first round of farmer field school reviews and farmers ... · first round of farmer field school...
Post on 24-Sep-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
First Round of Farmer Field School
Reviews and Farmers’ Learning
Prepared by SNV’s team
November 2013
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1
Methodologies ............................................................................................................... 1
Findings ....................................................................................................................... 2
I. Reviewing the First Round of Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) ...................................... 2
1.1. Impressions from the field ............................................................................ 2
1.2. Definition of successful FFS .......................................................................... 3
1.3. Comments to the current structure of FFS ...................................................... 3
1.4. Performance of Mobile Support Teams (MSTs) ................................................ 5
1.5. Summary of strengths and weaknesses of First Round of FFS ........................... 5
II. Results of rice demonstrations of FFS .................................................................. 5
III. Results of iDE’s rice demonstrations ................................................................. 9
IV. Famers’ Learning............................................................................................. 12
4.1. Famers’ view ............................................................................................ 12
4.2. Incentives for farmers to learn .................................................................... 13
4.3. Reasons for farmers not to join the training? ................................................ 14
V. Capacity needs ............................................................................................... 15
VI. Recommendations for next FFS training and Farmers’ Learning ............................ 15
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary Yield of FFS demonstration by province ................................................. 6
Table 2: Summary economic data of FFS demonstration..................................................... 6
Table 3: Summary economic data of iDE demonstrations.................................................... 9
List of Figures
Figure 1: Women group discussion in Kampong Popel commune, Pea Raing district, Prey Vey
Veng province ............................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Fish demonstration in Nearea Ten village, Choeuteal commune, Svay Chrum district,
Svay Rieng province ...................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: Rice demonstration in Thmea village, Chress commune, Chum Kiri district, Kampot
province ....................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 4: farmers are transplanting rice demonstration in Kampot province .......................... 4
Figure 5: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Prey Veng .................................................. 6
Figure 6:Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Svay Rieng ................................................. 7
Figure 7: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Takeo ........................................................ 7
Figure 8: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Kampot ..................................................... 8
Figure 9: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Kandal ....................................................... 8
Figure 10: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Prey Veng ................................................. 9
Figure 11: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Svay Rieng ............................................. 10
Figure 12: results of iDE rice demonstrations in Takeo ..................................................... 10
Figure 13: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Kampot .................................................. 11
Figure 14: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Kandal ................................................... 11
Figure 15: Group discussion in Nearea Ten village, Choeuteal commune, Svay Chrum district,
Svay Rieng province .................................................................................................... 12
List of Acronyms
$ US Dollar
AWPB Annual Work Plan and Budget
CEW Commune Extension Worker
FFS Farmer Field School
GDA General Directorate of Agriculture
ha Hectare
iDE International Development Enterprises
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IGRF Improving Group Revolving Fund
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
MST Mobile Support Team
NA Not Available
PADEE Project for Agriculture Development and Economic Empowerment
PMEA Project Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor
PPCA Provincial Project Coordination Advisor
PSU Project Support Unit
ROI Return on Investment
SNV Netherlands Development Organisation
T Tonne
TNA Training Need Assessment
1$ = 4000 rie
1
Introduction
SNV team has conducted a rapid assessment of the Farmer Field School (FFS) under the
Project for Agricultural Development and Economic Empowerment (PADEE) in the five
provinces between 11 October and 5 November 2013 to understand the effectiveness of the
first round of FFS. This first round of FFSs, which were facilitated by Mobile Support Teams
(MSTs) with support from Commune Extension Workers (CEWs), were conducted in early wet
season and they already finished almost two months as the date of the assessment. In each
FFS, four topics were introduced to farmer groups, which included rice, vegetable, chicken and
fish. The FFS took 18 weeks to complete. There were 50 farmer members required to attend
each FFS.
Below is the list of number of the FFSs in each PADEE province.
Status as of September 2013 Prey
Veng
Svay
Rieng
Kandal Takeo Kampot Total
Completed (Wet season)
(First round of FFS)
80 35 30 50 30 225
Ongoing (Late wet season) 160 35 8 91 70 364
Pipe-line to start soon (Dry
season rice variety)
40* 26** 74** 19** - 159
* FFS will be started from early 2014 (carry over from 2013 AWPB)
** FFS will start in October'13 (dry season rice variety);
The specific objectives of the assessment were to understand
(i) The level of learning of farmers from Farmer Field School, and if there is a
difference for men and women
(ii) The interaction between CEWs, MSTs and farmers on knowledge sharing and
learning
(iii) Is the FFS methodology effective and relevant for learning in PADEE?
Methodologies
The assessment was conducted by two SNV team members between 11 October and 5 November
2013 in Takeo, Svay Rieng, Prey Veng, Kandal and Kampot. The focus group discussions with
members of IGRF groups who already trained in the first round of the FFS and individual
interviews with the PPCAs, PMEAs, Provincial Technical Staff and CEWs/MSTs were conducted in
each of these provinces.
PADEE staff at provincial level was asked to support in arranging the farmer groups for the focus
group discussions. Farmers for the focus group discussion were obtained from 2-3 different IGRF
groups in at least two districts per province. Focus group discussions were divided into 3 different
groups: the men group, the women group and the mixed (men and women) group. Each focus
group discussion consists of between 8 and 12 members. However, it was difficult to get the
men group as most of them were busy with other activities.
The observations during focus group discussions were also carried out regarding the sitting
position between men and women (for the mixed group), level and way of participation of
members in the group.
For the individual interviews with provincial staff, CEWs/MSTs were carried out in either formal
or informal way.
Secondary data such as iDE data set of rice demonstrations, FFS diary book, record of rice
economic data of FFS, the record of TM2, SNV field reports and the IFAD supervision mission
report were also collected and reviewed.
2
Findings
I. Reviewing the First Round of Farmer Field Schools (FFSs)
1.1. Impressions from the field
“I have conducted experiment of land
preparation of my-self at home. I
have four plots of land for rice
cultivation. One plot I ploughed 3
times as recommended by teacher
and another three plots I ploughed as
usual, one time only. As a result, I
saw that the rice plot which I did
three times of land preparation was
very good and did not require much
fertilizer as compared to others three
plots which I had to put a lot of
fertiliser. Furthermore, there was not
much weed in the experiment plot.
Based on the results, I strongly
believed that the techniques provided
by teacher were very good and
useful. Next time, I will conduct other
tests of other FFS techniques,” said
IGRF group member in Kchom
Choeung village, Pearaing district,
Prey Veng province.
“Focus group discussion of women
group in Kchom Thbong village,
Pearing district, Prey Veng province
mentioned that most of their group
members, at least 40 members, really
wanted to participate in the training
and they never missed the training of
18 weeks. They tried to participate in
the full cycle of FFS even they were
busy at home. They added that there
were many interesting and useful
topics, especially rice cultivation
techniques which they did not know
before. Some of them tried to test the
techniques at home during the training
and it showed the good results. They
suggested having more trainings but
the next training should be focus on
specific topics such as rice”.
“This season I saved 20 Kg of rice seed
by using new transplanting method. I
used only 30kg of rice seed for1.1
hectors of land. Last year, I used 50kg
of rice seed,” said Ms Lay Kheng, IGRF
member in Kaunsat village, Kausat
commune, Toeuk Chhou district,
Kampot province.
Figure 1: Women group discussion in Kampong Popel commune, Pea Raing district, Prey Vey Veng province
3
1.2. Definition of successful FFS
The following are some of the definitions of what the successful FFS is:
1.3. Comments to the current structure of FFS
- Monitoring form (TM1 and TM2)
Most of provincial technical staff and project advisors mentioned that it was good to have a
training monitoring form, TM1. The form would help them to do a field monitoring. However,
there was a concern how to consolidate and use the result. It was suggested to include the
number of famers applying and would be applying during and after the training in the form of
monitoring.
For the TM2 form, it was initially used by SNV advisers during which some observations on the
contents of the form were made to GDA and MAFF PSU. The form was then revised by MAFF-
PSU, and recently introduced to the PADEE provincial staff. As of the time of this rapid
assessment, the TM2 had not been used by the provincial staff yet.
- Technical meeting at provincial level
PPCA in Prey Veng mentioned that it was a good practice to have a monthly meeting on
technical aspects between MSTs and provincial staff at provincial level. During the meeting
they could discuss about the results, concern and next action plan of FFS. It also served the
knowledge and experience sharing between MSTs and technical staff.
- FFS Diary book
Provincial staff expressed that it was good to have FFS diary book to capture the information of
the FFS training although it took time to record information into the diary. Still some MSTs
even by now did not fully understand the diary book. This created some delay in recording
Mr Khat Sok Eng, PPCA in Prey Veng said: “Successful FFS training must be followed by
GDA’s guideline and it should be followed on seasonal crops and the need of farmers.
Farmers are happy to participate in the training. There are numbers of farmers applying
and will be applying during and after the training.”
“In order to get successful training, we should have a clear monitoring system stated
from the beginning till the end of the training cycle. The yield of crops and income will be
increased after they apply the new techniques,” said Mr Men Rithysen, PPCA in Takeo.
“Last year, I sprayed pesticide immediately when I saw insects in the rice field. I did not
know which one was pest and predator. I used one bottle of pesticide. I though all
insects were pest. But now after participating in the FFS training, I can identify insects,
pests and predators, and rice disease. As results, I have not used any pesticide because
there was no pest in the field. There was a disease on few rice plants I took them out to
avoid infection to other plants. Now, I don’t see the disease any more”, Mrs Krim Hean,
IGRF member in Ang village, Trapaing Pring commune, Toeuk Chou district, Kampot
province said.
“Successful FFS training depend on good time arrangement, facilitation skills and teaching
methods of trainer, environment of training venue, farmers’ need and have daily, weekly,
monthly reflection,” said Hiv Kong, PPCA in Kampot.
4
data to the diary even if the activity of FFS had already been finished. They suggested that
GDA provide more explanation about FFS diary book to MSTs.
- Demonstration Protocol
PPCAs and PADEE provincial technical staff
suggested that MSTs must fully understand
about the demonstration protocol. It was
mentioned that some MSTs did not fully
understand about demonstration protocol so
some demonstrations did not follow the
protocol especially vegetable demonstration.
They proposed to set and disseminate a
detailed demonstration protocol to CEWs,
Provincial Technical Staff and other relevant
parties. This can also be used for monitoring
effectively and correctly.
The project advisors, provincial technical staff
and CEWs reported that rice demonstrations
were very good, following by fish and chicken.
However, they suggested that the
demonstration plot of rice should be conducted
in two different locations: technical and
traditional plot. The two plots with their
separate results will help the farmers to see the
difference between the new and traditional
techniques.
- Harmonisation of theory and practise
The scheduling of some of the trainings and
demonstrations was not harmonised with the
cropping season (partly due to delays in
supplying training materials and completion of
training of trainers); hence participants were
not easily able to practice what they had
learned in the field.
It was advised to organize field practise and theory at the same time as it would make more
sense for farmers to learn and do a field practice.
- Training materials and hand-outs
Experience of the first round of FFS showed that some materials were not provided on time.
Provincial staff, PPCAs and PMEA, CEWs suggested MSTs to have training materials before
conducting the training. These materials can be technical and guideline manual, demonstration
materials including rice seed, fingerling, vaccination, etc.
It would be useful for farmers if there were
training hand-outs provided for them during the
training. These materials can be technical books
which has very little text but with colourful
pictures, technical posters, etc. Visual image,
such as technical video, would also help famers
being easier to understand;
- Participation of FFS
The first round of FFS showed that the majority of
FFS’s participants were women as men were busy
with other activities and some migrated. the
majority of them are illiterate. Furthermore, it
Figure 2: Fish demonstration in Nearea Ten village, Choeuteal commune, Svay Chrum district, Svay Rieng province
Figure 4: farmers are transplanting rice demonstration in Kampot province
Figure 3: Rice demonstration in Thmea village, Chress commune, Chum Kiri district, Kampot province
5
was reported that some farmers irregularly participated in the training. There were 50 farmers
per class which were too many people. MSTs had limited capacity to facilitate the training as
some farmers also brought their children along with them. It was suggested that the number
of participant should be reduced from 50 to 25 farmers per class. However, some famers
mentioned that they did not have any difficulty to learn with 50 members of farmers per class,
but this only for the better few as they were really concentrated on their interested topics
- Duration of FFS
The whole FFS took 18 weeks. Farmers were required to attend one time a week – around 2 to
3 hours. For farmers, this period was so long as they need to do their farming activities,
especially during the peak period of their rice transplanting, and participated in other project
meetings or activities. .
1.4. Performance of Mobile Support Teams (MSTs)
- Arrival of MSTs
Provincial technical staff, CEWs and farmer groups said that most of MSTs reached the training
place on time even the training places were very far. Most of them always waited for farmers
to come participate. They are seen as committed.
- MSTs’ capacity
It was reported that the capacities of trainers greatly influenced farmer participation and
application. If the trainers do not have enough capacity, i.e. limited technical knowledge and
facilitation skills, the sessions became less attractive to farmers as they would not believe what
was said by the trainer.
- MSTs’ performance evaluation
So far, there is no form to evaluate the performance of MSTs and it is difficult to know the
performance of MST. It is suggested to develop a form that can be used by provincial staff or
somebody during FFS monitoring.
1.5. Summary of strengths and weaknesses of First Round of FFS
Strength and Weakness of FFS are list below:
Strengths Weaknesses
When MST are skilled both technically
and as trainers, the FFS is likely to be
a success
TM 1 is useful
Monthly meetings are useful
FFS diary book is useful
Most MST are committed
Farmers show interest to learn
Has a monitoring and spot check
from GDA and others
Some MSTs have limited capacity in
technical and facilitation skills
Too many topics (four training topics)
in one FFS
50 participants are too many
Late in delivering training hand-outs
Late in delivering training manuals
and guideline to MSTs
Some MSTs did not fully understand
and follow the demonstration protocol
especially vegetable demonstration
Writing in the FFS diary is time
consuming and not easy
II. Results of rice demonstrations of FFS
Results of 225 demonstrations of rice in 5 PADEE provinces:
- Svay Rieng (35 Demonstrations)
- Kampot (30 Demonstrations)
- Takeo (50 Demonstrations)
- Prey Veng (80 Demonstrations)
- Kandal (26 Demonstrations, excluding 4 because destroyed by rats and floods)
6
The results show yield increase over farmer practices. The average yield from using
drumseeder is 5.3T/ha which is higher than farmers practice 1T, transplanting has highest
yield which is 5.6 T/ha and broadcasting is 5.3 T/ha. (See table 1)
Table 1: Summary Yield of FFS demonstration by province
Yield (T/ha) Svay Rieng Kampot Takeo Prey Veng Kandal Average
Drumseeder 4.4 5.7 5.4 NA 5.5 5.3
Transplanting 4.7 5.7 5.6 5.6 6.2 5.6
Broadcasting 4.4 NA 5.4 5.6 5.8 5.3
Farmers practice 3.1 4.2 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.2
The table below shows that the technical demonstration plots of drumseeder transplanting
methods produced net income over $800 which is more than 2 times higher than the farmer
practice plots ($355). The Return On Investment (ROI) of drumseeder is highest compared to
others, accounting for 1.76. In contract, the expenditure of farmers’ practices ($659) is
highest than others and the ROI is only 0.54.
Table 2: Summary economic data of FFS demonstration
Yield
(T/ha
Gross income
($/ha)
Expenditure
($/ha)
Net income
($/ha) ROI
Drumseeder 5.3 1325 479 843 1.76
Transplanting 5.6 1354 515 837 1.62
Broadcasting 5.3 1239 520 683 1.31
Farmers practice 4.2 1025 659 355 0.54
Below are details results of the demonstrations of 5 PADEE provinces.
Figure 5: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Prey Veng
1246 1225
1016
511 499
721735 726
295
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Transplanting Broadcasting Farmers practice
S/h
a
Prey Veng- 80 Demonstrations
Gross income Expenditure Net income
5.6 T/ha5.6 T/ha
4.6 T/ha
7
Figure 6: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Svay Rieng
Figure 7: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Takeo
1481
1597
10901029
456 486429
546
10251111
661
483
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Drumseeder Transplanting Broadcasting Farmers practice
$/h
a
Svay Rieng- 35 Demonstrations
Gross income Expenditure Net income
4.4 T/ha4.7 T/ha
4.4 T/ha
3.1 T/ha
1391 1393 1398
1193
506 541 545
706
885 852 853
488
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Drumseeder Transplanting Broadcasting Farmers practice
$/h
a
Takeo- 50 Demonstrations
Gross income Expenditure Net income
5.4 T/ha 5.6 T/ha 5.4 T/ha
4.7T/ha
8
Figure 8: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Kampot
Figure 9: Results of FFS rice demonstrations in Kandal
*Not included other 4 demonstrations as it don’t have recorded data because it was destroyed by rat and flood.
1206 1170
863
439538
635
761
618
227
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Drumseeder Transplanting Farmers practice
$/h
a
Kampot- 30 Demonstrations
Gross income Expenditure Net income
5.7 T/ha
5.7 T/ha4.2 T/ha
11751240
1192
893
617 619549 562558
621529
246
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Drumseeder Transplanting Broadcasting Farmers practice
$/h
a
Kandal- 26 Demonstrations*
Gross income Expenditure Net income
5.5 T/ha6.2 T/ha
5.8 T/ha
4.3 T/ha
9
III. Results of iDE’s rice demonstrations
Table below shows the results of 68 Demonstrations of rice demonstrations in 5 PADEE
provinces show increased yield of 24% of drumseeder and 13% of broadcasting over farmers’
practice.
Drumseeder is the best method. Net income (not yet included labor cost) of Drumseeder is
$634 per ha while the net income (included labor cost) is $437.The average yield of
drumseeder is 4.7T/ha, 4.3T/ha for broadcasting and 3.8 T/ha of famers’ practice.
Table 3: Summary economic data of iDE demonstrations
Yield (T/ha)
Gross Income ($/ha)
Expenditure* ($/ha)
Net Income* ($/ha)
ROI* Expenditure** ($/ha)
Net Income** ($/ha)
ROI**
Drumseeder 4.7 1059 425 634 1.49 622 437 1.03
Broadcasting 4.3 962 470 492 1.05 669 294 0.62
Farmer Practice 3.8 760 342 418 1.22 794 -34 -0.10
* Without Labor ** With Labor
Here are detailed results of the demonstrations including yield (T/ha) from 5 PADEE provinces.
Figure 10: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Prey Veng
Note: the Material Expenditure means Expenditure without Labor cost
921
842
738
487545
489434
297249
219
78 58
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Drumseeder Broadcasting Farmer Practice
$/h
a
Prey Veng - 23 Demonstrations
Gross Income Material Expenditure
Net Income (Without Labor) Net Income (With Labor)
4.2T/ha 4T/ha 3.4T/ha
10
Figure 11: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Svay Rieng
Figure 12: results of iDE rice demonstrations in Takeo
735681 665
443487
378
292
195
287
109
11
114
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Drumseeder Broadcasting Farmer Practice
$/h
a
Svay Rieng - 11 Demonstrations
Gross Income Material Expenditure
Net Income (Without Labor) Net Income (With Labor)
3.1T/ha2.9T/ha
3.2T/ha
1,2851,193
862
371 412
104
915
781 758747
606
-431-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Drumseeder Broadcasting Farmer Practice
$/h
a
Takeo - 10 Demonstrations
Gross Income Material Expenditure
Net Income (Without Labor) Net Income (With Labor)
5.2T/h 4.9T/h4.3T/h
11
Figure 13: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Kampot
Figure 14: Results of iDE rice demonstrations in Kandal
1,006
875
719
407 426 392
599
450
327369
226
-196
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Drumseeder Broadcasting Farmer Practice
$/h
a
Kampot - 9 Demonstrations
Gross Income Material Expenditure
Net Income (Without Labor) Net Income (With Labor)
4T/ha
3.5T/ha
3.7T/ha
1,347
1,220
815
418483
346
929
737
469
741
547
282
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Drumseeder Broadcasting Farmer Practice
$/h
a
Kadal- 15 demontrations
Gross Income Material Expenditure
Net Income (Without Labor) Net Income (With Labor)
6.9T/ha
6.2T/ha
4.2T/ha
12
The results in terms of yield and income between FFS and iDE are not compared since the
demonstration plots were conducted in different locations with different circumstances.
IV. Famers’ Learning
4.1. Famers’ view
- Use simple words and pictures
Farmers prefer to learn new things but it
should be simple and easy. It would be easy
for them to remember if they could see
pictures and real things for instance insects.
This suggestion was the same as the
recommendations from the supervision
mission.
- Learning by doing
CEWs and farmers reported that farmers prefer
to learn by practising rather than theory in
classroom. The trainers should focus more on
field demonstration and should spend more
time for field practice. The result of field
demonstrations would influence the adoption of
new techniques.
- Learning from peer farmers
Farmer groups in Prey Veng mentioned that they had difficulty to remember what they had
learnt from the FFS. Through the interviews it was claimed that amongst the 50 participants at
least 10 to 20 farmers could remember and had an ability to share to those who not so good at
remembering.
- Knowledge sharing between men and women
As the majority of participants were women, it means that women tend to lean more than
men. Through focus group discussions with the women groups, they mentioned that after the
training they had spent some time to tell their husband of what they had learnt. They reported
that some farm activities were done by their husband and others by them. The activities done
by men were land preparation, water management, etc which required using labour.
- Seat arrangement
Some farmers stated that those who were shy to speak always sitted at the back because they
did not dare to speak. This caused difficulty for them to follow the trainer as sometimes they
hardly heard the explanation. It was suggested that MSTs and CEW should try to arrange the
seat of farmer as much as possible and use the facilitation skill to assist them to speak.
- Topics that farmer learnt the most
Amongst the four topics of FFS, rice was the most interesting topic for farmers as it is a stable
crop, followed by fish, chicken and vegetable. Fish raising techniques were new to farmers.
Raising fish did not require large land and could be done near house. The farmers had little
interest in chicken because of its difficulty in disease control and some of them did not raise
chicken before.
Techniques that farmers were interested to learn
Rice: seed selection, land preparation, transplanting, fertiliser application, insect
control, bio-composting
Fish: plastic pond preparation, fingerling releasing, feed, making plankton
Chicken: Vaccination, chicken’s house, feed, hygiene
Vegetable: land preparation, bed preparation, fertiliser application, composting
Farmers interest with above topics because these techniques were very useful and help them
to increase productivity and reduce expenditure. After the FFS training, farmers were able to
Figure 15: Group discussion in Nearea Ten village, Choeuteal commune, Svay Chrum district, Svay Rieng province
13
distinguish between unbeneficial insects and predators which helped them very much to decide
whether or not they would use pesticide.
Techniques that farmers were difficult to apply
- Rice: translating in row, disease control
- Fish: Using plastic
- Chicken: vaccination, disease control, breeding
- Vegetable: Pest and disease control, insecticide
Besides the four training topics, farmers also want to learn other topics such as mushrooms
(rice straw, lotus and oyster mushroom), vegetables (tomato, cauliflower, red corn, sesame,
watermelon, mung bean, cucumber, long bean) sugarcane, papaya, frog, pig, egg hatch and
fingerling, small business, machine and motto repairing, food processing. Farmers suggested
having next training but it should be more specific to one topic only. The group of 50 members
should be spit in to smaller groups of specific topics which would help them to reduce their
time and the topics they did not want to learn.
4.2. Incentives for farmers to learn
- Learning from key farmer
Farmers are easy to believe other farmers in the
village or in other places who get successful in
farming. It was suggested by CEWs in Takeo that
MSTs could invite successful farmers in the
commune, district or province to share their best
practices and experiences.
- Farmer competition
Competition of applying news techniques during the
training of famers could be encouraged to practice if
possible. The famer competition can be conducted
at the end of the training session.
- Cross Exchange visits
The cross visits of famers of one famer group to
other farmer groups in their own commune or
district during the FFS training could help them to
see the difference and exchange knowledge and
experiences.
- Visual images
Through interviews, famers were easy to
understand if they could see by their own eye. Visual images likes poster or video of successful
farming practices of new techniques should be developed and played during the training or
even during the farmer groups meeting.
- Clear explanation from trainers
It was mentioned by CEWs that before convincing farmers to apply new techniques trainers
should give clear explanation, the reason and benefit of doing the technique. The trainers must
provide clear example and evidence of doing that, for instance economic analysis.
- Apply new techniques during the trainings
While conducting the training, it is good to encourage farmer to apply new techniques while
they are learning, so they can practice and see the result of the new techniques. If they keep
waiting until finishing the training, sometimes it is late for them if they face any problem of
farming techniques as some farmers do not remember well and they easily forget after the
training
Main points to motivate farmers’
learning and applying
1. Market knowledge;
2. training time is convenient for
farmers;
3. Good facilitation skills of
trainer;
4. Use of visual images;
5. Good result of
demonstrations;
6. Training topic based on
farmers’ needs;
7. Good environment of training’s
venue;
8. Daily, weekly, or monthly
reflection of farmer learning ;
9. Follow up after the training.
14
- Creating farmer discussion session during group meeting and FFS sessions
During FFS sessions or group meetings, MSTs or CEWs should allocate 30mn of time for
farmers to discuss about the techniques that they were applying at home. This discussion
could help them to share experiences, knowledge and
also solve the problem.
- Good result of field demonstration
Some of farmers are illiterate and they had
difficulties to understand and remember. However,
they were easy to remember if they could see and
do it by themselves. It is important to have a field
demonstration while conducting the training. The
result of the demo would affect farmers’ learning,
belief and application.
- Flexible training time
Based on the experience from the first round of the
training, it was suggested that the training time should be flexible based on available time of
farmers. First training showed that farmers were difficult to concentrate in the training while
they were busy with other activities. Flexible training time would also help to increase number
of farmers’ participation.
- Field monitoring by MSTs or CEWs
After the training, MSTs or CEWs should spend some time with farmers to monitor their field
practice. This would give them an opportunity to discuss and express their willingness.
Furthermore, it could help MSTs/CEWs to building good relationships with them. In addition,
farmers really wanted their teacher to see what they had tried to apply it at home.
- Market
Through group interviewing with CEWs, it was reported that famers are concerned about a
market for selling their products. They are facing challenges in finding markets.
- Reflection of farmer learning
The reflection of daily, weekly or monthly of what farmers have learnt should be reviewed
during the FFS session. This review session can help farmers to remember either the theory or
field practice.
4.3. Reasons for farmers not to join the training?
The interviewed farmers indicated many reasons for not joining the training. An overview
according to priority is given here:
- Far distance between the farmers’ house and the training site.
- The training time clashed with farmers’ other activities.
- Farmers were busy taking care of their children at home.
- Some farmers wanted to receive some incentives for their participation.
- Farmers may not be interested in the training topics provided,
- Farmers have been trained by other institutes in the past years, and
- The capacity of trainers is not sufficient
“Farmers don’t like to learn and
sometimes, they are difficult to
follow the trainer while they are
learning. However, they want to
see the real practice of the
demonstration. They will try to
observe the result of demonstration
and if it gets successful they will
believe it but if it fails they will fully
not follow it,” Mr Sen Yon, CEW in
Viheasour commune, Kscah Kandal
district, Kandal province said.
15
V. Capacity needs
Function Capacity needs
Project advisors and technical staff Project management
Procurement
Project Monitoring and Evaluation
MST, CEWs, technical staff Facilitation skills
Agricultural techniques
CEWs, farmers, technical staff Practical learning through exposure visits
CEWs Practical learning through annual
conference/meeting
VI. Recommendations for next FFS training and Farmers’ Learning
Below is the list of the suggestions from the field
for next round of FFSs.
General suggestions for next round of FFS
- Detailed demonstration protocols should
have clear explanation and it should be
distributed to provincial staff, CEWs and
other relevant partners for field
monitoring;
- Provincial technical staff should also
participate in the training programmes
organised by GDA/master trainers;
- GDA, provincial technical staff and other
partners such as SNV should come very
often to do a field monitoring. The number of provincial staff for field monitoring
should be increased;
- The meeting between MSTs and provincial technical staff should be continued to
organise as a monthly basis;
- The training manuals, guidelines should be available before commencement of the
training;
- The quality of field demonstration should be improved especially vegetable;
- Visual images like videos and posters should be introduced and developed;
- The synchronise between theories and field practices;
- Appraisal form for MSTs’ performance should be developed and used;
- The number of participant should be reduced from 50 to 25 people per class;
- Experienced/successful farmer should be invited to share their stories and
experience during the training;
- Incentives for participation and famer contest should be considered;
- Farmers should have discussion sessions to share knowledge and expertise during
the training. Stories of success and failure of participants should be
introduced/shared during the training;
- The training time should be around 2 hours and flexible based on the available time
of the farmers. The time spent for field practice must be more than theory session;
- Mulching film or rice straw for vegetable should be a good option for field
demonstration.
For MSTs
- MSTs should provide clear explanation, reasons and benefits of introducing new
techniques. The economic and risk analysis should be calculated and showed to the
participants;
- MSTs must be well understood about demonstration protocols;
Main points for next FFS
1. Have clear detailed
demonstration protocol;
2. Use visual images, such as
posters and videos;
3. Trainers have experience and
knowledge on technical and
facilitation skills;
4. Flexible training time based on
the availability of famers;
5. Training topics based on the
needs of farmers.
16
- MSTs should conduct the training needs before conduct the training;
- The capacity of MSTs on technical, facilitation, extension and monitoring skills
should be improved;
- MSTs should use the simple and clear words which are easy for farmers to
understand (Don’t use technical words);
- MSTs should reduce text writing and use the pictures and diagram drawing if
possible as some of the farmer group members are illiterate;
- MSTs must have a clear training plan and the training schedule should be flexible;
- MST should introduce easy growing and marketable crops for vegetable
demonstration;
- MSTs must be clear on FFS diary book and know how and what information to
record;
- MSTs must have capacity in technical and facilitation skills;
- MSTs should not provide mix subjects, for instance rice with chicken and vegetable,
per session, instead try to teach one subject per session
- MSTs should motivate farmers to apply the techniques during the training process;
- MST should spend more time for field monitoring and relationship building with
farmers.
For CEWs
- CEWs should continue to participate in all FFS training sessions;
- CEWs should improve technical and facilitation skills;
- CEWs should proposed farmers to have a culture of technical discussion during the
group meeting of the revolving fund or other meeting as possible.
Provincial technical staff
- The capacity of PDA technical staff should be improved by attending the technical
trainings, refresher training, M&E training;
- Increase the number of days for field monitoring;
- Participate in the Integrated Farming System which organised by GDA;
- Detail demonstration guidelines for FFS should be provided to Provincial technical
staff so that they are able to correctly monitor the activities.
top related