Men were slightly more likely
in participant selection, social elites or organised
to participate than women; 33.9 per cent of FFS
community groups were still able to monopolise
participants were female, compared to 37 per cent
FFS places. In some cases, attendance requirements
of their matched, non-participating neighbours.
excluded the poor. In Peru, for example, existing
FFSs do not reach the poorest farmers, partly because social networks 47 and farmer groups 48 dominated
many programmes’ inclusion criteria target better-off, the selection process to the detriment of poorer
literate farmers, or those with access to land. For or middle-income farmers. Low economic and social
example, the FFS programme in Bangladesh targeted capital was also a factor across projects. The lack
smallholders; Ecuador’s Ecosalud FFS programme of access to tools and land, an inability to accept
specified that participants must have some access the opportunity costs of participation and a lack of
to land;43 Cambodia’s national IPM programme social power all prevented farmers from participating
targeted farmers who were literate and numerate; in projects.
and Indonesia’s national IPM programme targeted
those who could read and write, attend training
regularly and disseminate what is learned to others.44

12 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Other pro-poor programmes were more successful 4.4
in their targeting. Zimbabwe’s AFFOREST FFS Summary
programme was designed to reach resource-poor
While efficiency targeting of better-off farmers appears
farmers. The original programme design was for
to have been successful, equity targeting (programmes
community members to choose participants, but
designed to be inclusive of, or aimed solely at, the poor)
implementers observed that selection by peers was
did not always successfully reach target groups. This
leading to nepotism. They took over the selection
was either because targeting mechanisms favoured
process, with the result that the majority of FFS
elites or because target groups’ characteristics made
farmers were from the resource-poor target group.49
it difficult for them to participate. Notably, programmes
had mixed success in reaching women.
4.3
Targeting women Barriers to effective targeting include inappropriate
selection criteria and targeting procedures and
Although women make up an average of 43 per cent
structural barriers to participation such as sex, poverty
of the agricultural labour force in developing countries
and cultural norms. Without a considered approach
(50 per cent in Africa), they often have far less access
to targeting, farmers may end up participating
than men to productive resources and opportunities.50
for inappropriate reasons and ultimately dropping
Many FFSs explicitly identified women as a target
out. Alternatively, participants may not have sufficient
group. However, the targeting process often worked
education levels or access to land and resources
against their inclusion, for various reasons.
(including time) to be able to attend the full training
Where FFS selection relied on community-based and implement the practices learned.
targeting or implementer selection, women were
sometimes excluded from participation. For example,
in the Indonesian national programme, the selection
procedure led to women being overlooked or excluded.51
In Kenya, female-headed households were simply
not represented at the village meeting that selected
programme participants.52
Some women were effectively precluded from
taking part because they did not fulfil the basic
inclusion criteria. For example, women in Bangladesh53
and Cambodia54 did not have sufficient influence or
education; they lacked access to land in Zimbabwe 55
and Liberia;56 or were not members of an existing
group in Kenya57 and Indonesia.58 In Bangladesh,
Cambodia and Indonesia, widows and others from
female-headed households were particularly likely
to be excluded.
In Zimbabwe 59 and Liberia,60 women’s involvement
was limited by a lack of tools or access to land, while
time commitments to the household and childcare
prevented women in Liberia, Kenya 61 and Ecuador62
from taking part. In other cases, women failed to gain
their husbands’ permission to participate in FFSs.
The Cambodian national IPM programme and some
FFSs in India63 successfully targeted female farmers;
this was ascribed by the study’s authors in part
to the fact that implementers proactively encouraged
female participation.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 13

 How are farmer field schools implemented?
5
5.2
Chapter highlights
Project inputs and site selection
Projects in Indonesia, Kenya and Tanzania encountered
Each stage of FFS implementation faces
problems due to shortfalls or delays in funding, a
challenges, including:
lack of other resources and logistical problems. For
An incentive environment which discourages the
„„ example, in Tanzania, there was insufficient provision
adoption of practices promoted by FFS. of farm tools, fertilisers and improved varieties of
seeds, or delivery of these items was delayed. In some
Curricula that are insufficiently adapted to
„„
cases, they did not reach the FFS sites at all.
local needs.
Inappropriate site selection has been an impediment to
Facilitators who are not trained, or able, to deliver
„„
some IPM FFS projects. For example, the demonstration
experiential learning effectively.
plot in a Kenyan FFS was on a remote site with limited
Lack of support for dissemination activities.
„„ irrigation and poor soil fertility, limiting the crops
farmers could grow and the farming practices they
could use.
This chapter presents evidence on how FFSs have
been implemented in practice.64 Unfortunately, 5.3
for many projects there is no documentation on how Curriculum development and group formation
they worked when they worked well. The focus tends Project inception usually includes developing
to be on when projects did not go to plan. This evidence a curriculum, forming farmer groups and training
does not indicate problems found in all FFSs; rather, trainers for extension workers and other field
in those that have arisen in some cases. Policymakers school staff.
and practitioners must watch for these issues
when designing and managing FFS projects. Here, While FFSs are oriented to a specific technology,
we examine how the theory of change has worked they are also meant to include the local community
in practice. in developing the learning process. Local involvement
in curriculum development has helped ensure
5.1 relevance. In India, reducing pesticide use met
Context and policy environment farmers’ concerns about environmental degradation
and pollution. In Zimbabwe, one FFS incorporated
In some cases, other programmes, donors and private indigenous knowledge, increasing the sense
companies can subvert the successful implementation of ownership and motivating farmers’ learning.
of FFS programmes. Here are some examples:
Where the curricula were not sufficiently tailored
A presidential decree in Indonesia committed
„„ to local needs and resources, farmers regarded this
the government to IPM as a national pest control failure to incorporate a broader range of concerns
strategy, removing subsidies and banning many as a weakness of the programme. For example,
pesticides. However, local village cooperatives some programmes only gave advice suitable for areas
continued to operate subsidised credit schemes that with high growth potential, or promoted varieties
obliged farmers to purchase technology packages, of crop which local people were reluctant to eat on
which contained pesticides; grounds of taste.
In Uganda, donors alone determined which programme
„„ In other cases, FFSs failed to address farmers’
technologies would be promoted. The failure to involve broader concerns. For instance, in Kenya, farmers
local stakeholders in the decision making meant that were concerned about water availability, marketing
FFS implementation favoured a top-down promotion of and social factors impeding agricultural production,
technologies over more participatory, discovery-based none of which the FFS covered. In India, farmers
problem solving that was adapted to local needs; and suggested that focusing on more than one crop, and
In Indonesia and India, village extension workers
„„ adopting a broader systems approach, might have
acted as intermediaries between pesticide companies been better.
and farmers. Some extension workers promoted
the heavy use of pesticides because they received
commissions for these input sales.

14 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

5.4 5.5
Training facilitators Farmer training
Problems arise if facilitators are not suited to the A typical FFS project lasted for three years, with
job, are poorly trained or simply fail to turn up. Given farmers attending field school for a single growing
the important role and participatory skills required, season. Most schools held weekly season-long sessions,
it is important to identify FFS facilitators and train although in a few cases of arable crops, meetings
them well. This is particularly the case if existing were fortnightly. In the case of tree crops, they
extension workers become FFS facilitators; they are were often held fortnightly over the course of several
likely to be in scaled-up programmes, and institutional months, such as the tea FFS in Kenya and cocoa FFS
inertia can support the continuation of old practices. in Ghana – or even years, as was the case for a coffee
project in Ethiopia.
Facilitator training took place in 90 per cent of
projects. But selecting facilitators solely on their A participatory approach to training is central to FFS,
levels of education does not necessarily identify suitable and many projects report using this approach. Some –
candidates for the job. Characteristics of successful such as Ethiopia and China – adopted a top-down
trainers include: personal attitude, maturity, literacy, transfer of technology approach based on lecturing,
leadership skills and experience in farming. In Kenya, while in Cambodia and Uganda facilitators led the
project implementers found that good leadership skills, experiments. It is not always clear how other projects
rather than education levels, were important when trained farmers.
selecting FFS facilitators. In Zimbabwe, where planners
focused on high levels of education rather than attitude, 5.6
maturity, literacy and farming experience, facilitators Farmer participation and attendance
performed poorly.
Farmers are supposed to attend weekly classes
Facilitators were less effective if they did not over the course of a growing season in order to be
speak the same language as participants. In able to internalise the FFS approach. However, FFS
Bangladesh and Kenya, facilitators spoke the national, programmes have had significant problems with
rather than local, language; this hampered farmers’ attendance and drop out. For example, around 25 per
participation and learning. In Indonesia, on the other cent of initial FFS participants in Iloilo, the Philippines,
hand, trainers using the local language enhanced dropped out before the programme was completed.
farmers’ understanding. In Ecuador’s Ecosalud programme, just over half
of the participants showed up for each session.
These problems were exacerbated when facilitator
training did not focus on participatory techniques The most common reasons for low attendance and drop
and facilitation skills. In Bangladesh and Cambodia, out were that participants did not receive anticipated
the training of trainers curriculum was too technical, loans, cash or payments in kind for their attendance.65
and had little focus on developing participatory In Zimbabwe, farmers joined because they were
facilitation skills. promised seed loans; they left once the loans stopped.
Similarly, in Uganda there were reports of high levels
In other cases, the training provided was simply
of dropout, and despite a sensitisation process, some
inadequate. In one FFS project in Uganda, there
farmers ‘still joined FFS groups primarily because of an
was only one training workshop. In Nicaragua, the
interest in accessing external funds’.66 In Kenya, many
training for facilitators did not cover marketing
farmers dropped out or refrained from participating
and commercialisation, despite these being part
once they realised cash was not forthcoming.
of the FFS curriculum. So, while the facilitators
recognised the importance of these topics, they The opportunity costs of FFS attendance can also be
lacked the tools and technical expertise to facilitate prohibitive for farmers. In around a third of the studies
sessions on these topics. that examined reasons for participation – including
Ecuador, Kenya, Liberia and Malawi – participants
In Zimbabwe and the Philippines, insufficient financial
felt that the FFS sessions were too time-consuming
incentives for facilitators meant they did not spend
or they had other commitments that made attending
enough time at the field school and on farm visits.
all sessions difficult.
Other reasons for low attendance and dropout included
poor accessibility and low relevance of FFS sessions,
weak programme implementation (including training
approach) and problems retaining trainers.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 15

5.7
Activities to support dissemination and diffusion
Only around 40 per cent of projects reported follow-up
activities to foster inter-group learning across FFSs
and community dissemination, such as exchange visits
and field days. In addition, only 30 per cent reported
platform-building activities to ensure FFS sustainability,
such as organising farmers’ clubs or building local
networks for continued collective action. More than
20 per cent of projects promoted diffusion through
farmer trainers, where FFS graduates were encouraged
to train and take a lead facilitation role.
In a number of projects (in Trinidad and Tobago,
Nicaragua, Cambodia and Indonesia), the lack
of technical assistance and back-stopping from
agricultural researchers and extension workers
prevented diffusion and failed to support farmers
to continue developing local practices.
In other cases, implementers provided active follow-up
and this continued support encouraged farmers to
establish clubs; additional sessions on club formation
facilitated the establishment of sustainable groups and
practices. In Liberia, the implementing agency hoped
that the FFS groups would develop into community-
based organisations that would continue meeting and
working together. However, the most successful group
was the only one that received follow-up and support
from the agency. In Bangladesh, FFS farmers were
encouraged to establish farmer clubs, which continued
to be supported by the implementing agency. Two
studies from Kenya found there was no support for
FFS-related follow-up activities. This meant that the
sustainability of group activities depended on the
willingness of public officials to serve on a voluntary
basis, and on the capacities of the different FFS groups.

5.8
Summary
Overall, the design and implementation of the many
projects identified as FFS ranged from participatory
adult education programmes as promoted by the
FAO, to top-down technology transfer approaches that
are akin to agricultural extension. The selection and
training of facilitators was crucial in determining the
quality of FFS training. A minority of programmes
used formal methods to institutionalise FFS at the
community level through farmer clubs, and support
activities to encourage sustainable adoption and
diffusion. In the absence of formal activities to provide
ongoing support, FFS training alone is unlikely to
be sufficient to enable farmers to continue with FFS
practices, deal with any new challenges and encourage
others to do the same.

16 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 What difference do farmer field schools make?
6
6.2
Chapter highlights
Capabilities and empowerment
There is only quantitative evidence from one project,
FFS participants improve their knowledge and
„„
a coffee project in Peru, regarding farmers’ problem-
change their practices, experiencing higher yields
solving capabilities – participants in that field school felt
and net incomes as a result.
more confident with problem solving and interacting
This evidence comes from smaller scale pilots.
„„ with the community.70 However, qualitative evidence
The evidence from projects operating at scale shows from India and Zimbabwe also reported farmers saying
no impact. that participating in the projects improved their
decision-making skills.
The evidence base for farmer empowerment is weak.
„„
Qualitative evidence from Cambodia, India, Indonesia,
Kenya, Liberia, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Peru, and Trinidad
What are the effects of FFSs on farmers’ well-being? and Tobago supports the view that participation
What explains the differences in effects across in FFS increases empowerment, with participants
different contexts? And are the effects sustainable reporting increased self-confidence.71 However,
and scalable? 67 this evidence is mostly from smaller scale projects,
and while the Indonesian data is from participants
6.1 in the national IPM programme, the study findings
Knowledge are all from one location. None of the studies of these
particular projects used a comparison group.
Participating in FFS improves farmers’ knowledge
of farming technology. Figure 11 shows that knowledge FFS participants in India and Kenya also reported
outcomes improve for all FFS curricula, and for IPM FFS having stronger social ties, improved collaboration
graduates in particular. Participants had, on average, and more collective action.72 Graduates said they
41 per cent more knowledge.68 This is based on potato had acquired enhanced status within their community:
farmers in Peru and rice farmers in Viet Nam who in Kenya they were treated with more respect; they
showed increased knowledge of different IPM practices, adopted leadership roles in Uganda and Kenya; while
and cotton farmers in Pakistan who were better able in Indonesia they were seen as IPM experts.73
to differentiate between beneficial and harmful pests.69

Figure 11: Summary meta-analysis findings for FFS participants

Note: horizontal blue

line shows 95 per cent
confidence interval. Knowledge

Pesticide reduction

Beneficial practices

Yields

Revenues (IPM FFS)

Revenues (FFS and input or marketing support)

Environment improvement

Self-esteem

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Percentage increase

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 17

The IFAD-FAO IPM programme established a Box 2:
group composition and atmosphere that helped The Indonesia national FFS programme:
breach traditional community roles and relationships, results from study replication
ultimately improving gender relations.74 Women
in Bangladesh, India and Kenya also reported
The Indonesian IPM FFS programme was the first
increased self-confidence in their interactions in
long-term, scaled-up FFS programme to be rigorously
the community,75 but other studies from Kenya and
evaluated. But there is a debate over the impact
Bangladesh suggest that traditional gender roles
of this programme: two studies using the same
within the household remained the same.76
data and largely the same methods reached different
The FFS theory of change is that adopting more conclusions regarding agricultural outcomes.82
participatory approaches in adult education One study examined impact by time and duration
programmes based on dialogical learning helps of exposure, finding positive short-term effects
farmers to develop skills and capacity. They are on rice yields, but neither study found any significant
less likely to internalise messages delivered through impact on adoption of new farming practices.
a top-down ‘chalk and talk’ approach. However,
So why did the studies not find convincing positive
there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the
effects in the Indonesian FFS programme? One study
notion that this factor affects capacity development
suggests that spillovers may have biased impact
one way or the other.
estimates downwards, given the close proximity
6.3 of some non-FFS comparison villages.83 But the
Adoption of new practices lack of support for diffusion in general, confirmed in
3ie’s systematic review, undermines this argument.
FFS participants in IPM projects in China, the
Perhaps sample selection bias was a problem
Philippines and Pakistan used 23 per cent less
since, although the data drew on random sample
pesticide than neighbouring non-participants (see
agricultural household survey data, it is not clear to
Figure 11).77 Studies of these projects also reported
what extent the sampling frame was representative
an increase in other beneficial practices, including
of the FFS farmer population. Others have suggested
IPM in Pakistan, participatory forest management
that additional yield gains in technologically advanced
practices in Ethiopia and ICM practices in Peru.78
rice production systems might be small and difficult
However, these positive effects were strongest
to measure by recall surveys,84 although again
for cotton crops in Asia, and for pilot projects
this is a problem which would affect other impact
or effects measured over shorter periods. There
evaluations reviewed as part of this study.
was no evidence of impact from longer-term
studies of scaled-up programmes, as in national Other factors impeding effectiveness in Indonesia
IPM programmes in Viet Nam and Indonesia included problems in scaling up implementation
(see box, opposite).79 nationally, and broader structural issues facing
agriculture. For example, there were problems
In this section we discuss various factors that
in ensuring the quality control of FFS facilitators,
help explain the success or failure in adopting new
given that many in the scaled-up programme were
farming practices taught in FFS.
experienced extension workers who had initially
Conflicting agricultural policies been trained to use top-down methods. There were
also problems in ensuring regular supplies of funds
Subsidised input schemes, trickle-down messages and materials to field staff. It may have simply
and off-the-shelf technology promotion can been difficult to achieve yield gains in a context of
counteract the efforts of FFS projects. In Thailand, falling yields due to declining soil fertility, increasing
a change of leadership in the Department for plant diseases and negative climatic trends.
Agricultural Extension reversed priorities towards
pesticide-based crop protection after a period
of high-level support for FFS.80
Conflicting incentives for facilitators
Conflicting messages The power of the pesticide industry and its continued
Other institutions may be promoting conflicting links with the extension system can also act as a
messages. In Uganda and Cambodia, the national barrier to adoption. In Indonesia, extension workers
governments were ‘disconnected from the IPM-FFS and local cooperatives continued to act as local
initiative, acting only as a “rubber stamp” for intermediaries in input distribution, with some
international aid organisation decisions’.81 In other continuing to promote pesticides.85 In China, plant
cases, it is clear that the institutional legacy of protection stations started selling pesticide to make
traditional agricultural extension can inhibit up for a shortage in operation funds.
participatory FFS practices, as has been suggested
in Uganda, India and Indonesia.

18 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Lack of access to complementary inputs The technology does not work
A lack of access to the complementary inputs needed There were times when the technology simply did not
to adopt FFS practices, such as labour time, are work. In a Nicaraguan project, 13 NGOs implemented
common challenges for farmers. These are not specific FFSs: five did not include an experimental non-IPM
to FFS programmes, although they have prevented conventional plot, and of the eight that did, half
some farmers from fully adopting FFS practices. obtained lower yields in the IPM plot and six gave lower
In Bangladesh and Kenya, FFS participants reported profits. Pesticide use did not change here. In Trinidad
a lack of access to capital, while in India they were and Tobago, the FFS did not generate sufficient results
constrained by input availability in the market. In to convince farmers of the relative advantage of IPM.
Kenya, farmers said they were able to tend to group
plots, but lacked the necessary labour for individual 6.4
farms. In Thailand, farmers with more farm area Agricultural and other impacts and sustainability
per household member were also more likely to drop
As illustrated in Figure 11, participation in FFS
out of field school training due to labour shortages
increased yields by 13 per cent on average and net
and high opportunity costs of labour.86
revenues (profits per unit of land) by 19 per cent.
Lack of social cohesion Projects in Africa, Asia and Latin America reported
positive impacts. The impact on net revenues was
Existing farmer groups and a tradition of collective greater than yields because input costs also fell as
action in Trinidad and Tobago, Nicaragua and the farmers used less pesticide. These effects were found
Philippines encouraged participation in FFS and in IPM field schools in China and Pakistan, IPPM schools
a willingness to learn and succeed with the training. in Kenya and Tanzania, and field schools promoting
On average, projects that facilitated group formation other curricula in Ethiopia.90
were successful in reducing pesticide use (28 per cent
reduction), whereas those that did not reported The effects on net revenues were particularly
no impact on adoption of pesticide use practices.87 strong for field schools covering cash crops which
also provided complementary inputs and/or marking
Complexity components, such as the Plataformas programme
linking potato farmers with agribusiness in Ecuador
The complexity of the IPM curriculum made it difficult
and coffee producers to international markets in Peru.91
for some farmers to implement all practices on their
crops. Participating farmers either perceived some of Reducing pesticide use resulted in a 39 per cent
the analytical tools as taking too much time, energy and average reduction in the environmental impact
resources, or these tools were not communicated in quotient, an indirect measure of human and
a way that farmers understood. For example, farmers environmental costs based on estimates of pesticide
found that using forms to record field sampling with use.92 Beneficial effects on the quotient were found
formulae to calculate percentages for damages and in projects in Pakistan, Thailand and Ecuador.93
prevalence of insects to be of little practical use; they
There was no reliable evidence on health outcomes.
abandoned this approach in favour of simply recording
what they observed in their fields.88 Positive impacts on agricultural outcomes were
generally found in the short run – that is, two
Lack of observability years or less after a FFS was implemented – and for
Observability is important to build trust in the relatively small-scale projects. For larger programmes
new technology and encourage farmers to adopt implemented at national scale over longer periods,
the practices promoted in FFSs. In Indonesia, there is no evidence of positive effects. The only two
participating farmers feared that insects would national IPM programmes that have been evaluated
spread from neighbouring fields, but experimentation (in Indonesia and Viet Nam) found no significant
and observation changed their views. Farmers also positive impact (see box on page 18), because adoption
observed that their yields remained the same if they was not sustained.
did not spray pesticides.89 In Indonesia, there were concerns about facilitators’
Where facilitators did not demonstrate observable experience in farming or extension, and about
benefits, however, farmers were less likely to adopt their ability to balance facilitation and leadership.94
FFS practices. When trials found higher revenues Inadequate follow-up constrained farmers’ willingness
or yields in the IPM plot relative to the conventional to continue practising IPM, particularly when the rest of
plot, farmers were more likely to adopt the IPM the community continued standard pest management
practices included in the curriculum. practices. Farmers reported a lack of ‘consistent
support to back up their struggles in creating and
maintaining the new schemas of interpretations and
practices’ in the face of pest outbreaks and continuing
recommendations to use pesticides.95

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 19

Figure 12: Summary meta-analysis findings for IPM FFS neighbours

Note: horizontal blue

line shows 95 per cent
confidence interval.

Knowledge

Pesticide reduction

Yields

Revenues (IPM FFS)

Environment improvement

–40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percentage increase

Important factors for the sustainability of FFS groups In Indonesia, despite trained farmers teaching their
following graduation include: consistent membership neighbours about IPM during pest outbreaks, the
participation,96 leadership,97 collective goals and ideas were not properly explained or understood.
activities98 and group support and validation, including In India, non-participants did not have the confidence
back-stopping from researchers and extension to implement the new practices they had heard
workers.99 All of these help to build graduates’ about from their neighbouring FFS graduates.103
confidence in FFS practices.100
In China and Pakistan, there has been diffusion
One group in Cambodia found that reimbursing of simple practices such as reduced pesticide use
participants for FFS attendance may have undermined and improved yields among cotton growers, where
the sustainability of FFS groups, given that payments field schools were able to target relatively well educated
stopped once the project ended.101 However, in seven farmers. Evidence from Bangladesh supports this.104
other projects unfulfilled payment expectations However, the same projects found that any initial
prevented farmers from attending FFS. adoption among neighbouring farmers in the short
term falls considerably over time.
6.5
Community cohesion may also influence the diffusion
Diffusion of integrated pest management
of FFS knowledge and practices. In Cameroon and
practices
Cambodia, low levels of social cohesion limited
The evidence suggests that diffusion does not communication within the community. In Indonesia,
happen; there was no improvement in IPM knowledge socio-economic differences between FFS participants
among neighbouring, non-participating farmers. and non-participants impeded diffusion. In the
Figure 12 shows that non-participating farmers did Philippines, however, high levels of social capital,
not adopt new agricultural practices or report any particularly among farmers with kinship ties, facilitated
change in pesticide use. No increase in yields or income the sharing of IPM concepts with non-participants.105
was reported, either. This was true for both kinds
Targeting more educated farmers as early adopters
of projects: those that supported diffusion through
is a strategy that may backfire when it comes
processes, such as community institutionalisation in
to diffusion. FFS participants in one Indonesian study
India and Pakistan and training of farmer trainers
communicated to a ‘selective audience in the villages’
in Indonesia and China, or those that left diffusion
and made no deliberate efforts to train other members
to happen by word of mouth and observation, as
of the community in IPM principles.106 However, another
in Nicaragua.102
study from Indonesia found that a few inquisitive
Several characteristics of FFSs explain why the farmers played a prominent role in the ongoing process
practices they promote do not diffuse to farmers who of knowledge formulation and transmission. These
have not participated in training. The experience-based farmers progressively established their position
nature of FFS learning acts as a barrier to diffusion. within the community as ‘experts’, ‘farmer professors’
Even where there is high awareness of IPM among and ‘consultants’.107 This suggests that, while some
non-participants, it is difficult to convey through spontaneous diffusion may be possible, there is
verbal communication. a need for careful targeting of farmers with the
appropriate characteristics. The Indonesia programme
recruited literate farmers through a community
implementer-based process.

20 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Observability is important for convincing non-FFS However, these positive impacts were only found
farmers to adopt FFS practices. This needs to take in smaller scale programmes. The two evaluations
place on the plot, so that non-participant producers of national programmes found no impact on
can see what is done, since trained farmers may agricultural outcomes.
not have the time or skills to teach them. Observing
There is no convincing evidence that IPM field
the successful harvests of FFS farmers in projects in
schools offer sustained diffusion to neighbouring
Cameroon, Kenya and the Philippines triggered interest
farmers who live in the same communities as
and requests for advice from non-participants.108
field school graduates. This lack of diffusion
In Honduras and Kenya, non-participating farmers is an important weakness of FFS implementation
perceived FFS practices as having a relative advantage approaches thus far.
compared to existing practices, which led to more
There is little quantitative evidence regarding
interest in IPM. In Cambodia, however, the results
achievements in farmer empowerment
observable in IPM farmers’ plots were less convincing
objectives, though some qualitative studies
and, hence, non-IPM farmers were not persuaded
do report positive impacts.
of the benefits of IPM.109
A final reason for the lack of diffusion can be that Understanding programme failure
too few farmers are being trained in each village to Where interventions fail, it can be useful to think
reach the necessary critical mass for community-wide of the funnel of attrition,112 whereby potential
adoption to take place. Training a small number beneficiaries drop out at various stages in the
of farmers in each village to maximise geographical causal chain (see Figure 13). Critical points in
coverage is unlikely to be the best strategy to achieve the FFS causal chain include:
maximum impact. A more gradual approach to
scaling up programmes across villages may be more Planned or de facto targeting mechanisms,
„„
successful.110 A study of vegetable IPPM in Senegal including group formation, which exclude women
provided evidence supporting a gradual approach and vulnerable groups even if they are targeted
to scale-up.111 by the project;
Drop out and non-attendance on account of
„„
6.6 poor training; failure to demonstrate the value
Summary of the technique being promoted; and lack of
FFSs are effective in improving intermediate and final complementary inputs;
outcomes for participating farmers. These beneficial Failure of non-participants to benefit in nearly all
„„
impacts have been recorded across the different cases, even when platforms are created to facilitate
types of field school curricula. Impacts on agricultural this diffusion; and
outcomes are large: a 13 per cent increase in yields
and 19 per cent increase in profits per unit of land. Most importantly, the difficulty of identifying and
„„
The latter was particularly large when FFSs were training suitable facilitators on the scale necessary
implemented alongside complementary upstream to move beyond pilot programmes.
or downstream interventions, such as access to
seeds and other inputs and assistance in marketing
cash crops.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 21

 Figure 13: FFS funnel of attrition

Targeting Awareness Participation Capacity Adoption Diffusion Impacts

Communities Farmers Farmers Farmers Farmers Neighbours learn Farmer capacity
and farmers know about who know learn and adopt new about new and better
targeted programme about FFS want develop skills practices practices agricultural
from to take part through and adopt outcomes are
sensitisation and attend experiential sustained over
full training training time
programme

Programme theory funnel

Programme implementation funnel

Of 100 potential Most of the Barriers to Of those who Fewer still adopt Few non- So impact
beneficiaries better-off know participation attend, perhaps new practices participant is less
about it. But may affect one-third may neighbours than hoped
the less well-off 25–40% not acquire skills adopt new
who are targeted of potential practices
may be excluded beneficiaries

„„ Targeting „„ Some potential „„ Time constraints „„ Facilitators „„ FFS does not „„ Non-participants „„ Lack of follow-
mechanism participants for all farmers use top-down use crops and are unable up support and
leads to excluded from „„ Social and
training method techniques which to learn and back-stopping
exclusion sensitisation economic „„ Lack of
farmers are internalise for trained
(e.g. using meetings constraints for experimental likely to employ approach farmers
existing farmer (e.g. women) less well-off approach „„ Techniques „„ Lack of social „„ Lack of
groups) are not doable cohesion or community-
„„ Drop outs „„ Problems in
(e.g. due to recruiting or shown to socio-economic wide adoption
lack of cash and training work to improve distance of IPM can cause
or in-kind appropriate net income prevents disadoption
remuneration facilitators in „„ Incentive
informal for FFS farmers
or irrelevance scaled-up environment communication „„ Lack of support
of training) programmes (prices, market „„ Lack of support for FFS groups
access, industry for community after graduation
promotion) is institutionalis-
not conducive ation or farmer
„„ Farmers lack
trainers
complementary „„ Too few farmers
inputs, trained in each
including time community

22 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 Cost-effectiveness
7
7.2
Chapter highlights
FFS cost-benefit analysis
A favourable benefit-cost ratio (BCR) for FFS depends on
FFS has a high cost per farmer compared to other
„„
the number of participants who are sustained adopters,
means of communicating with farmers.
the number of non-participants who are sustained
Agricultural benefits have only been achieved in
„„ adopters and the size of the net benefit from adoption.
small-scale programmes, and the evidence for other
Given the relatively high per capita costs of FFS,
benefits is weak.
diffusion can be an important factor in helping projects
FFS is unlikely to be cost-effective at scale.
„„ to achieve a positive rate of return.
In India, a favourable BCR is achieved after just
one year with an adoption rate of 90 per cent, but
7.1 if adoption is only 30 per cent, then it needs to
How much do FFSs cost? be sustained for at least three years for the benefits
The full costs of an FFS include: fixed project to outweigh the costs (see Table 1).116 For Pakistan,
management costs; start-up costs for facilitator these figures are 40 per cent and 15 per cent,
training and curriculum development; recurrent costs respectively, as the net benefits from adoption are
of establishing and running field schools, field days and higher than in India. In China, where training costs
supervising back-stopping for facilitators; and follow-up are high and benefits limited by the small size of farms,
costs relating to community institutionalisation.113 the BCR is not favourable after one year. The ratio
Most FFS projects cost US$20–40 per participant. does become favourable after three years, but only
Average costs are higher (US$56), as there are a few with a very high adoption rate of 90 per cent.117
programmes with much higher per capita costs.114 How do these figures compare with other interventions?
These do not include the costs to beneficiaries A comparison in Bangladesh suggests that, while FFS
of attending field schools and implementing labour- has higher benefits than other programmes, its higher
intensive practices, which also need to be taken costs mean that the BCR is lower.118 For simple
into account in any cost-benefit analysis. practices (picking pests off vegetables), field days have
a higher BCR than FFS. For intermediate practices
These unit costs are relatively high compared to (natural fertiliser and bait traps), the net benefits of FFS
other programme approaches. For example, simple are negative, but positive for field days. FFS net benefits
comparisons for potato IPM in Bolivia indicate that costs are positive for complex practices (plant grafting),
per farmer are: US$76 for FFS; US$26 for community but less than those for extension agent visits.
workshops; and less than US$1 for radio spots on
agricultural methods.115 However, these are merely FFS’s relatively low BCR compared to other approaches
estimates of the costs per farmer trained; a proper may be countered by two arguments. First, that
comparison needs to take benefits into account. FFS supports diffusion, so the number of actual
beneficiaries exceeds the number of participants.
Second, that FFS has other benefits – such as health
and empowerment – which also need to be taken
into account.119

Table 1: Benefit-cost ratio (BCR) estimates for IPM FFS programmes

Bangladesh* China** India** Pakistan**

Simple practices 3.92 — — —

Intermediate practices 0.92 — — —

Complex practices 6.8 — — —

All practices — 0.42 1.29 2.73

Note:
BCR>1 indicates net benefit
BCR<1 indicates net loss
Sources:
* Ricker-Gilbert et al. (2008)
** Pananurak (2010)

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 23

The evidence, however does not support the argument Part of the answer also lies in whether the benefits
that FFS achieves high levels of diffusion to other of FFS accrue to society or are mainly captured
farmers, falling as it does at the first hurdle in the by individuals. Where these are societal, as in the case
causal chain of increase in knowledge. And there of the pest infestation that FFS was originally intended
is too little evidence to support the argument that the to address, the case for public support for FFS is
other benefits of FFS justify the costs. Hence, even stronger. In other cases, it may be that the greater
if FFSs are effective in small-scale projects, they may burden of costs should be borne by individual farmers
not be cost-effective. who wish to benefit, particularly where programmes
are not equity targeted.
What are the alternatives for disseminating technology
to farmers? The evidence on top-down agricultural
7.3
extension does not suggest it has been effective.120
Summary
But given the particularly high per capita costs of FFS,
the available evidence on effectiveness does not suggest FFS is unlikely to be a cost-effective approach to
that public extension agencies should throw their extension, apart from possibly in cases of serious
current institutional set-ups and dissemination methods environmental damage from farming practices.
on the scrapheap in favour of a nationwide FFS roll-out. For simple messages about good agricultural practices
A more promising solution would be to experiment and dissemination of information, other approaches
with different methods of technology diffusion and are likely to be more cost-effective. FFS projects
evaluate how to improve them. A number of recently may be justified through their contribution to adult
completed and ongoing impact evaluations are education, improving farmers’ skills and capacity
attempting to answer this question.121 to implement complex practices, as well as their
adaptability and resilience to shocks. However, there
Given that the stated objectives of many FFSs include
is a need to assess the extent to which farmers
empowering farmers to develop lifelong skills, it may
are empowered through skills development for
be more appropriate to implement FFS in place
this interpretation to be relevant to arguments
of vocational training or community empowerment
of cost-effectiveness.
programmes. Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools are
being implemented in at least 12 countries to ‘empower
vulnerable youth’.122 Common approaches for rural
empowerment include community-driven development
(CDD) schemes such as social funds, which also do not
have a strong track record in improving empowerment
outcomes.123 However, more evidence is needed on
the empowerment effects of FFS.

24 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 Implications for policy, programme design
and future evaluations 8
The facilitator’s sex should be carefully considered,
Chapter highlights
taking account of the target group and cultural
context. Training for facilitators should provide
FFS should not be rolled out in place of national
„„ sufficient substantive expertise in IPM or other
extension schemes, but used more selectively. relevant practices appropriate to the local context.
The training should also focus on participatory
Where FFSs are used, there are lessons to be learned
„„
techniques and facilitation skills, emphasising the
on how to do them better, especially ensuring fidelity
need to use language and concepts that are familiar
to the experiential learning approach.
to farmers. Facilitators should have access to ongoing
Targeted research can help improve our knowledge
„„ support and back-stopping from supervisors and
of when, how and why FFSs are effective. technical experts connected to local research centres.

Field school design and approach

8.1 Efficient monitoring and evaluation systems should
Implications for policy be put in place alongside FFS implementation, to
ensure adequate and timely delivery of resources and
Should governments adopt FFS as their main approach
follow-up activities, and to ensure that sites selected
to agricultural extension? The evidence says no.
for FFS are appropriate.
FFS will not solve the problems of large-scale extension
The curriculum and crops covered in FFS should also be
from the past. The highly intensive nature of the
adapted according to local agricultural circumstances
training programme, the relative successes in targeting
and tastes. It should balance comprehensiveness with
more educated farmers rather than disadvantaged
the ability to cover all issues in sufficient depth.
groups, and the failure to diffuse IPM practices
all suggest that the approach is not cost-effective FFS should be delivered according to a participatory
compared to agricultural extension in many contexts. and discovery-based approach to learning, including
The exception is where existing farming practices are opportunities for farmers to experiment and
particularly damaging to the environment. So FFS observe new practices. This is most obviously the
should be used selectively. case where skills development and other forms
of farmer empowerment are the primary objectives.
If FFS is used, the efforts should not be offset by price
In addition, farmers need to be convinced of IPM
distortions or other factors. Stronger policies and
and IPPM approaches, which are best done through
regulatory measures may be necessary to counteract
active participation and having a business-as-usual
the activities of the pesticide industry, including
control plot.
extension workers promoting and selling pesticides.
New policies may also be necessary to facilitate Complementary interventions – access to finance and
participatory agricultural extension approaches and inputs such as improved seeds and assistance with
replace earlier extension policies aimed at promoting marketing – may improve FFS effectiveness in terms of
off-the-shelf technologies and input packages. agricultural profits (net revenues) for commercial crops.

8.2 Targeting
Implications for programme implementation Targeting needs to take account of participants’
Where FFS programmes are being implemented, time availability, access to necessary complementary
how can they be improved? inputs and decision-making power. These factors have
particularly undermined attempts to target women;
Training of facilitators the same may apply to other groups. Implementing
agencies may need to tailor interventions to enable
Facilitator training and performance is important
the participation of women and other disadvantaged
for the success of FFS. Recruitment of facilitators
community members.
should take into account personal attitude, maturity,
literacy, leadership skills, knowledge of local language
and farming experience.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 25

Curricula need to be relevant and consistent with 8.3
the needs and opportunities of women and the poor. Implications for evaluation and research funding
For example, where women are primarily responsible
for growing subsistence crops, a curriculum that Study design
covers only commercial crops is unlikely to attract Despite the high commitment to evaluation
women participants. Sensitisation exercises in the demonstrated by the FFS community of practice, few
community might also facilitate the participation of the large number of FFS programme evaluations
of disadvantaged groups – for example, where men that we reviewed were sufficiently rigorous to make
do not allow their wives to participate in training recommendations for policy. Eighty per cent of studies
because they do not see the benefits or are uneasy were found to have a high risk of bias. No studies
about their wives working with other men. included in the review used random assignment,
although such an approach is very feasible for FFS.125
Sustainability
Figure 14 shows that high risk of bias results in the
Formal support and encouragement of FFS alumni,
systematic overestimation of impact for all outcomes.
including technical assistance and back-stopping,
can support the sustainability of FFS practices There is a need for more studies that use rigorous
and related activities. Working with FFS groups to counterfactuals, particularly those based on prospective
support common goals, good leadership and high assignment (randomised or otherwise). These should
attendance rates might facilitate sustainability have clear protocols for outcome measurement and
of FFS activities after the end of the training. In reporting, be allocated at cluster level to measure
the case of IPM, targeting areas known for overuse community-wide spillovers, and include long-term
of pesticides – and therefore clearer benefits from follow-ups to determine sustainability.
adoption – are likely to favour sustained impacts.
The analysis in this report demonstrates the power
Dissemination and diffusion of causal chain analysis. For example, IPM fails to
impact the final outcomes because knowledge diffusion
Complementary interventions, such as mass media and adoption among FFS neighbours is limited. A body
campaigns, are likely to improve diffusion to non- of high-quality, theory-based impact evaluations that
participating neighbour farmers for only simple IPM include reporting and causal chain analysis would
messages, such as a ‘no early spray’ campaign.124 help improve the policy relevance and usefulness
Given the skills-based nature of the practices promoted of findings for implementers. The reasons for failure
in FFSs, there may be a need for formal community- may be due to flawed programme theory design or
building activities to ensure diffusion into the wider faulty implementation. The policy recommendations
community. These could draw on existing social in either case are very different.
networks and attempt to institutionalise the approach
whereby FFS graduates are encouraged to train other Impact evaluations need to interrogate the causal
farmers. However, there needs to be more evidence to chain more consistently, by collecting and reporting
assess the success of these approaches. Implementers data on intermediate and end-point outcomes, and
should consider a more gradual approach to scale-up, incorporating qualitative assessment of implementation
favouring depth of coverage within FFS communities processes where possible. More studies also need
over breadth of geographical coverage. to assess whether FFSs have heterogeneous effects
across different groups of farmer beneficiaries,
such as women.

Figure 14: Studies with a high risk of bias find greater impacts than those with a medium risk of bias

High risk
Medium risk Knowledge 136%
41%

Pesticides 58%
29%

Yields 26%
13%

Revenue 17%
11%

Percentage improvement

26 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Few studies report on the subjective views and
experiences of FFS facilitators. This is a weakness
of the existing evidence base; future studies should
include facilitators and, where relevant, agricultural
extension workers, which will support stronger
causal chain analysis.

8.4
Reporting study methods and findings
Primary qualitative studies should report their methods
more clearly. Better and more structured reporting
of the full text of primary studies will enhance our
ability to assess the reliability of qualitative research
and to use that research for evidence syntheses.
Both quantitative and qualitative studies fail to report
details of the FFS interventions they discuss. Better
reporting of intervention design and implementation
would make findings more meaningful for policy and
practice. Greater use of structured abstracts will
facilitate easier access to qualitative research, including
for the purposes of qualitative synthesis.
Studies should measure a broader range of outcomes,
including farmer empowerment, health and direct
measures of environmental impact. Study teams should
collect data to analyse the causal chain underlying
these impacts.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 27

References

Achonga, BO, Lagat, JK and Akuja, Birthal, PS, Sharma, OP and Kumar, Cole, DC, Sherwood, S, Paredes, M,
TE, 2011. Evaluation of the diversity S, 2000. Economics of integrated Sanin, LH, Crissman, C, Espinosa, P
of crop and livestock enterprises pest management: evidences and and Munoz, F, 2007. Reducing
among agro-biodiversity farmer issues. Indian Journal of Agricultural pesticide exposure and associated
field schools (ABD-FFS) and Economics, 55 (4), pp.644–659. neurotoxic burden in an Ecuadorian
non-ABD-FFS households in Bondo small farm population. International
Braun, A and Duveskog, D,
district, Kenya. Journal of Applied Journal of Occupational and
2008. The farmer field school
Biosciences, 38, pp.2,496–2,507. Environmental Health, 13 (3),
approach – history, global
pp.281–289.
Ali, A and Sharif, M, 2011. assessment and success stories.
Impact of farmer field schools Background paper for the Danida, 2011. Evaluation of the
on adoption of integrated pest IFAD rural poverty report 2010. farmer field school approach in
management practices among the agriculture sector programme
Bunyatta, DK, Mureithi, JG,
cotton farmers in Pakistan. support phase II, Bangladesh.
Onyango, CA and Ngesa, FU, 2006.
Evaluation Department, Ministry
Amera, T, 2009. Cotton IPM Farmer field school effectiveness
of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.
impact in Ethiopia. Pesticides News, for soil and crop management
85 (10), pp.10–12. technologies in Kenya, Journal Dankyi, AA, Owusu-Akyaw, M,
of International Agricultural Anchirinah, VM, Adu-Mensah, J,
Bentley, JW, Barea, O, Priou, S,
and Extension Education, 13 (3), Mochiah, MB, Moses, E,
Equise, H and Thiele, G, 2002.
pp.47–63. Afun, JVK, Bolfrey-Arku, G,
Comparing farmer field schools,
Osei, K, Osei-Yeboah, S,
community workshops, and radio: Carlberg, E, Kostandini, G and
Adama, I, Lamptey, J, Azot, H,
Teaching Bolivian farmers about Dankyi, A, 2012. The effects of
Brandenburg, RL, Bailey, JE
bacterial wilt of potato. Journal integrated pest management
and Jordan, DL, 2005. Survey
of International Agricultural techniques (IPM) farmer field
of production and pest
and Extension Education, 14 (3), schools on groundnut productivity:
practices for peanut in selected
pp.45–62. evidence from Ghana. Selected
villages in Ghana, West Africa,
paper prepared for presentation
Birkhaeuser, D, Evenson, RE and Peanut Science, 32 (2), pp.98–102.
at the Agricultural and Applied
Feder, G, 1991. The economic
Economics Association’s 2012 David, S and Asamoah, C, 2011.
impact of agricultural extension:
annual meeting. Farmer knowledge as an early
A review. Economic Development
indicator of IPM adoption:
and Cultural Change, 39, Cavatassi, R, Salazar, L,
A case study from cocoa farmer
pp.607–650. Gonzalez-Flores, M and Winters, P,
field schools in Ghana. Journal
2011. How do agricultural
Birner, R, Davis, K, Pender, J, of Sustainable Development
programmes alter crop production?
Nkonya, E, Anandajayasekeram, P, in Africa, 14 (4), pp.213–224.
Evidence from Ecuador. Journal
Ekboir, J, Mbabu, A, Spielman, D,
of Agricultural Economics, 62 (2), David, S, 2007. Learning to
Horna, D, Benin, S and Cohen, M,
pp.403–428. think for ourselves: Knowledge
2006. From ‘best practice’ to
improvement and social benefits
‘best fit’: a framework for analyzing Chi, TTN, 1998. Village-level study
among farmer field school
pluralistic agricultural advisory of the effect of IPM-FFS (integrated
participants in Cameroon.
services worldwide. DSGD pest management–farmer field
Journal of International Agricultural
discussion paper No. 37, IFPRI, school) on the male and female rice
and Extension Education, 14 (2),
Washington DC. Available at: farmers’ entomological knowledge,
pp.35–50.
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/ perception and pest control
files/publications/dsgdp37.pdf behavior in Can Tho province, Davis, K, 2006. Farmer field schools:
[Accessed 15 January 2011]. Vietnam. Journal of Environmental A boon or bust for extension in
Published version: Journal of Science and Management, 2 (2), Africa? Journal of International
Agricultural Education and pp.54–60. Agricultural and Extension
Extension, 15 (4), pp.341–355, Education, 13 (1), pp.91–97.
Coady, D, Grosh, M and
December 2009.
Hoddinott, J, 2003. The targeting
of transfers in developing countries:
Review of experience and lessons,
World Bank, Washington DC.

28 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Davis, K, Nkonya, E, Kato, E, FAO, 2011. The state of food and Gautam, M and Anderson, J, 2000.
Mekonnen, DA, Odendo, M, agriculture 2010–2011. Women Agricultural extension: the Kenya
Miiro, R, Nkuba, J and Okoth, J, in agriculture: closing the gender experience: An impact evaluation.
2012. Impact of farmer field gap for development. Rome. Operations Evaluation Department,
schools on agricultural productivity World Bank, Washington, DC.
Feder, G and Savastano, S, 2006.
and poverty in East Africa.
The role of opinion leaders in Gockowski, J, Asamoah, C, David, S,
World Development, 40 (2),
the diffusion of new knowledge: Gyamfi, I and Kumi, MA, 2010. An
pp.402–413.
The case of integrated pest evaluation of farmer field school
De Jager, A, 2007. Practice management, World Bank Policy induced changes in Ghanaian Cocoa
makes perfect: Participatory Research Working Paper 3916, Production. Journal of International
innovation in soil fertility World Bank, Washington DC. Agricultural and Extension
management to improve Available at: http://econpapers. Education, 17 (3).
rural livelihoods in East Africa. repec.org/paper/wbkwbrwps/
Gockowski, J, David, S, Okuku, I,
PhD thesis, Wageningen University. 3916.htm
Nkeh, J, Wandji, D, Asamoah, C,
Dinpanah, G, Mirdamadi, M, Feder, G, Murgai, R and Quizón, JB, Agordoku, S and Adu, M, 2005.
Badragheh, A, Sinaki, JM and 2004. Sending farmers back to An initial assessment of the
Aboeye, F, 2010. Analysis of effect school: The impact of farmer field producer costs and benefits
of farmer field school approach schools in Indonesia. Review of of framer field school training,
on adoption of biological control on Agricultural Economics, 26 (1), Yaounde, Cameroon.
rice producers’ characteristics in pp.45–62.
Godtland, EM, Sadoulet, E, De
Iran. American-Euroasian Journal
Freire, P, 1970. Pedagogy of the Janvry, A, Murgai, R and Ortiz, O,
of Agricultural and Environmental
oppressed. Penguin. 2004. The impact of farmer
Science, 7 (3), pp.247–254.
field schools on knowledge and
Friis-Hansen, E and Duveskog, D,
Dolly, D, 2009. An assessment of productivity: A study of potato
2012. The empowerment route to
the implementation and outcomes farmers in the Peruvian Andes.
well-being: An analysis of farmer
of recent farmer field schools Economic Development and
field schools In East Africa. World
to improve vegetable production Cultural Change, 53 (1), pp.63–92.
Development, 40 (2), pp.414–427.
in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal
Gottret, MV and Córdoba, DM, 2004.
of international agricultural Friis-Hansen, E, 2008. Impact
Políticas y procesos de innovación
and extension education, 16 (2) assessment of farmer institutional
tecnológica con productores de
(summer), pp.7–19. development and agricultural
pequeña escala en Honduras y
change: Soroti district, Uganda.
Endalew, BD, 2009. Effectiveness Nicaragua. PROMIPAC.
Development in Practice, 18 (4,5),
of farmer field school promoting
pp.506–523. Haiyang, W, 2002. Farmer field
coffee management practices: The
schools in China: Experience
case of Jimma and Sidama Zones. Friis-Hansen, E, Aben, C and Kidoid,
in Huoshan county with the
Thesis, Haramaya University. M, 2004. Smallholder agricultural
China-Netherlands Poverty
technology development in Soroti
Erbaugh, JM, Donnermeyer, J, Alleviation Project. International
district: Synergy between NAADS
Amujal, M and Kidoido, M, 2010. learning workshop on farmer
and farmer field schools, Uganda
Assessing the impact of farmer field schools (FFS): Emerging
Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
field school participation on issues and challenges.
9, pp.250–256.
IPM adoption in Uganda. Journal
Higgins, J and Green, S, eds., 2011.
of International Agricultural Friis-Hansen, E, Duveskog, D
Cochrane handbook for systematic
and Extension Education, 17 (3), and Taylor, EW, 2012. Less noise
reviews of interventions. Available
pp.5–17. in the household: The impact
at: www.cochrane-handbook.org
of farmer field schools on gender
FAO, 2009. Expansion of farmer [Accessed 26 March 2014.]
relations. Journal of Research
field school programme in Eastern
in Peace, Gender and Development,
and Southern Africa.
2 (2), pp.44–55.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 29

Hiller, S, Onduru, DD and De Jager, Karanja-Lumumba, TN, Njuki, JM, Khisa, G, 2004. Farmers field school
A, 2009. Sustainable tea production: Kaaria, SK and Wanjekeche, SN, methodology: Training of trainers
An assessment of farmer field 2007. The role of farmer networks manual. First edition, FAO, Rome.
schools in Kenya. Lei Wageningen in sustaining community-based
King, E, Samii, C and Snilstveit, B,
UR, The Hague. groups: The Case of farmer field
2010. Interventions to promote
school networks in Western Kenya.
Hofisi, F, 2003. Farmer field schools social cohesion in sub-Saharan
Paper presented at the African Crop
as a learning process for resource- Africa. Journal of Development
Science Conference Proceedings.
poor farmers. Masters Thesis, Effectiveness, 2 (3), pp.336–370.
Swedish University of Agricultural Kelemework, F, 2005. Impact Also available as 3ie Systematic
Sciences, Department of Rural evaluation of farmer field school: Review 2, 3ie, New Delhi at:
Development Studies, SLU, Uppsala. The case of integrated potato late www.3ieimpact.org/media/
blight management in the central filer/2012/05/07/SR002%20Final.pdf
Huan, NH, Mai, V, Escalada, MM and
highland of Ethiopia. Dissertation, [Accessed 27 January 2014.]
Heong, KL, 1999. Changes in rice
University of Antwerp.
farmers’ pest management in the Kovach, J, Petzoldt, C, Degni, J and
Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop Kelly, L, 2005. The global Tette, J, 1992. A method to measure
Protection, 18, pp.557–563. integrated pest management the environmental impact of
facility: addressing challenges pesticides. New York’s Food and Life
Inter-Academy Council, 2004.
of globalization: An independent Sciences Bulletin 139, pp.1–8.
Realizing the promise and potential
evaluation of the World Bank’s
of African agriculture: Science and Kumar, K, Rodriguez, M, Zhang, F,
approach to global programs.
technology strategies for improving Huang, J, Fu, M, Burger, N, Yang, P,
Case study, Operations evaluation
agricultural productivity and food Hu, R and Jia, X, forthcoming.
department, World Bank,
security in Africa. Inter-Academy Assessing the impacts of farmer
Washington, DC. Available at:
Council, Amsterdam. field schools on excessive fertilizer
http://lnweb90.worldbank.org/oed/
use in China. 3ie, New Delhi.
Islam, MR, Mustafi, BAA and Haq, oeddoclib.nsf/DocUNIDViewForJavaS
Available at: http://www.3ieimpact.
M, 2006. Impact assessment of the earch/210300C07054C81A852570A5
org/en/evidence/impact-
integrated pest management (IPM) 0076C0DC/$file/gppp_pest_
evaluations/details/206/
technology on boro rice cultivation. management_facility.pdf
[Accessed 27 January 2014.]
The Journal of Rural Development, [Accessed 1 June 2013.]
33 (2), pp.55–80. Labarta, AR, 2005. Essays on the
Kenmore, P, 1996. Integrated Pest
economic evaluation of integrated
Isubikalu, P, Ur, WURW, Richards, PP Management in Rice. In: GJ Persley,
pest management extension in
and Maat, DH, 2007. Stepping- ed. 1996, Biotechnology and
Nicaragua. PhD Thesis, Michigan
stones to improve upon functioning Integrated Pest Management.
State University.
of participatory agricultural Wallingford UK, CAB International.
extension programmes: Farmer Lama, TL, Dhakal, SP and
Khalid, A, n.d. Assessing the
field schools in Uganda. Campilan, DM, 2003. Promoting
long-term impact of IPM farmer
integrated disease management
Jones, KA, 2002. Integrated pest field schools on farmers’ knowledge,
(IDM) through farmer field schools
and crop management in Sri Lanka. attitudes and practices. A case
in Nepal. CIP-UPWARD.
In: Uphoff, N, Agroecological study from Gezira scheme, Sudan.
innovations: Increasing food Presented at the International Lund, T, Sethre, MG, Nyborg, I,
production with participatory learning workshop on farmer field Coulibaly, O and Rahman, MH, 2010.
development. Earthscan schools (FFS): Emerging issues and Farmer field school – IPM impacts
Publications Ltd., London. challenges, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. on urban and peri-urban vegetable
producers in Cotonou, Benin.
Kabir, H and Uphoff, N, 2007. Khan, MA, Iqbal, M and Ahmad, I,
International Journal of Tropical
Results of disseminating the system 2007. Environment-friendly cotton
Insect Science, 30 (1), pp.19–31.
of rice intensification with farmer production through implementing
field school methods in northern integrated pest management Machacha, A, 2008. Farmer field
Myanmar. Experimental Agriculture, approach. Pakistan Development schools in Bungoma district of
43 (4), pp.463–476. Review, 46 (4 Part II), western Kenya: a rapid appraisal.
pp.1,119–1,135.

30 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Mancini, F and Jiggins, J, 2008. Maumbe, BM and Swinton, SM, Odeyemi, TJ and Asiabaka, CC,
Appraisal of methods to evaluate 2003, Adoption of cotton IPM in 2005. Comparative analysis of
farmer field schools. Development Zimbabwe: The role of technology empowerment under farmer field
in Practice, 18 (4–5), pp.539–550. awareness and pesticide-related school and conventional extension
health risks. Journal of Sustainable system. Global Approaches to
Mancini, F, 2011. Impact of
Development in Africa, 5 (2), Extension Practice: A Journal of
integrated pest management
pp.60–86. Agricultural Extension, 1 (1).
farmer field schools on health,
farming systems, the environment, Murphy, HH, Hoan, NP, Matteson, P Olanya, M, Nelson, R, Hakiza, J,
and livelihoods of cotton growers and Abubakar, ALCM, 2002. Ewell, P, El-Bedewy, R,
in India. Wageningen University. Farmers’ self-surveillance of Kakuhenzire, R, Namanda, S,
pesticide poisoning: A 12-month Kasheija, I, Wagoire, W, Ngombe, B
Mancini, F, Van Bruggen, AHC and
pilot in northern Vietnam. and Musoke, C, 2010. Comparative
Jiggins, JLS, 2007. Evaluating cotton
International Journal of assessment of pest management
integrated pest management (IPM)
Occupational and Environmental practices in potato production at
farmer field school outcomes using
Health, 8 (3), pp.201–211. farmer field schools. Food Security,
the sustainable livelihoods approach
2 (4), pp.327–341.
in India. Experimental Agriculture, Mutandwa, E and Mpangwa, JF,
43 (01), pp.97–112. 2004. An assessment of the impact Ooi, PAC and Kenmore, PE, 2005.
of farmer field schools on Impact of educating farmers
Mangan, J and Mangan, MS, 1998.
integrated pest management about biological control in farmer
A comparison of two IPM training
dissemination and use: Evidence field schools. Paper presented
strategies in China: the importance
from smallholder cotton farmers in at the ISBCA conference, 2005.
of concepts of the rice ecosystem
the Lowveld area of Zimbabwe.
for sustainable insect pest Orozco Cirilo, S,
Journal of Sustainable Development
management. Agriculture and Ramirez Valverde, B,
in Africa, 6 (2).
Human Values, 15 (3), pp.209–221. Ariza Flores, R, Jimenez Sanchez, L,
Nabirye, J, Nampala, P, Ogenga- Estrella Chulim, N, Pena Olvera, BV,
Mariyono, J, 2007. The impact of
Latigo, MW, Kyamanywa, S, Ramos Sanchez, A and
IPM training on farmers’ subjective
Wilson, H, Odeke, V, Iceduna, C Morales Guerra, M, 2009.
estimates of economic thresholds
and Adipala, E, 2003. Impacto del conocimiento
for soybean pests in Central Java,
Farmer-participatory evaluation tecnológico sobre la adopción de
Indonesia. International Journal of
of cowpea integrated pest tecnología agrícola en campesinos
Pest Management, 53 (2), pp.83–87.
management (IPM) technologies indígenas de México [Impact of
Masset, E and Haddad, L, in Eastern Uganda. Crop Protection, technological knowledge on the
forthcoming. Does beneficiary 22 (1), pp.31–38. adoption of agricultural technology
feedback improve project by indigenous peasants of Mexico].
Naik, LGYK, Jahagirdar, KA,
performance? An impact study Interciencia, 34 (8), pp.551–555.
Natikar, KV and Hawaldar, YN, 2010.
of a participatory monitoring
A study on knowledge and adoption Ortiz, O, Nelson, R and Orrego, R,
intervention in Mindanao,
of integrated crop management 2002. Impact evaluation of
Philippines. Institute of
(ICM) practices by the participants participatory development of
Development Studies, Brighton.
of farmers field school on maize. integrated insect and disease
Available at: www.ids.ac.uk/
University of Agricultural Sciences, management (IPM) for the
files/dmfile/CDI_EMasset_
Dharwad. potato crop in San Miguel, Peru.
ParFARM_06jun13.pdf
International Potato Center, Lima.
[Accessed 27 January 2014.] Najjar, D, 2009. Learning through
farmer field schools: A case study Palis, FG, 2006. The role of culture
Mauceri, M, Alwang, J, Norton, G
of the Taita Hills, Kenya. MNRM, in farmer learning and technology
and Barrera, V, 2007. Effectiveness
University of Manitoba, Canada. adoption: a case study of farmer
of integrated pest management
field schools among rice farmers
dissemination techniques: a case Norvell, SD and Hammig, MD, 1999.
in Central Luzon, Philippines.
study of potato farmers in Carchi, Integrated pest management
Agriculture and Human Values,
Ecuador. Journal of Agriculture training and sustainable farming
23 (4), pp.491–500.
and Applied Economics, 39 (3), practices of vegetable growers in
pp.765–780. Indonesia. Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, 13 (3), pp.85–101.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 31

Palis, FG, 1998. Changing farmers’ Phillips, D, Waddington, H Rebaudo, F and Dangles, O, 2011.
perceptions and practices: the case and White, H, forthcoming. Coupled information diffusion-pest
of insect pest control in Central Why targeting matters: dynamics models predict delayed
Luzon, Philippines. Crop Protection, A systematic review of farmer benefits of farmer cooperation
17 (7), pp.599–607. field schools targeting. New Delhi: in pest management programs.
International Initiative for Impact Plos Computational Biology,
Pananurak, P, 2010. Impact
Evaluation (3ie). 7 (10), pp.1–10.
assessment of farmer field schools
in cotton production in China, Pontius, J, Dilts, R and Bartlett, A, Reddy, SV and Suryamani, M,
India and Pakistan. In: H Waibel, 2002. From farmer field school to 2005. Impact of farmer field
ed. January 2010. Pesticide community IPM: Ten years of IPM school approach on acquisition
Policy Project Publication Series, training in Asia. FAO Regional Office of knowledge and skills by farmers
Special Issue No. 14. Institute for Asia and the Pacific, Rome. about cotton pests and other crop
of Development and Agricultural management practices-evidence
Pouchepparadjou, A, Kumaravelu, P
Economics, Leibniz University from India. In: PAC Ooi, ed. 2005.
and Achoth, L, 2005. An
of Hannover, Germany. The impact of the FAO EU IPM
econometric analysis of green
Programme for cotton in Asia,
Pande, S, Sharma, M, technology adoption in irrigated
Pesticide Policy Project Publication
Neupane, RK, Chaudhary, RN, rice in Pondicherry Union Territory.
Series, Vol. 9.
Rao, JN, Grzywacz, D and Indian Journal of Agricultural
Baural, VA, 2009. Integrated crop Economics, 60 (4), pp.660–676. Rejesus, R, Palis, FG, Lapitan, AV,
management strategy for improved Chi, TTN and Hossain, M, 2009.
Praneetvatakul, S, Waibel, H and
chickpea production and its impact The impact of integrated
Meenakanit, L, 2007. Farmer field
on the livelihood of farmers in pest management information
schools in Thailand: History,
Nepal. Plant Protection Association dissemination methods on
economics and policy. Pesticide
of India, Hyderabad, India. insecticide use and efficiency:
Policy Project Publication Series
Evidence from rice producers
Pedersen, A, Rashid, M and Issue No. 12, The University of
in South Vietnam. Review
Mzoba, H, 2008. Farmer field Hannover, Germany.
of Agricultural Economics,
schools in Mbeya – Review 2008,
Price, LL, 2001. Demystifying 31 (4), pp.814–833.
Volume I: Main findings and
farmers’ entomological and
recommendations. Final draft, Ricker-Gilbert, J, Norton, GW,
pest management knowledge:
DADS Mbeya. Alwang, J, Miah, M and Feder, G,
A methodology for assessing
2008. Cost-effectiveness of
Pemsl, DE, Waibel, H and Witt, R, the impacts on knowledge from
alternative integrated pest
2006. Diffusion of information IPM-FFS and NES interventions.
management extension methods:
among small-scale farmers in Agriculture and Human Values,
An example from Bangladesh.
Senegal: the concept of farmer 18 (2), pp.153–176.
Review of Agricultural Economics,
field schools. Proceedings of the
Quizón, J, Feder, G and Murgai, R, 30 (2), pp.252–269.
German Development Economics
2001. Fiscal sustainability of
Conference, Berlin 2006/Verein für Rola, AC and Baril, TA, 1997. Making
agricultural extension: The case of
Socialpolitik, Research Committee rice farmers better decision-makers
the farmer field schools approach.
Development Economics, No.30. via the farmer field school. SEAMEO
Journal of International Agricultural
Update, 5(5/6), pp.10–12.
Phillips, D, Pacillo, G and White, H, and Extension Education, 8,
2014a. Global project portfolio pp.13–24. Rola, AC, Jamias, SB and Quizon, JB,
systematic review. In: Waddington 2002. Do farmer field school
Rao, NV, Ratnakar, R and Jain, PK,
et al., 2014. Farmer field schools graduates retain and share what
2012. Impact of farmer field schools
for improving farming practices they learn?: An investigation in
in KVK adopted villages on level of
and farmer outcomes: A systematic Iloilo, Philippines. Journal of
knowledge and extent of adoption of
review. Campbell Systematic International Agricultural and
improved practices of paddy. Indira
Reviews, The Campbell Extension Education, 9, pp.65–76.
Gandhi National Open University.
Collaboration, Oslo.

32 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

Röling, N, Ahmad, I, Chatterji, S, Tracy, TMM, 2007. Papas, Van Der Wiele, CF, 2004.
Laurense, A, Margraf, J and plaguicidas y personas (Potatoes, Understanding the adoption
Moore, R, 2004. FAO/EU integrated pesticides and people): The of sustainable natural resource
pest management programme for farmer field school methodology management practices and the
cotton in Asia. (GCP/RAS/164/EC) and human health in Ecuador. role of ecological design within
Final review report, 13 August – MA Thesis, Saint Mary’s University, the milieu of chronic conflict and
3 September 2004. FAO, Thailand. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. political instability: A case study
of smallholder households in
Rusike, J, Masendeke, D, Tripp, T, Wijeratne, M and
Nimba County, Liberia. PhD Thesis,
Twomlow, SJ and Heinrich, GM, Piyadasa, VH, 2005. What should
North Carolina State University,
2004. Impact of farmer field we expect from farmer field
United States. Available at:
schools on adoption of soil schools? A Sri Lanka case study.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?di
water and nutrient management World Development, 33 (10),
d=828414261&Fmt=7&clientId=954
technologies in dry areas pp.1,705–1,720.
6&RQT=309&VName=PQD
of Zimbabwe, global theme
Van de Fliert, E, 1993. [Accessed 30 September 2012.]
on agro-ecosystems.
Integrated pest management:
Van Rijn, F, 2008. A socio-economic
Simpson, DCUDIA, 1997. Farmer field schools generate
impact study of the DE Foundation
The impotence of participation: sustainable practices. A case study
coffee project Peru. MSc Thesis
An examination of the integrated in Central Java evaluating IPM
Development Economics,
pest management-farmer field training. Wageningen, Netherlands:
Department of Social Sciences,
school program in Svay Teap. Agricultural University Wageningen.
Wageningen University,
Snilstveit, B, Vojtkova, M, Phillips, D Van de Fliert, J, Johnson, N, The Netherlands.
and Davies, P, 2014. Farmer field Asmunati, R and Wiyanto, 2001.
Waarts, YR, Ge, L, Ton, G and
schools: results of qualitative Beyond higher yields: The
Jansen, DM, 2012. Sustainable tea
synthesis. In: Waddington et al., impact of sweetpotato integrated
production in Kenya: Impact
2014. Farmer field schools for crop management and farmer
assessment of rainforest alliance
improving farming practices and field schools in Indonesia. CIP
and farmer field school training.
farmer outcomes: A systematic programme report, 1999–2000,
Wageningen University, The
review. Campbell Systematic pp.331–342.
Netherlands.
Reviews, The Campbell
Van den Berg, H, 2004. IPM farmer
Collaboration, Oslo. Waddington, H and Snilstveit, B,
field schools: A synthesis of 25
2010. The impact of agricultural
Sustainet, EA, 2010. Technical impact evaluations. Prepared for
extension services: Study protocol.
manual for farmers and field the Global IPM Facility, Wageningen
3ie synthetic reviews SR009,
extension service providers: Farmer University, the Netherlands.
International Initiative for Impact
field school approach. Sustainable Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/
Evaluation, New Delhi. Available at:
Agriculture Information Initiative, docrep/fao/006/ad487E/ad487E00.
http://www.3ieimpact.org/media/
Nairobi. pdf [Accessed 15 March 2013.]
filer/2012/05/07/009%20Protocol.
Todo, Y and Takahashi, R, 2011. Van den Berg, H and Jiggins, J, 2007. pdf [Accessed 27 January 2014]
Impact of farmer field schools Investing in farmers: The impacts
Waddington, H, Snilstveit, B,
on agricultural income and skills: of farmer field schools in relation to
Hombrados, J, Vojtkova, M,
Evidence from an aid-funded integrated pest management. World
Anderson, J and White, H, 2012a.
project in rural Ethiopia. JICA-RI Development, 35 (4), pp.663–686.
Protocol: Farmer field schools
working paper, No. 30, May 2011.
Van den Berg, SHH and for improving farming practices
Torrez, R, Tenorio, J, Valencia, C, Amarasinghe, L, 2003. The impact and farmer outcomes in low-
Orrego, R, Ortiz, O, Nelson, R and of participatory IPM in Sri Lanka. and middle-income countries:
Thiele, G, 1999. Implementing IPM In: CIP-UPWARD, 2003. Farmer A systematic review. Campbell
for late blight in the Andes. CIP. field schools: emerging issues Systematic Reviews, The Campbell
and challenges, International Collaboration, Oslo. Available at:
Potato Center – Users’ perspectives http://www.campbellcollaboration.
with agricultural research and org/lib/project/203/ [Accessed 27
development, Los Baños, Laguna, January 2014]
the Philippines, pp.274–278.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 33

Waddington, H, White, H, White, H, 2014. Current challenges Yamazaki, S and Resosudarmo, BP,
Snilstveit, B, Hombrados, J, in impact evaluation. European 2008. Does sending farmers back
Vojtkova, M, Davies, P, Bhavsar, A, Journal of Development Research, to school have an impact? Revisiting
Eyers, J, Koehlmoos, T, Petticrew, M, 26 (1), pp.18–30. the issue. Developing Economies,
Valentine, JC and Tugwell, P, 2012b. 46 (2), pp.135–150.
White, H and Waddington, H, 2012.
How to do a good systematic
Why do we care about evidence Yang, P, Li, K, Shi, S, Xia, J, Guo, R,
review of effects in international
synthesis? An introduction to Li, S and Wang, L, 2005. Impacts of
development: a tool kit. Journal of
the special issue on systematic transgenic Bt cotton and integrated
Development Effectiveness, 4 (3),
reviews. Journal of Development pest management education
September 2012, pp.359–387.
Effectiveness, 4 (3), September on smallholder cotton farmers.
Waddington, H, Snilstveit, B, 2012, pp.351–358. International Journal of Pest
Hombrados, J, Vojtkova, M, Phillips, Management, 51 (4), pp.231–244.
Williamson, S, Little, A, Ali, MA,
D, Davies, P and White, H, 2014.
Kimani, M, Meir, C and Oruko, L, Yang, P, Liu, W, Shan, X, Li, P,
Farmer field schools for improving
2003. Aspects of cotton and Zhou, J, Lu, J and Li, Y, 2008.
farming practices and farmer
vegetable farmers’ pest Effects of training on acquisition
outcomes: a systematic review.
management decision-making of pest management knowledge
Campbell Systematic Reviews,
in India and Kenya. International and skills by small vegetable
The Campbell Collaboration,
Journal of Pest Management, farmers. Crop Protection, 27 (12),
Oslo. Available at: http://www.
49 (3), pp.187–198. pp.1,504–1,510.
campbellcollaboration.org/lib/
project/203%20 Winarto, YT, 1995. State Yorobe, J, Rejesus, RM and
intervention and farmer creativity: Hammig, MD, 2011. Insecticide
Walter-Echols, G and Soomro, MH,
integrated pest management use impacts of integrated
2005. Impact of FFS training of the
among rice farmers in Subang, pest management (IPM) farmer
FAO-EU IPM programme for cotton
West Java. Agriculture and field schools: Evidence from
in Asia on the environment. In: PAC
Human Values, 12 (4), pp.47–57. onion farmers in the Philippines.
Ooi, ed. 2005. The impact of the
Agricultural Systems, 104 (7),
FAO-EU IPM programme for cotton Winarto, Y, 2004. Seeds of
pp.580–587.
in Asia, University of Hannover. knowledge. The beginning of
integrated pest management in Zuger, R, 2004. Impact
Wandji, N, Binam, N, David, S,
Java. Yale University Southeast Asia, assessment of farmer field
Mva Mva, J and Gockowski, J, 2007.
Connecticut. schools in Cajamarca, Peru:
Assessing potential impact of a
An economic evaluation. CIP.
farmer field school training on World Bank, 2007. World
perennial crop in Cameroon. In: Development Report 2008:
E Nambiro, MN Omare and GB Agriculture for development.
Nkamleu, eds. 2007. The role of World Bank, Washington DC.
agriculture in poverty reduction: Available at: http://siteresources.
Recent experiences from Africa 2, worldbank.org/INTWDR2008/
AAAE Conference Proceedings, Resources/WDR_00_book.pdf
pp.253–257. [Accessed 15 March 2012.]
White, H, 2009. Theory-based Wu, L, 2010. Farmer field school
impact evaluation: principles and and Bt cotton in China – An
practice, 3ie Working Paper 3, economic analysis. In: H Waibel, ed.
International Initiative for Impact March 2010. Pesticide Policy Project
Evaluation, New Delhi. Available Publication Series Special Issue
at: http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/ No. 15. Institute of Development
evaluation/working-papers/ and Agricultural Economics, Leibniz
working-paper-3/ [Accessed University of Hannover, Germany.
15 June 2013.]
Yajima, M, 2010. Livelihoods of
Cassava Farmers in the Context of
HIV/AIDS in Northern Malawi. PhD
Thesis, Wageningen University.

34 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

 Endnotes

1 17 33
World Bank 2007, p.175. Existing reviews do not draw on evidence Sustainet 2010.
2 in a systematic manner. They base 34
InterAcademy Council 2004, cited in their conclusions on impact evaluations Khisa 2004.
Davis 2006. of unclear quality, using inappropriate
methods to synthesise findings. For 35
3 example, literature reviews use vote Kenmore 1996.
Van den Berg and Jiggins 2007. counting as opposed to statistical 36
4 meta-analysis to synthesise quantitative Pontius et al. 2002.
See, for example, Inter-Academy evidence. Statistical meta-analysis 37
Council 2004. uses synthesis methods that take Waddington et al. 2012a.
5 into account both the magnitude of
the effect and the study sample size, 38
Birkhaeuser et al. 1991. Pontius et al. 2002.
which is not the case for the one-study-
6 one-vote counting approach. Existing 39
For example, Birkhaeuser et al. 1991 reviews focus on IPM FFSs, and do Feder and Savastano 2006.
and Gautam and Anderson 2000. not systematically cover evidence from 40
7 qualitative literature. Feder et al. 2004.
There has been a similar evolution in 18
the use of more bottom-up approaches 41
White 2009. Coady et al. 2003.
to technology development through
agricultural research, such as the 19 42
local agricultural research committees Phillips et al. 2014a. Data on distance from roads is based on
approach (Braun et al. 2000; Birner 20 one study (Philippines: IPM Collaborative
et al. 2006). Phillips et al. 2014b. Research Support Programme, Yorobe
8 21 et al. 2011); data on associations are
Freire 1970. Snilstveit et al. 2014. also based on a single study (Ecuador:
Plataformas programme, Cavatassi
9 22 et al. 2011).
IPM was developed in the 1960s Waddington et al. 2014.
and 1970s (Kogan 1998, cited 43
23 The data in this section are based
in Kelly 2005) to minimise pesticide www.fao.org/nr/land/sustainable-land-
use through the use of more natural on evaluation documents, rather than
management/farmer-field-school/en/ project documents that may have
pest management techniques. [Accessed 15 September 2013]. reported specific, objectively verifiable
10 24 targeting criteria.
Authors’ estimates. Braun and Since project documents were
Duveskog (2008) put the figure at 44
not available for many of the Bangladesh: Danida 2011, Ecuador:
10–20 million. FFS projects analysed here, in some Tracy 2007, Cambodia: Simpson 1997
11 cases we imputed objectives from and Indonesia: Van de Fliert 1993, p.130.
The data in this paragraph are from project components.
3ie’s global FFS portfolio, which 45
25 Twelve projects reported information
drew in part on the earlier review Röling et al. 2004.
by Braun and Duveskog 2008. about excluded groups.
26 46
12 Simpson 1997.
Feder et al. 2004, p.45. Isubikalu et al. 2007.
27 47
13 Danida 2011.
Kelly 2005. Ortiz et al. 2002.
28 48
14 Friis-Hansen and Duveskog 2012, p.416.
Van den Berg 2004, p.3. Godtland et al. 2004.
29 49
15 FAO 2009.
Quizon et al. 2001. Hofisi 2003.
30 50
16 Danida 2011, p.39.
See White and Waddington (2012) and FAO 2011.
Higgins and Green (2011) for discussions 31 51
of systematic review methodology. Van den Berg and Jiggins 2007. Van de Fliert 1993.
32 52
Pontius et al. 2002. Najjar 2009.
53
Danida 2011.
54
Simpson 1997.
55
Hofisi 2003.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 35

56 67 68
Van Der Wiele 2004. This chapter draws on the targeting Effects of FFS reported in magnitudes
57 review (Phillips et al. 2014b), the (percentage changes) in this chapter
Najjar 2009. qualitative review (Snilstveit et al. 2014) are based on the 18 policy-actionable
and the review of effects. The review impact evaluation studies we identified.
58 of effects included 18 policy-actionable A further 72 impact evaluation studies
Van de Fliert 1993. impact evaluation studies covering FFS were assessed as being at high risk
59 projects in 14 countries. Bangladesh: of bias in the systematic review critical
Hofisi 2003. Ricker-Gilbert et al. 2008; China: appraisal; these additional studies
60 Wu 2010, Yang et al. 2008; Ecuador: were drawn on in the analysis, but the
Van Der Wiele 2004. Cavatassi et al. 2011; Ethiopia: Todo and magnitude of change is considered
Takahashi 2011; India: Pananurak 2010; biased (see Figure 14).
61 Indonesia: Feder et al. 2004, Yamazaki
Najjar 2009. 69
and Resosudarmo 2008; Kenya: Davis Godtland et al. 2004, Rejesus et al.
62 et al. 2012; Pakistan: Ali and Sharif 2011, 2009 and Ali and Sharif 2011,
Tracy 2007. Pananurak 2010; Peru: Godtland et al. respectively. This section draws
63 2004, Van Rijn 2008; Philippines: Yorobe on the quantitative and qualitative
Mancini and Jiggins 2008. et al. 2011; Tanzania: Davis et al. 2012; syntheses (see endnote 64).
Thailand: Praneetvatakul et al. 2007;
64 Uganda: Davis et al. 2012; Viet Nam: 70
This chapter draws on the global Rejesus et al. 2009. The review of effects Van Rijn 2008.
portfolio review (Phillips et al. 2014a), also included 72 additional impact 71
targeting review (Phillips et al. 2014b) evaluation studies in 28 countries. India: Mancini et al. 2007; Cambodia:
and qualitative review (Snilstveit et al. Bangladesh: Danida 2011, Walter-Echols Simpson 1997; Indonesia: Winarto
2014). The qualitative review included and Soomro 2005; Benin: Lund et al. 2004; Kenya: Friis-Hansen et al. 2012,
20 studies covering FFS projects in 2010; Bolivia: Bentley et al. 2002, Torrez Machacha 2008; Liberia: Van Der Wiele
13 countries. Bangladesh: Danida 2011; et al. 1999; Cambodia: Simpson 1997; 2004; Uganda: Friis-Hansen 2008;
Cambodia: Simpson 1997; Cameroon: Cameroon: David 2007, Gockowski et al. Zimbabwe: Hofisi 2003; Peru: Van Rijn
David 2007; India: Mancini et al. 2005, Wandji et al. 2007; China: Haiyang 2008; Trinidad and Tobago: Dolly 2009.
2007; Indonesia: Van de Fliert 1993, 2002, Mangan and Mangan 1998, Ooi
Winarto 2004; Kenya: Hiller et al. 2009, 72
and Kenmore 2005, Walter-Echols and Mancini et al. 2007 and Najjar 2009.
Karanja-Lumumba et al. 2007, Najjar Soomro 2005, Yang et al. 2005; Ecuador:
2009, Machacha 2008, Friis-Hansen Cole et al. 2007, Mauceri et al. 2007; 73
et al. 2012; Liberia: Van Der Wiele 2004; Ethiopia: Amera 2009, Endalew 2009, Kenya: Machacha 2008; Uganda:
Nicaragua: Gottret and Cordoba 2004; Kelemework 2005; Ghana: Carlberg Friis-Hansen 2008; Kenya: Friis-Hansen
Philippines: Rola and Baril 1997, Palis et al. 2012, David and Asamoah 2011, et al. 2012; Indonesia: Winarto 2004.
2006; Tanzania: Pedersen et al. 2008; Dankyi et al. 2005, Gockowski et al. 2010; 74
Trinidad and Tobago: Dolly et al. India: Birthal et al. 2000, Mancini and Friis-Hansen et al. 2012.
2009; Uganda: Isubikalu et al. 2007, Jiggins 2008, Mancini 2011, Naik et al.
Friis-Hansen 2008; Zimbabwe: 75
2010, Pouchepparadjou et al. 2005, Danida 2011, Mancini et al. 2007,
Hofisi 2003. Additional studies from Walter-Echols and Soomro 2005;
six countries were drawn on from the Friis-Hansen et al. 2012, Machacha
Indonesia: Mariyono 2007, Norvell and 2008, Najjar 2009, Dolly 2009.
targeting review and the review of Hammig 1999, Van de Fliert et al. 2001;
effects. China: Yang et al. 2008; Ecuador: Iran: Dinpanah et al. 2010; Kenya: 76
Tracy 2007; Ethiopia: Endalew 2009, Achonga et al. 2011, Bunyatta et al. The Ministry of Agriculture FFS in
Todo and Takahashi 2011; Ghana: 2006, De Jager 2007, Hiller et al. 2009, Kenya (Najjar 2009) and Bangladesh
David and Asamoah 2011; Malawi: Waarts et al. 2012, Williamson et al. Agricultural Extension Component
Yajima 2010; Nicaragua: Labarta 2005. 2003; Liberia: Van Der Wiele 2004; of the Agricultural Sector Program
65 Mexico: Orozco-Cirilo et al. 2009; Support (Danida 2011).
Studies are not always clear whether Myanmar: Kabir and Uphoff 2007; 77
the factors they described resulted Nepal: Lama et al. 2003, Pande et al. See Wu 2010, Yorobe et al. 2011
in non-attendance or drop out; the 2009; Nicaragua: Labarta 2005; Nigeria: and Pananurak 2010, respectively.
analysis therefore combines the two. Odeyemi and Asiabaka 2005; Pakistan: 78
66 Islam et al. 2006, Khan et al. 2007, See Ali and Sharif 2011, Todo and
Friis-Hansen 2008, p.519. Walter-Echols and Soomro 2005; Peru: Takahashi 2011 and Van Rijn 2008,
Zuger 2004; Philippines: Palis 2006, respectively.
Price 2001, Rola et al. 2002; Sudan:
Khalid n.d.; Sri Lanka: Jones et al. 79
2002, Tripp et al. 2005, Van den Berg Viet Nam: Rejesus et al. 2009;
and Amarasinghe 2003; Tanzania: Indonesia: Feder et al. 2004,
Friis-Hansen and Duveskog 2012; Yamazaki and Resosudarmo 2008.
Pedersen et al. 2008; Viet Nam: Chi
1998, Huan et al. 1999, Murphy et al.
2002, Walter-Echols and Soomro
2005; Uganda: Erbaugh et al. 2010,
Friis-Hansen et al. 2004, Friis-Hansen
and Duveskog 2012, Nabirye et al.
2003, Olanya et al. 2010; Zimbabwe:
Hofisi 2003, Maumbe and Swinton 2003,
Mutanda and Mpangwa 2004, Rusike
et al. 2004.

36 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

80 96 116
Praneetvatakul et al. 2007 and Machacha 2008. Pananurak (2010) calculated costs
Pananurak 2010. 97 as operational project costs and
81 Danida 2011. opportunity costs of participating
Simpson 1997, pp.136–137. farmers (equal to the daily hired wage).
98 To assess the benefits of the project,
82 Van de Fliert 1993, Van Der Wiele 2004. Pananurak included savings resulting
Feder et al. 2004, Yamazaki and 99 from reduced pesticide use and
Resosudarmo 2008. Dolly et al. 2009, Gottret and Cordoba earnings resulting from increased yields,
83 2004, Simpson 1997. assuming 100 per cent adoption of IPM.
Van den Berg and Jiggins 2007. 100 117
84 David 2007. A benefit-cost assessment of
Praneetvatakul et al. 2007. 101 the National IPM FFS in Thailand
85 Simpson 1997. (Praneetvatakul et al. 2007) found
Van de Fliert 1993. This was noted in a a BCR of 5.56, assuming 30 years
102 of adoption and 1.22 with only 2 years
project in India too (Mancini et al. 2007). See Pananurak 2010, Khan et al. of adoption. However, the authors
86 2007, Feder et al. 2004, Wu 2010 and do not report the methods and
Praneetvatakul et al. 2007. Labarta 2005, respectively. assumptions used in this study clearly,
87 103 particularly with regard to the adoption
Meta-analysis estimates from Indonesia: Winarto 2004, p.356; rate, so they are not included here.
12 projects that facilitated group India: Mancini et al. 2007. 118
formation and three projects that 104 Ricker-Gilbert et al. (2008) calculated
did not (see Waddington et al. 2014). It does not seem unreasonable to the BCR as the difference between
88 expect a diffusion of simple practices benefits (net agricultural revenues) and
Van de Fliert 1993. such as reduced pesticide use following costs (including variable costs of training
89 interaction between FFS graduates and farmer opportunity costs assumed
Palis 2006. and their communities, at least in at US$1 per day).
the short term. One rice and vegetable 119
90 IPM FFS in Bangladesh did find evidence
China: Wu 2010; Pakistan: Ali and Rejesus et al. 2009. To our knowledge,
for diffusion of simple knowledge no cost-benefit analyses to date
Sharif 2011, Pananurak 2010; Kenya (Ricker-Gilbert et al. 2008). See
and Tanzania: Davis et al. 2012; have included health, environmental
Pananurak 2010 and Wu 2010 for and empowerment benefits.
Ethiopia: Todo and Takahashi 2011. Pakistan and China, respectively.
91 120
105 Gautam and Anderson 2000.
Ecuador: Cavatassi et al. 2011; Cameroon: David 2007; Cambodia:
Peru: Van Rijn 2010. Simpson 1997; Indonesia: Van de Fliert 121
92 1993, Feder and Savastano 2006; See, for example, Waddington and
Environmental impact quotient Philippines: Palis 2006. Snilstveit 2010.
calculates the active ingredients in 106 122
pesticides and applies a rating system Van de Fliert 1993. http://www.fao-ilo.org/
in 10 categories to identify a single fao-ilo-youth/fao-ilo-jffls/en/
value of the environmental impact 107 [Accessed 27 January 2014].
rating. The 10 categories include: Winarto 2004, p.351.
123
(i) action mode of pesticides, (ii) acute 108 King et al. 2010.
toxicity to birds, (iii) fish, (iv) bees, Cameroon: David 2007; Kenya:
(v) acute dermal toxicity, (vi) long- Machacha 2008; Philippines: Palis 2006. 124
term health effects, (vii) residue Ricker-Gilbert et al. 2008.
109
half-life in soil and (viii) plant surface, Honduras: Gottret and Cordorba 2004; 125
(ix) toxicity to beneficial organisms, Kenya: Hiller et al. 2009; Cambodia: Two ongoing studies use cluster-
and (x) groundwater and run-off Simpson 1997. randomised assignment to evaluate
potential (Kovach et al. 1992). FFS impacts. China: Kumar et al.
110 (forthcoming); and the Philippines:
93 Wu 2010 and Pananurak 2010.
The findings were on average positive Masset and Haddad (forthcoming).
across the three projects; see Pananurak 111
2010, Praneetvatakul et al. 2007 Pemsl et al. 2006.
and Cavatassi et al. 2011. While two 112
projects did show positive effects White 2014.
individually, the findings from Ecuador 113
are not statistically significant Danida 2011.
(Cavatassi et al. 2011).
114
94 Similar to our figures, Van den Berg
Winarto 2004 and van de Fliert 1993. and Jiggins (2007) report costs of FFS
95 projects per graduating farmer ranging
Winarto 2004, p.363. from less than US$1 to over US$60.
115
Bentley et al. 2002.

Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education 37

Publications in the 3ie Systematic Review Series
The report, Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult
education, 3ie Systematic Review Summary 1, March 2014, is the first such
summary 3ie has produced as part of its new systematic review summary
series. The summaries are designed for policymakers and practitioners.
The following full systematic reviews are available at
http://www.3ieimpact.org/publications/systematic-review-publications/

Water, sanitation and hygiene The impact of daycare programs

interventions to combat on child health, nutrition and
childhood diarrhoea in developing development in developing
countries, 3ie Systematic Review 1. countries, 3ie Systematic Review 7.
Waddington, H, Snilstveit, B, Leroy, JL, Gadsden, P and
White, H and Fewtrell, L (2009) Guijarro, M (2011)
Interventions to promote social Behaviour change interventions
cohesion in Sub-Saharan Africa, to prevent HIV among women
3ie Systematic Review 2. living in low and middle income
King, E, Samii, C and countries, 3ie Systematic Review 8.
Snilstveit, B (2010) McCoy, S, Kangwende, RA and
Padian, NS (2009)
Community-based intervention
packages for reducing maternal Interventions to reduce the
morbidity and mortality and prevalence of female genital
improving neonatal outcomes, mutilation/cutting in African
3ie Systematic Review 5. countries, 3ie Systematic Review 9.
Lassi, ZS, Haider, BA and Berg, RC and Denision, E (2013)
Langou, GD (2011)
The impact of export
Willingness to pay for cleaner processing zones on employment,
water in less developed countries: wages and labour conditions
Systematic review of experimental in developing countries,
evidence, 3ie Systematic Review 6. 3ie Systematic Review 10.
Null, C, Hombrados, JG, Cirera, X and Lakshman, R (2014)
Kremer, M, Meeks, R, Miguel, E and
Zwane, AP (2012)

38 Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education

At least 10 million farmers in 90 countries
have participated in farmer field schools (FFSs)
to gain specialist agricultural skills, knowledge
and – in some programmes – empowerment.
Impact evaluations show that participating
farmers typically benefit from FFSs based
on integrated pest management (IPM) and
other curricula. For scaled-up programmes
implemented over longer periods there
is no evidence of positive effects. Problems
in recruiting appropriate FFS facilitators
have impeded scaled-up programmes.
Non-participating neighbouring farmers
do not benefit from diffusion of knowledge
about IPM from trained farmers. So even
effective, small-scale FFS projects may not
be cost-effective.
Drawing from a full systematic review of
some 500 papers, this summary concludes
that FFSs should be used selectively to solve
specific problems in particular contexts –
not as a one-size-fits-all approach.

Systematic Review Series

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation
London International Development Centre
36 Gordon Square
London WC1H 0PD
United Kingdom
3ieuk@3ieimpact.org
Tel: +44 207 958 8351/8350

www.3ieimpact.org