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.