1 The Impact of Farmer-Field-Schools on Knowledge and Productivity: A Study of Potato Farmers in the Peruvian Andes1 by Erin Godtland, Elisabeth

Sadoulet*, Alain de Janvry*, Rinku Murgai**, and Oscar Ortiz November 2003 Using survey-data from Peru, this paper evaluates the impact of a pilot farmerfieldschool (FFS) program on farmers knowledge of integrated pest management (IPM) practices related to potato cultivation. We use both regression analysis controlling for participation and a propensity score matching approach to create a comparison group similar to the FFS participants in observable characteristics. Results are robust across the two approaches as well as with different matching methods. We find that farmers who participate in the program have significantly more knowledge about IPM practices than those in the non-participant comparison group. We also find that improved knowledge about IPM practices has a significant impact on productivity in potato production. U.S. General Accounting Office, godtlande@gao.gov. * University of California at Berkeley, sadoulet@are.berkeley.edu, alain@are.berkeley.edu. ** Development Economics Research Group, The World Bank, rmurgai@worldbank.org International Potato Center, Consultative Group on Agricultural Research, o.ortiz@cgiar.org. 1 We are especially indebted to the farmers of San Miguel and the extension and research staff at CIP and CARE-Peru, who

generously offered their time and expertise on behalf of this project. This research was made possible by financial support from the World Bank Research Committee RPO No. 683-56 and the Development Research Group. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the World Bank or any affiliated organization. The authors take full responsibility for any errors. 2 I. Introduction The design of agricultural extension programs in developing countries has been the subject of heated debate. Guided by these debates, extension services have undergone several transformations in the past few decades (Byerlee, 1994). The main transformation, until recently, was a shift from the transfer-of-technology approach to the Training-and-Visit, or T&V, system. Under T&V, the extension system was reoriented from a desk-bound bureaucracy with multiple economic and social objectives to a fieldbased cadre of agents who focused mainly on technology diffusion (Picciotto and Anderson, 1997). T&V extension agents would meet with a small group of contact farmers who were expected to disseminate information to the members of their respective communities and convey farmers opinions back to the agents, thus creating a feedback mechanism absent in the prior system (Birkhaeuser, et al, 1991). For nearly three decades, international aid donors, such as the World Bank, promoted T&V as the most cost-efficient extension system. T&V did, however, have its critics. With continued budgetary crises of less developed countries, some argued that it was too expensive and impossible to implement over extensive regions. Highly dispersed farmers could never establish frequent contact with extension agents. And their needs varied widely and could not be

addressed with a single, inflexible technology package (Picciotto and Anderson, 1997; Feder, Willett, and Zijp, 2001).2 In recent years, a number of development agencies have promoted farmer field schools (FFS) as a potentially more effective approach to extend knowledge to farmers. FFS programs were first introduced in East Asia, in the late eighties, as a way of diffusing knowledge-intensive integrated pest management (IPM) practices for rice.3 FFS have since been adapted to work with other crops and diseases, and have spread rapidly across Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Nelson et al., 2001). The FFS approach represents a paradigm shift in agricultural extension: the training program utilizes participatory methods to help farmers develop their analytical skills, critical thinking, and creativity, and help them learn to make better decisions (Kenmore, 2002). Extension agents, who are viewed as facilitators rather than instructors, conduct learning activities in the field on relevant agricultural practices. Through interactive learning and field-experimentation, FFS programs teach farmers how to experiment and problem-solve independently, with the expectation that they will thus require fewer extension services and will be able to adapt the technologies to their own specific environmental and cultural needs (Vasquez-Caicedo et al., 2000). Participants are encouraged to share their knowledge with other farmers, and are sometimes trained to teach the courses themselves, thus reducing the need for external support. FFS are costly undertakings, making a careful measurement of their impact important. However, empirical evidence on their effectiveness has been mixed. Results of previous impact evaluations have varied greatly according to the setting, the evaluation methods, and the yardstick used to assess impact. The few studies that

2 An abundance of empirical research exists on the effectiveness of T&V. See Birkhaeuser et al. (1991) for a review of studies on the economic impact of these and other agricultural extension programs. 3 IPM is knowledge-intensive because in order to effectively implement IPM which employs natural predators to combat pests farmers must be able to understand the origins, cycles, and natural enemies of pests. 3 examine the impact of FFS on farmers knowledge generally find that FFS participants tend to have higher knowledge test scores after program participation or relative to a group of non-participants.4 Some studies show that FFS participants use less pesticide and have higher yields compared to non-participants, while others find little evidence of impact on these outcomes. At the same time, there appears to be little evidence of diffusion of knowledge from FFS graduates to other farmers.5 A major drawback of most previous studies is that they do not properly control for potential differences between FFS participants and farmers in the comparison group, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. These differences could arise from the non-random placement of the program or from the voluntary nature of participation in FFS. For example, FFS villages might be chosen for their relative advantages in land fertility or climate. Or farmers who voluntarily participate in FFS might be more productive, on average, than those who do not participate. Selective placement (through individual choice or purposive targeting) means that data on nonparticipants does not reveal well the likely achievements of participants in the absence of the program. Unless proper account of non-random farmer and village selection is taken, comparison of outcomes between FFS participants and non-participants is likely to yield biased estimates of program impact.6

This paper uses data from a survey of potato farmers in Cajamarca, Peru, to examine the impact of a pilot FFS program on farmers knowledge (as measured by a knowledge test score) and the impact of knowledge on productivity. To deal with selection bias, we use propensity score matching (PSM) methods to build a statistical comparison group of farmers comparable to FFS graduates. This allows us to ensure that bias in the impact estimate due to selection on observables is minimized. Any remaining bias in the matching estimator can thus be attributed to unobserved characteristics. That said, our application is well suited to PSM since the design of the program in Peru entailed considerable rationing of participation. The sample of nonparticipants is very likely to include people who wanted to participate but were unable to do so due to the non-availability of the program. Matching methods have been quite widely used in evaluations but there have as yet been no applications of matching to the assessment of agricultural extension programs. Our empirical results indicate that farmers who participate in the program have significantly more knowledge about IPM practices than those in the non-participant comparison group. We also find that improved knowledge about IPM practices has a significant impact on productivity in potato production. Combining these results, we estimate that FFS participation can raise the average potato seed output/input ratio by a large amount, approximately 52% of the average value in a normal year. We should note that since the survey was conducted in the first year of program implementation, we do not attempt to assess the extent of knowledge diffusion to nonparticipants. The paper proceeds as follows. Section II describes the FFS program in Peru and the data set. Section III examines how farmers obtain information on potato cultivation, and their knowledge levels. In Section IV, we

4 See for example, Rola et al. (2002) in the Philippines, Van de Fliert et al. (1999) in Indonesia, and Preneetvatakul and Waibel (2002) in Thailand. 5 For a summary of these studies, see Feder et al., (2003). 4 present the research strategy used to test the impact of FFS on knowledge. Sections V and VI apply this methodology to measure impact on knowledge. Finally, Section VII estimates how knowledge affects productivity levels in potato cultivation and Section VIII concludes. II. The Program and Data As the home country for the headquarters of the International Potato Center (CIP), one of the CGIAR centers, Peru has long been a focal point for the development and deployment of improved potato varieties and cultivation practices. In 1998, CIP scientists, in collaboration with CARE-Peru, launched a pilot farmer field school program for potato farmers in the department of Cajamarca. This department lies in the northern part of the Peruvian Andes, which is known as the Green Andes. Unlike the dry flatlands of the Altiplano, the Green Andes are characterized by steeply sloped, hilly terrain with relatively higher precipitation levels. The elevation of the survey region ranges from 9,000 to 12,000 feet above sea level. The economy in the survey region is dominated by small farms with potato farming as the main activity. Potatoes constitute the bulk of households food consumption and are also their most lucrative market crop. The main aim of the FFS program was to introduce IPM techniques to Andean potato farmers. FFS participants were expected to attend 12 training sessions (typically once a week, with each session lasting for 3 hours). As the training strategy was based on the principle of learning by discovery, during these sessions the

facilitator would organize various activities and experiments that the farmers could implement themselves. The curriculum was focused on the biology of late blight, the fungus that caused the Irish Potato Famine and continues to take huge tolls on potato production in Peru. Farmers were taught its symptoms, its reproductive cycle, its contamination source, and the conditions that foster its growth. On the experimental plot (one per FFS community), they identified potato varieties that are resistant to late blight infection. They learned how to prevent and control late blight with the use of improved varieties and fungicides. The program also introduced IPM for the Andean potato weevil and the potato tuber moth in less detail. There was a two-stage selection process that determined which farmers could participate in the program. First, CARE selected the villages in which to introduce the FFS program. These villages were chosen from a set of villages where CARE had already been implementing another rural development project named Andino. This project worked with farmers groups to improve farm production by providing technical advice and access to credit, and by facilitating links to markets. Technical advice in Andino was imparted through conventional transfer-oftechnology approaches. The Andino villages (and consequently, the FFS villages) were not a random sample of villages in the region. Rather, CARE had conducted a diagnostic survey of all communities within the watershed, and based on this survey, classified communities into three types: subsistence, middle income, and high income. The target population for the Andino program was the set of middleincome communities and, from this target group, 20 villages that were close to their respective district capitals were selected for participation. CARE planned 6 The only study that properly controls for selection biases finds no evidence of FFS impact (Feder et al., 2003).

5 to introduce FFS in all the Andino villages. However, at the time of the survey, field schools were operating only in four. These four villages constitute our treatment villages. Within the FFS villages, all farmers were invited to participate in the program. The only requirement imposed on participants was that they had to attend all the training sessions. In reality, although the call for participation was open to all community members, pre-existing groups took advantage of their already-existing organization and formed an FFS group. As a result, a number of FFS participants were also participants in other farmer groups such as Andino. However, because of limits on the number of participants permitted in each school, the participation rate in FFS remained very low during the first year of implementation, with only 45 farmers out of a population of 900 (or 5% of the farmers) participating in the program. Similar low participation rates of 2.5% are observed for the Andino program in villages where it is offered. The main objective of this paper is to analyze the impact of FFS on knowledge by contrasting FFS participants to a matched control group of non-participants in either the FFS or the Andino program. A secondary objective is to analyze the impact of Andino on knowledge by contrasting Andino participants to the same group of non-participants. Because we have a large group of non-participants, these two tests of impact can be performed. We are, however, limited by the small number of observations in testing the difference in impact on knowledge between FFS and Andino. We report information on descriptive statistics comparing the gains in knowledge achieved under the two programs, conduct statistical analysis of the impact of each program, and describe the differences in impact on knowledge, but do not have enough degrees of freedom to expect to achieve significance in

comparing these two levels of impact. For this reason, we report in detail results on the impact of FFS but only secondarily on the impact of Andino. The data for our analysis come from a 1999 survey of potato farmers in thirteen communities within the province of San Miguel located in the Department of Cajamarca. Ten of the thirteen villages included in the sample are among the CARE Andino villages, including the four villages that were selected as FFS villages at the time of the survey. The sample includes all of the FFS and Andino participants and a random sample of non-participant farmers from (a) the four villages that have FFS programs, (b) six villages which have experience with CARE through Andino but do not have farmer field schools, and (c) three control villages. The control villages were chosen to be similar to the FFS villages in observable characteristics such as agro-climatic conditions, distance to district capitals, and infrastructure. The distribution of households in the three types of villages is reported in Table 1. 6 CARE villages CARE villages Non-CARE with FFS program with Andino program villages Total FFS participants 45 0 0 45 Work with CARE, non-participants in FFS 9 62 2 73 Do not work with CARE 39 181 148 368 Total number of households in sample 93 243 150 486 Total number of households in villages 900 2337 1278 4515 Villages 4 6 3 13 Table 1. Sample of Households The survey was carried out over two household visits. The first visit gathered detailed plot-level data, including the costs and quantities of seed, chemical, and labor inputs for each agricultural activity (from land

preparation through harvest) during the year preceding the survey. It also included a knowledge test, which was based on the curriculum of the FFS. The second visit collected information on each household members education level and marital status, off-farm activities and credit sources, and the households experience with agricultural and other extension services. The second visit also included a full household consumption recall for the last year and an itemized account of all household and farm assets. Examination of the potato output-seed ratio (the quantity of seed harvested divided by the quantity of seed planted per hectare) in the sample suggests that the survey was conducted in a normal year (see Figure 1).7 According to potato experts, in Cajamarca, the distribution of outputseed ratios in Figure 1 is typical for the region. A ratio of 1-3 is very bad, 4-6 is bad, 7-9 is regular, 10-15 is good, and greater than 15 is excellent. The average output ratio for the sample was 7.6 with a standard deviation of 4.2. Thirty-eight percent of the plots had productivity levels rated as bad or very bad. While normal, the wide dispersion in the output-seed ratios also illustrates the tremendous variation in productivity levels in the sample villages. This is the variable that we will use to measure the impact of knowledge on productivity. 7 Tuber scientists call this measurement the multiplication ratio. It is one of the two most commonly used productivity measures, the other measure being yield estimates based on harvest sampling (Terrazas, et. al, 1998). 7 Figure 1. Histogram for Potato Output/Input Ratios Percentage of farmers 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10

Potato output/input ratio Part of the variation in productivity arises from production losses due to late blight, as is evident in Table 2 which shows the primary causes of production losses by plot during 1998, as reported by farmers in the sample. It illustrates the need for a curriculum with a heavy emphasis on late blight. Although this was not a wet year, 47% of the potato plots in the sample experienced losses due to late blight. 19% experienced losses from frost. The Andean potato weevil, the potato tuber moth, and hail were not critical problems in the year the survey was conducted. Source of stress Late blight Andean potato weevil Potato tuber moth Frost Hail % of plots affected 47.1 5.4 1.0 19.3 1.4 % of plots with 0-25% loss 31.9 3.8 1.0 7.0 1.4 % of plots with 26-50% loss 10.8 1.6 0 6.9 0 % of plots with 51-75% loss 3.0 0 0 2.8 0 % of plots with 76-100% loss 1.4 0 0 2.6 0 Table 2. Agricultural Losses Caused by Common Pests and Weather Conditions III. Information Channels and Knowledge Levels Before evaluating the impact of FFS on farmers knowledge of IPM practices, it is useful to examine how farmers in San Miguel typically obtain information on potato cultivation. The questionnaire requested farmers to name their primary sources of information on a number of tasks related to potato cultivation. Table 3 summarizes these results. The majority of farmers get information on potato farming from family members. Farmers seek information on new technologies, such as new varieties and pesticides and fungicides from other neighbors in the

community. Given the traditional, rural environment, this makes sense. Using data from several surveys in India, 8 Foster and Rosenzweig (1995) note that information from neighbors on new technologies was as important as information from government extension services. In their study in Northern India, Feder and Slade (1986) also note the extensive role of discussions among farmers as a main source of agricultural advice. Ortiz and Valdez (1993) found a similar role for neighbors for information in other Cajamarca communities. Agricultural economists working in developed countries have also noted this phenomenon (Birkhaeuser et al., 1991). For the selection of improved varieties and the control of pests and diseases, which are more technical issues, farmers not only cite family members and neighbors as their primary sources of information, but also CARE (either FFS or conventional training) as an important source. Feder and Slade (1986) similarly found that farmers in their sample are more likely to seek information on complex agricultural practices from agricultural extension agents. Source of information Family member Neighbor in the community or a nearby community Sharecropping partner Merchant / At the market CARE Other NGO Radio

Own Experience Agronomic practices Soil preparation 96 3 0.0 0 0 0 0 2 Planting 96 4 0.7 0 0 1 0 1 Fertilizing 92 8 1 0 1 1 0 3 Weeding and uphilling 94 4 5 0 0 0 0 3 Seed selection 88 8 1 0.5 1 1 0 0 Technical issues Improved varieties 52 34 1 6 6 1 2 2 Pesticide/fungicide use 73 24 2 3 1 2 1 5 Late blight control 71 23 2 2 2 3 0 7 Andean potato weevil control 28 9 0.7 1 1 2 0 5 Potato tuber moth control 15 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 Sources do not sum to 100% since respondents were permitted to list multiple sources Table 3. Sources of Information on Potato Cultivation (% of farmers who use the source) How accurate is the knowledge that farmers share with one another? The questionnaire included a test, designed by CIP extension experts, of farmers' knowledge about the control of the three major pests late blight, the Andean potato weevil, and the potato tuber moth. Farmers were asked how to identify the pest and its cause, how it reproduces, and how to control it. For late blight, farmers were also asked what fungicides are used to control it, how to differentiate categories of pesticides in general and of fungicides in particular, and to name resistant varieties. Finally, farmers were asked how they select pesticides/fungicides, whether they could identify the meaning of different warning labels on the pesticides, and what precautions they take in applying and storing the agro-chemicals. The scores for each topic category are presented in Table 4. In general, they are very low, with average scores that do not exceed twenty-five percent of the total score.

This low level of knowledge about important agricultural problems and solutions is what motivates several NGOs to provide agricultural extension services to farmers in Cajamarca and throughout Peru. CARE-Peru works extensively in the Cajamarca region to disseminate information on new technologies through conventional transfer9 of-technology agricultural extension programs (Andino) and through experimental extension programs, such as FFS. Table 4 compares test scores of the farmers who participate in the FFS and Andino programs with farmers who do not participate in any program. Farmers who participate in the FFS have significantly higher scores on tests in every area. Farmers who worked with the Andino program also score significantly higher on the tests. Finally, FFS participants have higher scores than Andino program participants overall and in all test scores but one. Table 4. Agricultural Knowledge Test Score Comparisons Across Groups of Farmers P-value All FFS Andino Non- difference households participants participants participants1 FFS vs. Andino Number of observations 486 45 64 329 Test scores: % of maximum score Knowledge on late blight 24 35 29 24 0.06 Knowledge on Andean weevil 10 25 14 9 0.02 Knowledge on potato tuber moth 6 15 17 6 0.60 Pesticide knowledge 21 29 25 21 0.04 Knowledge on resistant varieties 17 49 33 16 0.00 Total test score 19 34 26 19 0.00 1 All differences between FFS and non-participants and between CARE and non-participants are significantly positive at 1%. IV. Empirical Approach The purpose of the estimation that follows is to measure the impact of FFS on knowledge levels of those

who participated in the program. This is the Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATE1), where the treatment is participation in the program. The empirical problem we face is the typical one of filling in missing data on the counter-factual: what would knowledge levels of FFS participants have been if they had not participated in the program? Our challenge is to identify a suitable comparison group of non-participants whose outcomes, on average, provide an unbiased estimate of the outcomes that program participants would have had in the absence of the program. Given the non-random selection of program villages and farmer self-selection, simple comparisons of knowledge levels between participants and non-participants would yield biased estimates of program impact. Based on program design, there are three potential sources of bias in measuring program impact. First, FFS participants are likely to differ from non-participants in the distribution of their observed characteristics, leading to a bias from selection on observables. Such a bias is likely to arise because the criteria used for FFS village selection (e.g., distance to the district capital) and participant selection can also be expected to have a direct effect on knowledge levels even in the absence of the program. We control for selection on observables in two ways. First, in the sample design, non-FFS villages were purposively selected to be similar to the FFS villages in terms of observed characteristics such as agro-climatic conditions, prevalence of potato farming, distance to the provincial capital, etc. Table 5 reports average characteristics of households from FFS and non-FFS villages, including 10 demographic characteristics, assets, whether farmers are credit constrained8, and a measure of the severity of the El Nino shock endured the year before the survey (fraction of the plots that were not harvested because of El Nino

damage). It shows that the equality in means cannot be rejected for all but one characteristic. Second, as described below, we use both regression and propensity score matching (PSM) methods to control for differences in observed characteristics between FFS participants and non-participants. These approaches provide an unbiased measure of program impact under the assumption of conditional mean independence, whereby pre-program outcomes are independent of participation given the variables used as controls in the regression or for matching. The fact that the FFS were part of a small pilot program makes it more likely that this assumption would be true: the sample of nonparticipants very likely includes farmers who wanted to participate but were unable to do so due to the nonavailability to them of the program. 9 Farmers in FFS Villages Farmers in Non-FFS Villages P-values for equality Mean value Mean value of means between villages Number of Observations 93 393 Education of household head (years) 2.4 2.4 0.78 Age of household head 46.0 44.8 0.62 Number of family members 4.8 5.3 0.13 Dependency rate 1.1 1.1 0.99 Total land ownership (10 hect.) 0.12 0.11 0.66 Value of cattle assets (100 soles) 6.1 5.0 0.46 Number of inherited livestock 0.11 0.44 0.02 Value of household assets (100 soles) 1.3 0.6 0.47 Value of farm assets (100 soles) 0.43 0.47 0.45 Plots lost from El Nino the previous year 0.32 0.25 0.31 Credit Constrained 0.31 0.25 0.42 Exchange rate in 1999: 100 soles US$ 30. Table 5. Comparison of Household Characteristics in Villages With and Without FFS A second source of bias in program impact can arise if there is diffusion of knowledge in FFS communities.

In the presence of diffusion, comparing FFS participants with nonparticipants in the same village is likely to underestimate program impact. Because the program had been in operation for only one year at the time of the survey, the extent of diffusion is likely to have been low. In any event, to avoid all bias from potential diffusion within FFS communities, we exclude non-participants in FFS communities from the comparison group. Hence, the 8 Farmers were categorized as credit constrained if they answered that they did not currently have a loan because they did not have access to, or did not have a guarantee for, loans from both formal banks and NGOs. There were no farmers who are currently receiving loans who responded that they could not obtain more and hence should be categorized as credit constrained. 9 In the area that we observed, FFS was a small-scale program, with a very low participation rate (5% of the farmers in FFS villages). If it were the case that all farmers that did not participate in the program were genuine non-participants in the sense that they would not participate even in a fully developed program, then the average treatment effect of the presence of a Farmer Field School in a village could be obtained by dividing the average treatment effect on participants by the rate of participation. On the other hand, if the very low participation rate in the program was largely due to the fact that the program itself could not expand and hence was not introduced with the same level of information as a full fledged program, this calculation would lead to a large downward bias of the impact of a fully developed program. 11 sample that we retain P(FFS) nonFFSincludes FFS participants (P) from the FFS villages and non-FFS villages farmers (excluding the participants to the Andino program).10 A final source of bias is that FFS participants may differ from nonparticipants in the distribution of unobserved characteristics (e.g., in farming ability that affects both the decision to participate in FFS and the desire

to seek out new knowledge), resulting in selection on unobservables. In the absence of a suitable instrument for program participation, we are unable to explicitly control for selection on unobservables. However, following Altonji, Elder, and Taber (2002), we use an informal way of assessing the potential bias that could result from unobservables and find that this bias is likely small compared to the estimated impact. The assumptions underlying the above discussion can be formally expressed as follows: Assumption 1. Stable Unit Treatment Value (SUTV) in the retained sample (excluding non-participants from the FFS villages) This assumes that the treatment only affects the outcomes of those who participate, i.e., there is no diffusion of knowledge from FFS participants to control farmers in nonFFS villages. Assumption 2. Ignorability of treatment (participation in FFS): Conditional on observed village and individual characteristics xv , xi , outcomes y0, y1and participation w are independent. This assumption implies the weaker conditional mean independence: E y0 xv , xi ,w E y0 xv , xi and E y1 xv , xi ,w E y1 xv , xi , (1) where y0 and y1 are the outcomes of interest (farmers knowledge) without and with participation in the FFS program, w is a binary indicator of participation, and xv ,uv , xi , and ui denote observed and unobserved village and individual characteristics, respectively. These two conditions allow us to build a statistical comparison group for FFS participants with similar farmers from the non-FFS villages, and to estimate the impact of the FFS program by comparing the observed outcome y1 of FFS participants with the outcome y0 of farmers in the comparison group. We use two different estimators.

4.1. Estimation by regression The first method is based on assuming a parametric expression for the conditional mean independence (1): E y0 x 0 x x 0 and E y1 x 1 x x 1 where x is the vector of covariates xv , xi with average value x . 10 Note that this assumes that there is no diffusion from FFS farmers to farmers in non-FFS villages, which seems reasonable 12 This gives the expected knowledge outcome y conditional on a given set of covariates as: Ey x,w0 w xwx x . (2) where y 1 wy0 +wy1 is the observed outcome (equal to y1 for participants and y0 for non-participants). Subtracting the average values x from the covariates x ensures that the coefficient is the average treatment effect. Since the regression of y on x,w,wx xconsistently estimates the parameters, we can derive an estimate of the conditional average treatment effect: ATEReg xx x, which can be averaged over the sample of participants, or any other group of farmers. In particular, is an estimation of the average treatment effect over the sample population, and the average treatment effect on the treated is estimated by: ATE x x w Reg E 1 1. 4.2. Estimation by matching on probability propensity scores This method, developed by Rosenbaum and Rubin (1983), is based on modeling the probability of treatment given covariates, called the probability propensity score (PPS): pxPw 1 x. Suppose that two agents from the population have identical PPS. Then under the ignorability condition, the average treatment effect, conditional on the PPS, is equal to the expected difference in the observed outcomes

between participants and matched non-participants: Ey1 y0 pxEy w 1, pxEy w 0, px. Averaging over the distribution of propensity scores in the treated population gives the average treatment effect on the treated: ATEPSM y w p x y w p x w 1 EE1, E0, 1. Implementation of this method relies on having an estimator for the PPS, which we discuss in the next section. V. Estimation of the probability propensity score While estimation of the average impact effect is done in the population that excludes the non-participants from the FFS villages because of the required SUTV assumption, this need not be the case for the independent estimation of the PPS. In fact, it is within the FFS villages that we have a better identification of the covariates that given the limited time that had elapsed between training and the date of the survey. 13 determine FFS participation, since farmers in these villages were all, to a certain extent, given the opportunity to participate. Using the sub-sample FFSof farmers living in the FFS villages, we estimate a flexible probit model of participation, where covariates and various functions of these covariates are introduced. The estimated model can be used to predict pxfor the population P(FFS) nonFFSused for the estimation of the average treatment effect. As farmers from the non-FFS villages are not included in the estimation of the propensity score, this constitutes an out-of-sample prediction. Its validity relies on the existence of sufficient overlap of the covariates, and on the assumption that the same participation model would apply in both samples were all villages offered the

FFS program. The latter is an assumption of ignorability of the choice of village for participation. Assumption 3. Ignorability of the selection of FFS villages for participation choice: Conditional on observed village and individual characteristics xv , xi , the choice of villages for the placement of an FFS and participation w are independent. This assumption implies conditional mean independence: Pw 1 xv , xi ,presence of FFSPw 1 xv , xi. The results for the probit on FFS participation are reported in Table 6. They show the importance of age, the number of family members in a household, and wealth (land and household assets) in influencing FFS participation. The correlation of FFS participation with the availability of labor in the household was corroborated by farmers during our fieldwork: many non-participants cited the lack of time and availability of labor as their main constraint in participating in the FFS program. In order to improve the prediction of treatment assignment (critical to matching methods), the model is intentionally over-parameterized, using many variables and quadratic terms. 14 Coefficient p -value Education of household head -0.74 0.18 Quadratic term for education 0.20 0.14 Age of household head -0.02 0.05 Number of family members 0.21 0.02 Dependency rate -0.27 0.32 Total land ownership (10 hect.) 0.70 0.03 Quadratic term for land ownership 1.05 0.41 Value of cattle assets (100 soles) 0.01 0.76 Number of inherited livestock 0.00 1.00 Value of household assets (100 soles) 0.22 0.00 Quadratic term for household assets -0.01 0.00 Value of farm assets (100 soles) 0.24 0.66

Quadratic term for farm assets -0.23 0.21 % of losses from El Nino 1.61 0.12 -2.21 0.00 Credit constraint 0.16 0.69 Constant 0.12 0.84 Number of observations 93 Pseudo-R2 0.18 Prediction Table: Nonparticipant Participant Predicted non-participant 40 20 60 Predicted participant 8 25 33 48 45 93 Correct prediction rate: 70% Table 6. Farmer Field School Participation Probit Dependent variable: participation (0/1) % of losses from El Nino squared A similar procedure (results not reported) was applied to participants of the Andino program. Prediction of participation, with 62 observed participants and 181 non-participants, has a 65% correct prediction rate. The same variables are significant in explaining participation as in the FFS prediction. The only qualitative difference is age which acts negatively in FFS participation and positively in Andino participation, which is telling of the difference between the two approaches and who might benefit most. Education is insignificant in both cases. These parameters are used to predict the probability of participationg px, or PPS, for the sample P(FFS) nonFFSwhich is then used to match FFS participants with observationally similar non-participants. Different rules of thumb could be applied to define what constitutes an observationally similar group of nonparticipants. Smith and Todd (2000) demonstrate that program impact estimates calculated using PPS methods are

highly sensitive to which method is used, but robustness can be improved by restricting matches only to those participants and non-participants who have a common support in the distribution of propensity scores. Therefore, we derive impact estimates by applying the common support condition and further check robustness by using three different methods for selecting matched non-participants. 15 The distributions of propensity scores for FFS participants and nonparticipants are plotted in Figure 2. The distribution with the darker bars is the distribution of pxfor participants. For the purpose of matching, observations with very low or very high values of pxare eliminated, as they may indicate a true value of 0 or 1. Observations outside the support of the two distributions of pxfor participants and non-participants were also excluded from the analysis. Fifty-one observations among the nonparticipants were dropped in total. Figure 2. Histogram of Probability Propensity Scores for FFS Participants and Non-participants 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Non-participants FFS participants Percentage of farmers

Probability Propensity Score The first method for constructing a matched comparison group involves choosing a propensity score cut-off point, above which all households are included in the comparison group (Revenga et. al., 1994). There are no strict rules on how to choose a cut-off point, and this is often arbitrary. We will use as a threshold the average PPS (0.60) among participants. The second method assembles a comparison group by matching each program participant with the five non-participants who have the closest px(Jalan and Ravallion, 2003). The crucial component of this second method is to include non-participants with scores that are close to the participants' scores. We restricted matches to those within a 0.01 PPS distance from the FFS participant. After eliminating matches that were not within this range, the mean difference between matches was 0.005, with a maximum of 0.0099.11 Finally, the entire sample of non-participants (within the common support) can be used to construct a weighted match for each participant. We use the non-parametric kernel regression method proposed by Heckman, Ishimura, and Todd (1998) for this construction. A balancing test reveals whether the comparison groups created with these techniques sufficiently resemble the treatment groups by testing whether the means of the observable variables for each group are significantly different (Smith and Todd, 2000). For the first and second methods, the balancing test was performed 16 by dividing each comparison and treatment group into two strata, ordered by probability propensity scores. Within each stratum, a t-test of equality of means in the two samples of participants and non-participants was conducted for each variable included in the probit on farmer participation. The results of these tests are reported in Table 7. The

null was not rejected for all but two and three variables, respectively, for the two methods. For the third method, we test for the equality of means in the samples of participants and their (weighted) matches. The null was not rejected for all but two variables at the ten percent level. Overall, 7 out of the 55 test results suggest a rejection of the equality of means at less than 10%, which is about what could statistically be expected. These results can therefore be taken to indicate no systematic differences between the experiment and comparison groups in their observed characteristics. Balancing tests for the propensity score matching of Andino participants similarly show no systematic differences in observed characteristics with their comparison groups. Method 3: Weights Definition of control group Entire sample (with kernel-based weights) Strata 1 Strata 2 Strata 1 Strata 2 Education of household head 0.81 0.74 0.42 0.77 0.64 Age of household head 0.34 0.93 0.55 0.15 0.10 Number of family members 0.04 0.65 0.58 0.47 0.44 Dependency rate 0.15 0.54 0.27 0.19 0.15 Total land ownership 0.49 0.47 0.31 0.52 0.36 Value of cattle assets 0.81 0.48 0.82 0.85 0.38 Number of inherited livestock 0.98 0.36 0.85 0.63 0.75 Value of household assets 0.21 0.53 0.39 0.74 0.54 Value of farm assets 0.13 0.83 0.30 0.48 0.28 Losses from El Nino 0.13 0.55 0.76 0.73 0.18 Credit constrained 0.92 0.28 0.45 0.36 0.85 Number of observations 61 62 22 22 45 Method 1: Cut-off point p -values for equality of means of variables in the participant and control groups Table 7. FFS: Balancing Test Results for Three PPS Methods Method 2: Matching

closest PPS (within .01 PPS) All farmers with PPS 0.60 Average of five non-participants with VI. Impact of FFS on knowledge 6.1. Estimation based on regression with control variables Table 8 presents the results of a regression of knowledge test scores, controlling for FFS and Andino participation and for community and household characteristics, described in equation (2). The regression can be done with both types of participants since they have the same control group (the non-Andino participants in the nonFFS villages) and the regression has a full range of interactions. The sample of observations P(FFS) nonFFS consists of all FFS participants from FFS villages and all non-FFS villages. It shows an estimated Average Treatment Effect ATEReg for FFS of 7.6 percentage points for the entire sample. Using these results, the average 11 One FFS participant did not have a match within this range, and thus, the treatment group was reduced to 44 in this method. 17 of the impact over FFS participants gives an estimated value of 13.8 percentage points for the Average Treatment Effect on the Treated ATE 1 Reg . Impact of participation on knowledge increases with land ownership, the value of household assets, and the number of family members. It is interesting that deriving greater knowledge from participation in FFS is not affected by the level of education of the household head. The estimated Average Treatment Effect for Andino is 5.6 percentage points and the Average Treatment Effect on the treated is 7.7 percentage points. The effect on knowledge of traditional extension is thus apparently lower than that of FFS, confirming the observation made on the basis of descriptive statistics in Table 4. However,

due to the very small samples of participants to the two programs, it is difficult to establish statistical significance for this difference: With an estimated value of 2.05 (standard error 3.56) for the difference between the two average treatment effects, the null hypothesis that it is equal to 0 cannot be rejected at the 5% level. On the other hand, the Inverse Power calculation proposed by Andrews (1989) indicates that the data show no evidence that the true difference is less than 5.9, at the 5% level, either.An interesting difference between the impact of the FFS and Andino programs is that in the case of Andino, knowledge is not affected by land ownership and family size and does not increase with the value of household assets. If control over land and household assets proxies for wealth, it suggests that FFS is better taken advantage of by the wealthier, while traditional transfer-of-technology approaches cater to less endowed farmers. The FFS extension method is thus better fit for younger farmers (participation) and for farmers with greater endowments. 18 Table 8. Impact of FFS and Andino on Agricultural Knowledge Test Scores Dependent variable: test score1 Coefficient p -value Participation in FFS 7.64 0.01 Participation in Andino 5.59 0.00 Community characteristics Distance from Cajamarca (kms) -0.01 0.00 Dairy delivery station in community (0/1) 1.11 0.22 Household characteristics Education of household head 0.33 0.65 Age of household head -0.03 0.47 Number of family members 0.07 0.69 Total land ownership (hectares) 6.99 0.18 Quadratic total land -7.88 0.03

Value of cattle assets (100 soles) -0.01 0.91 Number of inherited livestock 0.09 0.66 Value of household assets (100 soles) 0.46 0.00 Value of farm assets (100 soles) 0.42 0.67 % of losses from El Nino 1.18 0.33 Credit constrained 1.61 0.10 Interaction terms: Participation in FFS x de-meaned community characteristics Distance from Cajamarca 0.00 0.93 Dairy delivery station in community -1.63 0.71 de-meaned household characteristics Education of household head -0.66 0.75 Age of household head -0.30 0.11 Number of family members 1.33 0.68 Total land ownership 84.0 0.08 Quadratic total land -179 0.02 Value of cattle assets 0.18 0.65 Number of inherited livestock -0.41 0.62 Value of household assets 3.33 0.05 Value of farm assets -6.01 0.23 % of losses from El Nino -10.3 0.01 Credit constrained 2.90 0.48 Interaction terms: Participation in Andino x de-meaned community characteristics Distance from Cajamarca 0.02 0.36 Dairy delivery station in community -0.29 0.92 de-meaned household characteristics Education of household head 1.00 0.69 Age of household head 0.04 0.67 Number of family members 0.56 0.47 Total land ownership 23.75 0.56 Quadratic total land -111.72 0.15 Value of cattle assets 0.20 0.52 Number of inherited livestock 0.31 0.67 Value of household assets -1.09 0.00

Value of farm assets 5.65 0.38 % of losses from El Nino -0.08 0.99 Credit constrained 0.20 0.96 Constant 19.72 0.00 Number of observations 438 R-squared 0.17 1 For FFS, the sample consists of FFS participants and farmers from non-FFS villages. 19 The validity of this method is based on the assumption that there is no selection bias due to unobservables influencing both the choice of participation in FFS as well as the outcome. While we have argued that this is a reasonable assumption for a pilot program such as FFS, we also use an informal calculation proposed by Altonji, Elder, and Taber (2002) to evaluate the potential bias that would be implied by selection on the unobservables. The idea is the following. Consider a simplified model without interaction terms: y 0 w x, (3) where y is the knowledge score, w is an indicator of FFS participation, the parameter is the effect of FFS on knowledge, xcaptures the role of other observed factors that influence knowledge, and combines all unobservables. Under certain conditions, it is possible to show that selection on unobservables is comparable in magnitude to the selection on observables in terms of its influence on the outcome y, in the sense that the normalized difference between the average values of observables and of unobservables in the two groups are the same: 12 Exwxw x w w

 1E010 var EE var . (4) Under these conditions, by estimating equation (3), we can calculate how the index of observables in the knowledge equation varies with FFS participation, and then ask how large the normalized shift due to unobservables would have to be in order to explain away the entire FFS program effect. Applying this method we find that the bias due to unobservables on the parameter would be 2.7 points out of the average 7.6 points for the estimated average impact. This is likely to be an upper-bound on the bias since the condition in equation (4) pessimistically assumes that the selected covariates in the impact regression are a random sample of the full set of covariates. In any event, the bias calculation suggests that selection due to unobservables is unlikely to wipe out the measured level of impact of the FFS program on knowledge. 6.2. Estimations based on PPS matching methods Table 9 reports estimates of FFS program impact based on the Propensity Score Matching methods.The average difference in test scores between participants and their matches provides an estimate of the Average Treatment Effect on the Treated ATE 1 PSM . For all three methods, there is a significant difference between the two

groups scores in every category of knowledge. The scores are more than twice as high among FFS participants for knowledge of resistant varieties, and knowledge of the Andean potato weevil and the potato tuber moth, and these values are very similar across all three methods. Gain and knowledge attributable to the FFS are greatest for the 12 The conditions for equality of selection on observables and unobservables are that the included regressors should be a random subset of all factors that determine the outcome, and none of the factors dominate the distribution of program participation or the outcome. 20 more technical issues such as identification of resistant varieties and knowledge of the most important pests (late blight and Andean potato weevil). The impact estimates are robust to the different estimation methods: for the overall score, the three methods give a remarkably similar estimate of 14 to 15 percentage points of program impact. This is also similar to the 13.8 percentage point estimate obtained in the regression method. Difference = FFS farmers Control group Average Treatment Test of ATE1 = 0 Test scores: percentage of maximum score scores scores Effect on the Treated p -value Method 1: Cut-off point Number of observations 45 80 Knowledge on late blight 35 24 11 0.00 Knowledge on Andean potato weevil 25 1 24 0.00 Knowledge on potato tuber moth 15 1 14 0.00 Pesticide knowledge 29 21 8 0.00 Knowledge on resistant varieties 49 17 32 0.00 Total test score 34 19 15 0.00 Method 2: Five nearest matching Number of observations 44 Knowledge on late blight 35 25 10 0.00

Knowledge on Andean potato weevil 25 9 17 0.00 Knowledge on potato tuber moth 15 4 11 0.00 Pesticide knowledge 49 16 33 0.00 Knowledge on resistant varieties 29 21 8 0.00 Total test score 34 19 15 0.00 Method 3: Kernel-weights matching Number of observations 45 Knowledge on late blight 35 24 11 0.00 Knowledge on Andean potato weevil 25 11 13 0.00 Knowledge on potato tuber moth 15 7 7 0.04 Pesticide knowledge 29 21 8 0.00 Knowledge on resistant varieties 49 17 32 0.00 Total test score 34 20 14 0.00 Table 9. FFS: Testing Knowledge Differentials Using PPS Matching Methods All control farmers with PPS > .60 and under common support Control farmers with five closest PPS (within .01 PPS) under common support Kernel-weigted average of all control farmers under common support Knowledge scores are similarly significantly higher for Andino program participants relative to their control groups, with the three matching methods and for all categories of knowledge. We compare FFS and Andino estimates in Table 10, where the Average Treatment Effects on the Treated are computed as the averages of the results obtained with the three matching methods. Results show that the Average Treatment Effect on the Treated is higher for FFS than for Andino. This is particularly the case for technical issues that matter most for farmers in the region (Tables 2 and 3): knowledge of late blight, the Andean potato weevil, pesticides, and resistant varieties. For the total test score, the gain in knowledge due to treatment is 86% higher for FFS than for Andino participants.

21 Although there is no statistical test that can be applied to these comparisons, they confirm the suggestive results of the regression analysis. Table 10. Differentials in Knowledge Gains: FFS vs. Andino % difference in ATE1: FFS Andino FFS over Andino Knowledge on late blight 10.7 6.8 56 Knowledge on Andean potato weevil 18.0 6.2 192 Knowledge on potato tuber moth 10.7 11.4 -6 Pesticide knowledge 16.3 3.6 352 Knowledge on resistant varieties 24.0 17.5 37 Total test score 14.7 7.9 86 Average Treatment Effect on Treated VII. From knowledge to productivity We can measure how score, an indicator of agricultural knowledge, is related to productivity by regressing productivity (measured by the potato output/input ratio) on knowledge score and on plot and household characteristics. As the FFS program was only in its first year of operation, we cannot expect yields of FFS participants to yet reflect acquired knowledge from the FFS. This is because the output/input ratio is computed for the plots that were harvested during the year in which the FFS was occurring. Planting, and much of the spraying, was carried out at the very inception of the program or perhaps even before participation started. On the other hand, there is always a risk of selection bias in that farmers that choose to participate in FFS programs may be the most productive farmers anyway. For these two reasons, we choose to establish the relationship between agricultural knowledge and productivity on the 245 plots of farmers from the non-FFS communities. We control for clustering at the household level and use an instrumental variable technique to control for

endogeneity of the knowledge score variable. Given the crosssectional nature of the data, it is difficult to find household variables that are correlated with knowledge and do not influence productivity. Consequently we use instruments that are statistically valid, although admittedly adhoc. These instruments are the average knowledge score on varieties of farmers in the same consumption category (total monthly consumption level), which is used to represent the households welfare level, its square, and its interactions with the education of the household head and with the arable land owned by the household. The first stage regression (not shown) indicates that the instruments are strong predictors of knowledge scores (F-statistic F(4,222) = 14.3, pvalue =0.000). The overidentification test fails to reject the null hypothesis that the instruments are statistically valid (pvalue = 0.33). The results of the instrumental variable regression are presented in Table 11. The predicted knowledge score is significant and positively affects productivity. We find that a ten percent increase in the knowledge score is reflected in a 2.9 points 22 increase in the output/input ratio. By comparison, the sample mean (among control communities) for the output/input ratio is 7.9 with a standard deviation of 4.8. Mean Coefficient p -value Knowledge score (0100) (instrumented1) 15.4 0.29 0.01 Plot characteristics Area of plot (hectare) 0.27 -4.96 0.00 Steep slope 0.07 1.75 0.09 Rocky soil 0.06 -1.60 0.07 Fallowed last season 0.62 0.44 0.61 Irrigated 0.32 3.26 0.00 Irrigated and fallowed last season 0.16 -2.45 0.06 Household characteristics Education of household head 2.4 -0.24 0.68

Age of household head 47.5 -0.04 0.27 Number of workers in family 5.4 0.10 0.64 Workers per hectare of arable land owned 1.21 -0.08 0.77 Total land ownership (10 hect.) 0.11 -3.29 0.13 Value of cattle assets (100 soles) 7.59 -0.02 0.42 Number of inherited livestock 0.57 0.14 0.37 Value of household assets (100 soles) 0.44 -0.07 0.40 Value of farm assets (100 soles) 0.57 2.43 0.02 % of losses from El Nino 0.15 -1.79 0.06 Credit constrained 0.28 -1.06 0.15 Distance from major metropolitan area (km) 244 0.01 0.24 Constant 2.27 0.58 Dependent variable: potato output/input ratio 7.9 (sd 4.8) Number of plots (150 households) 245 Second stage F-statistic: F(19, 144) 2.80 0.000 Joint significance of instruments in first stage: F(4,222) 14.3 0.000 Test of overidentifying restrictions: Chi2(3) 3.42 0.33 Table 11. Impact of Score on Productivity in non-CARE Communities Dependent variable: Plot level potato output/input ratio 1 Instruments are average knowledge score on varieties among farmers of same consumption level, its square, and interactions with age of household head and owned arable land. Using the coefficients from the regression in Table 11 and the score differentials reported in Table 9, we can calculate a rough estimate of the potential impact of FFS participation on productivity. Using the calculated score differential of 14 percentage points from FFS participation, this implies that farmer field school participation would have resulted in an increase of 4.1 points in the output/input ratio. This corresponds to a 52% increase over the average observed output/input ratio of 7.9, which corresponds to the value in a normal year. Note that non-seed

inputs are not taken into consideration in the productivity measure. Therefore, although higher knowledge scores help increase productivity, we do not know if they result in higher profits. 23 VIII. Conclusions The challenge of the FFS approach is whether training results in higher knowledge about complex technical issues such as IPM and whether improved knowledge in turn translates into higher productivity. Using data on a small-scale pilot FFS program targeted to Peruvian potato farmers, this paper finds that FFS participation significantly enhances knowledge on pests, fungicides, and resistant varieties all instrumental in implementing IPM practices. The robustness of the positive results of FFS participation on knowledge is demonstrated by the fact that two separate approaches used for estimating the effect of FFS yield the same result: a fourteen-percentage point increase in knowledge score for FFS participants. While samples of participants are too small to detect statistically significant differences, we also find suggestive evidence that the FFS approach is more effective that the traditional transfer-of-technology approach in imparting knowledge of technical issues related to IPM to farmers. Gains in knowledge are 86% higher with FFS that with the traditional approach used in the Andino program. These results will need to be confirmed with larger samples of participants to extension programs. We show that farmers with higher levels of knowledge have significantly higher levels of productivity, and estimate that, by increasing knowledge, FFS participation can raise the average potato seed output/input ratio by 4.1, or approximately 52% of the average value in a normal year. Finally, we end with a cautionary note that because the

FFS pilot in Peru was started only recently, we did not examine the extent of knowledge diffusion from FFS participants to other farmers. References Altonji, Joseph , Todd Edler, and Christopher Taber. 2002. Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools. Working Paper, Economics Department, Northwestern University. Andrews, Donald. 1989. Power in Econometric Applications. Econometrica, 57(5): 10591090 Birkhaeuser, Dean, Evenson Robert, and Gershon Feder. 1991. "The Economic Impact of Agricultural Extension: a Review." Economic Development and Cultural Change, 39(3): 607650. Byerlee, Derek. 1994. Technology Transfer Systems for Improved Crop Management: Lessons for the Future. In J. Anderson, ed., Agricultural Technology: Policy Issues for the International Community. Wallingford, UK: Cab International. Feder, Gershon, and Roger Slade. 1986. A Comparative Analysis of Some Aspects of the Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension in India. Journal of Development Studies, 22(3): 40728. Feder, Gershon, Rinku Murgai, and Jaime Quizon. 2003. Sending Farmers Back to School: An Economic Evaluation of the Farmer Field School (FFS) Extension Approach. Forthcoming in Review of Agricultural Economics. Feder, Gershon, Anthony Willett, and Willem Zijp. 2001. Agricultural Extension: Generic Challenges and the Ingredients for Solutions. In S. Wolf and D. Zilberman (eds) Knowledge Generation and Technical Change: Institutional Innovation in Agriculture. Kluwer: Boston, pp. 31356. 24

Foster, Andrew, and Mark Rosenzweig. 1995. Learning by Doing and Learning from Others: Human Capital and Technical Change in Agriculture. Journal of Political Economy, 103(6): 1176-1209. Heckman, James, Hidehiko Ishimura, and Petra Todd. 1998. Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 65: 261-294. Jalan, Jyotsna, and Martin Ravallion, 2003. Estimating the Benefit Incidence of an Anti-Poverty Program by Propensity-Score Matching, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 21(1): 19-30. Kenmore, Peter. 2002. Integrated Pest Management. International Journal of Occupational & Environmental Health 8(3):173-174. Nelson, R.J., R. Orrego, O. Ortiz, M. Mundt, M. Fredix, and N. V. Vien. 2001. Working with Resource-poor Farmers to Mange Plant Diseases. Plant Disease, 85(7): 684695. Ortiz, Oscar, and A. Valdez. 1993. Enfoque de Sistemas y Metodologia Participativa para Desarollar Medios Escritos de Comunicacion Agricola: El caso de la Papa en la Agricultura de Substitencia. Revista Latinoamericana de la Papa. Vol. 5/6: 103121. Picciotto, Robert, and Jock Anderson. 1997. Reconsidering Agricultural Extension. World Bank Research Observer. 12(2): 249-259. Praneetvatakul, Suwanna, and Hermann Waibel. 2002. "A SocioEconomic Analysis of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) Implemented by the National Program on Integrated Pest Management of Thailand." Presented at the CYMMIT International Conference on Impacts of Agricultural Research and Development, February 4-7 2002, San Jose, Costa Rica. Revenga, Ana, Michelle Riboud, and Hong Tan. "The Impact of Mexico's Retraining Program on Employment and Wages." The World Bank Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1994.

Rola, A., S. Jamias, and Jaime Quizon. 2002. Do Farmer Field School Graduates Retain and Share What They Learn?: An Investigation in Iloilo, Philippines. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 9(1): 6576. Rosenbaum, P.R., and Rubin, D.B. 1983. The Central Role of the Propensity Score in Observational Studies for Causal Effects, Biometrika, 70: 41-55. Smith, Jeffrey, and Petra Todd. 2000. Does Matching Overcome Lalondes Critique of Non-experimental Estimators? Working Paper, Economics Department, University of Pennsylvania. Terrazas, F., V. Suarez, G. Gardener, G. Thiele, A. Devaux, and T. Walker. 1998. Diagnosing Potato Productivity in Farmer's Fields in Bolivia, International Potato Center, Social Science Department Working Paper, No. 1998-5, Lima, Peru. Van de Fliert, E., N. Johnson, R. Asmunati, and Wiyanto. 1999. "Beyond Higher Yields: The Impact of Sweet potato Integrated Crop Management and Farmer Field Schools in Indonesia." CIP Program Report 19992000, pp. 331-342, Lima, Peru. Vasquez-Caicedo, Gloria, Julio Portocarrero, Oscar Ortiz, and Cristina Fonseca. 2000. Case Studies on Farmers Perceptions about Farmer Field School (FFS) Implementation in San Miguel Peru: Contributing to Establish the Baseline for Impact Evaluation of FFS. Report to the DECRG from the World Bank, May. AIAEE 2005 Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference San Antonio, TX Farmer Field School as an Effective Methodology for Disseminating Agricultural Technologies: Up-Scaling of Soil Management Technologies among Small-Scale Farmers in TransNzoia District, Kenya

David K. Bunyatta1, Dr. Joseph G. Mureithi, Dr. Christopher A. Onyango2 and Dr. Faustine U. Ngesa F.U.2 1- Ministry of Agriculture, P.O. Box 249 Iten, Kenya 2 Egerton University, Department of Education and Extension, P.O. Box 536 Njoro, Kenya Contact person Dr. Joseph G. Mureithi Kenya Agricultural Research Institute National Agricultural Research Laboratories P.O. Box 14733, 00800 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 0254-20-4440935 Tel/Fax 0254-20-4449810 jmureithi@africaonline.co.ke Abstract This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach in knowledge acquisition, adoption and dissemination of soil management technologies (SMTs) among small-scale farmers in Kenya. Eight technologies were scaled-out using the FFS approach and conventional extension methods. A survey methodology with the ex-post facto research design was employed with a sample frame consisted of 940 farmers. A sample of 60 FFS graduates and 60 non-FFS (NFFS) farmers was chosen for the study. There was a significant difference (P<0.05) in knowledge acquired in SMTs by FFS compared to NFFS farmers. About half of FFS farmers had acquired over 50% of the knowledge of all the eight technologies disseminated while the majority (>80%) of the NFFS farmers had acquired less than 50% of the same knowledge. About 44% of the FFS farmers had adopted 50% of the technology components while only 17% of NFFS farmers had adopted the same percentage of the technology components. The FFS participants were significantly (P<0.05) better disseminators of SM technologies than the non-FFS farmers. While 54% of FFS farmers had moderate to high dissemination levels, 77% of non-FFS farmers had very low to low dissemination levels. It was recommended that all stakeholders in agricultural development in Kenya be sensitized on the

potential effectiveness of FFS methodology in scaling-up agricultural technologies and also monitor how the application of knowledge acquired by FFS farmers is impacting on their livelihoods. Keywords: Extension methods, comparative analysis, knowledge acquistion, technology adoption and dissemination 515 AIAEE 2005 Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference San Antonio, TX

INTRODUCTION The farmer field school (FFS) approach has gained prominence as an extension methodology in Kenya following its success in training Asian farmers on integrated pest management (IPM) technologies (Abate & Duveskog, 2003). It was first introduced on a small scale in 1995 by the FAOs Special Program for Food Security (SPFS) to promote maize (Zea mays) based IPM in western Kenya. Since then over 1500 FFS have been initiated in Kenya to promote technologies for IPM for maize, vegetable and poultry production, soil fertility management, water harvesting, dairy cattle production and management of HIV/AIDS (Abate & Duveskog, 2003). The FFS approach has now been embraced by Kenyas Ministry of Agriculture as a promising participatory extension method and is being considered for incorporation into the National Agricultural and Livestock Extension Program (Sones, Duveskog & Minjauw, 2003). The adaptive research program of Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) has adopted the methodology as an up-scaling approach for its promising technologies (Mureithi, 2003). By the end of 2003, KARI had initiated over 60 FFS and trained over 800 farmers. The FFS approach has many attributes that makes it a truly participatory extension methodology (Leeuwis, Roling & Bruin, 1998; Dilts, 2001; Khisa, 2003). Key among them include, a) its recognition that farmers are adult learners whose training is enhanced by using nonformal adult education methods, b) that the training covers the entire crop or livestock production cycle to enable farmers fully understand all components of the technology e.g. from planting to harvesting in case of crops and a whole production cycle in case of livestock, c) its focus on group training of about 25 to 30 people to bring individual experience and strengths into the FFS and to provide individuals with group support in trying new things, d) enabling participants to focus more on basic processes (basic sciences) through field observations, analysis, discussions and presentations, and e) testing and validation of technologies during the season long training. All FFS need technically competent facilitators, trained on seasonlong facilitation skills where they learn how to grow crops with their

own hands and develop management skills of local program activities that foster group dynamics (Gallagher, 2003). The FFS training follows a curriculum that is composed of weekly lessons covering the entire natural cycle of its subject. An important aspect of the weekly training is the special topics which are invited by farmer participants as they touch on issues affecting their farming or welfare in general. After FFS training graduates are not only equipped with knowledge on the technologies disseminated but through the approach of discovery learning used in FFS, they are empowered with skills to experiment and to solve their daily problems as individuals or as a community (Dilts, 2001). A main question that lingers in the mind of many development workers with potential to incorporate FFS methodology into their programs is how effective the FFS methodology is in up-scaling agricultural technologies (Leeuwis, Roling & Bruin, 1998; Quizon, Feder & Murgai, 2001; Rola, Quizon & Jamias, 2002; Feder, Murgai & Quizon, 2003 and 2004). This study was therefore conducted to assess the effectiveness of FFS in knowledge acquisition, adoption and dissemination of soil management technologies (SMTs) among smallscale farmers in Yuya Location of Trans-Nzoia District, Kenya. These technologies which were developed by the Soil Management Project (SMP) of KARI (Asiabaka, Mureithi & Owens, 2003) were, 516 AIAEE 2005 Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference San Antonio, TX

Forage production based on Napier grass established through Tumbukiza method and intercropped with Desmodium intortum (green leaf desmodium) Use of high quality organic fertilizers (compost and farmyard manure) in combination with half recommended rate of inorganic fertilizers for production of maize, vegetables and fodder crops (Napier grass and desmodium). Introduction of alternative legumes to common beans (Phaselous vulgaris), e.g. groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea) , soybeans (Glycine max), Lablab (Lablab purpureus) and pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan) into the farming system Evaluation of suitable maize varieties Quality seed production of a local vegetable known as Sucha (Solanum nigrum) Low cost soil conservation methods like use of grass strips, contour farming and terracing Use of low cost plant extracts and other local methods for control of pests for kales, local vegetables and maize. From 2001 these technologies were scaled-out using the FFS methodology and conventional extension methodologies (e.g., demonstrations, farm visits, farmer trainings, meetings, farmer leaflets and bulletins etc). Farmers graduated in December 2001 after going through a season long training on each of the technologies. The specific objectives of the study were; To compare level of knowledge acquisition of the soil management technologies between FFS participants and non-FFS farmers. To compare level of adoption of soil management technologies between FFS graduates and non-FFS farmers. To compare level of dissemination of knowledge acquired in SM technologies between FFS and non-FFS participants. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Area The study area was Yuya Location of Kaplamai Division, TransNzoia District, North Rift Valley Province, Kenya (1.01N, 35.01 E). Its altitude is 1800 m above sea level and receives an annual rainfall ranging from 900-1200 mm per annum. The rainfall pattern is unimodal, with one long agro-humid period extending from the end of March to the middle of November (Jaetzold & Schimdt, 1983). The dominant soils are humic Ferralsols (FAO, 1990) which are slightly acidic (pH-H20 5.49), low in nitrogen (0.11%), moderate in organic matter (1.64%) and low in total P (12.26 mg/kg). The farm sizes are small averaging 0.8 ha per household. Important food crops grown by farmers include, maize, beans, sweet potatoes (Ipomea batatas) and local vegetables (e.g. Sucha). Table 1 shows eight soil management technologies that had been developed by SMP, the respective FFS implementing them, membership of each school and the number of farmers who graduated from each. The schools were facilitated by a team of researchers, extensionistists and farmers who had gone through training of trainers course in FFS methodology. 517 AIAEE 2005 Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference San Antonio, TX Table 1. FFS School name Members FFS graduates enrolment and technologies disseminatedYuya site, Kitale Soil management technologies Male Female Total Khuyetana 13 18 31 30 Forage production and utilization

Bikholwa Use of organic/ino rganic fertilizers for maize Bulala Use of organic/ino rganic fertilizer for vegetable production Busime Introductio n of legumes other than beans Introductio n of suitable maize varieties Quality seed production Mteremko Twende Mbele

16

21

18

18

10

28

21

13

22

17

11

18

11

Upendo

24

30

16

11

20

16

Low cost soil conservatio n methods Mutua Indigenous technical knowledge for pest control Totals 77 115 192 140 8 14 22 16

A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences by Arnoud Braun1, Janice Jiggins, Niels Rling, Henk van den Berg and Paul Snijders Report prepared for the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) Final Report, 12 June 2006 Endelea Rietveldlaan 3 6708 SN Wageningen The Netherlands 1 Corresponding author: arnoud.braun@farmerfieldschool.net; for authors profiles and contact addresses, see Appendix III A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

Table of contents TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................. ....I LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS...........................................................III ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................... ........................VI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................. VII 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... ...................1 2. THE ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS.........................2 3. CURRENT GLOBAL STATUS OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS.............................7 Asia............................................................................................................. ..............................8 Evolution of FFSs in Asian FAO Programmes and Community IPM...................................8 NGOs in Asia............................................................................................................. ............8 Recent adaptations and developments....................................................................................9

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)......................................................................................................... 9 South America and the Caribbean............................................................................................11 Responding to public sector collapse through collaboration...............................................11 Strengthening research and community-based agricultural development through FFS......11 Near East and North Africa......................................................................................................13 Central and Eastern Europe......................................................................................................1 4 Farmer Livestock School experiences......................................................................................14 4. THE BROADER PICTURE.....................................................................................15 Introduction................................................................................................. ...........................15 Approaches based on extension and training...........................................................................15 Learning-based approaches................................................................................................... ...17 Intermediate forms of innovation systems...........................................................................18 Comparative studies......................................................................................................... ....19 What can we expect the FFS to achieve?.................................................................................19

5. IMPACT OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS..............................................................23 Complexity of impact evaluation.............................................................................................25 Natural and economic impact...................................................................................................26 Human and social impact......................................................................................................... 27 Dissemination of impact.......................................................................................................... .28 Institutional impacts........................................................................................................ .........29 Conclusion.................................................................................................. ............................29 6. ADDRESSING COGNITIVE NEEDS OF LIVESTOCK FARMERS.........................31 Integrating the body of experience with extension, information and education through using the model of the livestock farmer as a cognitive agent............................................................31 i A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

The model of the cognitive agent explained............................................................................31 The Cognitive Agent as a coat hanger for understanding attempts to inform, train, educate, organise and otherwise change livestock farmers....................................................................32 A brief overview of attempts to address the cognitive needs of livestock farmers..................34 Public extension services.....................................................................................................3 5 Farmers organizations, producer associations and other common interest groups..............36 Private extension..................................................................................................... .............36 Non Governmental Organizations........................................................................................37 Public-private partnerships................................................................................................. ..37 Public markets, mass media, networks, expertise centers....................................................37 7. HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE FARMER FIELD SCHOOL FOR STIMULATING FARMER INNOVATION?........................................................................................ ....38 8. HOW DOES/CAN AN FFS FIT INTO AN INNOVATION SYSTEM APPROACH? ..40

9. HOW CAN RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS, INCLUDING ILRI, INTERACT WITH FFS TO INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY OF THEIR INNOVATION SYSTEMS?42 10. WHAT RESEARCHABLE QUESTIONS REMAIN TO BE ANSWERED IN RELATION TO LIVESTOCK FFS?..............................................................................44 11. REFERENCES.......................................................................................... ............46 APPENDIX I. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE FFS APPROACH..........................62 APPENDIX II. GLOBAL STATUS OF FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS..........................64 Asia............................................................................................................. ............................64 Sub-Saharan Africa.......................................................................................................... ........70 South and Central America, and the Caribbean.......................................................................76 North America....................................................................................................... .................79 Near East and North Africa......................................................................................................79 Eastern Europe......................................................................................................... ................81 APPENDIX III. AUTHORS PROFILES......................................................................91

ii A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

List of abbreviations and acronyms AAA Armenian Agricultural Academy AAS Academy of Agricultural Sciences AECI Agencia Espanola de Cooperacion Internacional AID Association for Integrated Development ARC Agricultural Research Corporation REX Agricultural Research and Extension Department (Govt of Zimbabwe) AsDB Asian Development Bank ASPS Agricultural Sector Programme Support ATC Advisory Training Centre CDB Cotton Development Board CENTA Centro Nacional de Tecnolgia Agropecuaria CFC Common Fund for Commodities CODA Cotton Development Authority CORPOICA Corporacin Colombiana de Investigacin Agropecuaria COSUDE Agenzia Suiza para el Desarrollo y la Cooperacion DAALI Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement DAE Department of Agricultural Extension DANIDA Danish International Development Assistance DPPQS Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine and Storage DAALI Department of Agronomy and Agricultural Land Improvement DAE Department of Agricultural Extension DED German Development Service DLGs District Local Governments DoAE Department of Agriculture Extension DoA Department of Agriculture DoI Department of Irrigation DGPCQPA Direction Gnrale de la Protection et du Contrle de la Qualit des Produits Agricoles DR Democratic Republic DRC Danish Refugee Council DSFL Dry Season Feeding of Livestock ETL Economic Threshold Level FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FEDEPAPA Federacin Colombiana de Productores De Papa FINNIDA Finnish Development Assistance FLS Farmer Life Schools FlivS Farmer Livestock Schools FFS Farmer Field School FFSs Farmer Field Schools FU Fertilizer Unit GoC Government of China GoE Government of Egypt GoI Government of Indonesia GoP Government of the Philippines GoPa Government of Pakistan GoT Government of Thailand O-INTERFISH Greater Opportunities for Integrated Rice-Fish Production Systems GRDB Guyana Rice Development Board GRPA Guyana Rice Producers Association GSMoA Gezira State Ministry of Agriculture HMG/N His Majestys Government of Nepal IARD Institute of Agricultural Research for Development IARS Ismailia Agricultural Research Station iii A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

IBAFFS Institute for Biological Agriculture and Farmer Field Schools ICB International Consulting Bureau ICM Integrated Crop Management ICP Inter-Country Programme IER Institut dEconomie Rurale IM Integrated Management INRA National Institution for Agricultural Research INRAA Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique dAlgrie INRAT National Institute for Agricultural Research of Tunisia IPM Integrated Pest Management IPPM Integrated Production and Pest Management ISWNM Integrated Soil Water and Nutrient Management ITGC Institut Technique des Grandes Cultures LIFE Local Initiatives for Farmer Extension LIFT Local Initiatives for farmers Training LVV Ministerie van Landbouw, Veeteelt en Visserij MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MAFFS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security MAC Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives MAESA Ministry of Agriculture, Education and Social Action MAG Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganaderia MAGFOR Ministerio Agropecuario Forestal MALMR Ministry of Agriculture, Land and and Marine Resources MAPA Ministrio da Agricultura, Pecuria e Abastecimento MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development ARNDR Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development MASL Mahaweli Authority of Sri Lanka MAWMF Ministry of Agriculture, Water MAWRD Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development MAWR Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources MBESC Ministry of Basic Education, Sports and Culture MDS Ministrio do Desenvolvimento Social e Combate Fome MHSS Ministry of Health and Social Services MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoAC Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives

MoE Ministry of Education MTT Finnish Institute of Plant Protection MWACW Ministry of Women Affairs and Child Welfar NARC National Agricultural Research Centre NARC-Nepal National Agricultural Research Council (Nepal) NATESC National Agriculture Technical Extension and Service Centre NBC National Biodiversity Center ncda no consistent data available nda no data available NDRE National Directorate for Rural Extension NGO Non-Government Organization NOPEST New Options for Pest Management NPDP National Potato Development Programme NRCS Namibia Red Cross Society NRM Natural Resource Management OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN) OHVN Opration Haute Valle du Niger ORC Ohangwena Regional Council PDA Provincial Department of Agriculture PDAFF Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries PPD Plant Protection Department iv A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

PPI Plant Protection Institute PPPS Provincial Plant Protection Stations PPRS Plant Protection Research Institute PPS Plant Protection Station PPSD Provincial Plant Protection Sub-Department PROMIPAC Programa de Manejo Integrado de Plagas en Centroamrica PTD Participatory Technology Development RADA Rural Agricultural Development Authority RAS Rural Advisory Service RMA Risk Management Agency RRN Rural Reconstruction Nepal SDC Swiss Development Coorporation SEARICE South East Asia Regional Institute for Community Education SFFP Integrated Soil Fertility and Fertilizer Management Project HABGE Strengthening Household Access to Bari (homestead) Gardening Extension SPI Soil Productivity Improvement SPPS Strengthening Plant Protection Services Project STSS Soil Testing and Service Section TITAN Trainers Association of Nepal ToF Training of Facilitators ToT Training of Trainers UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture VCC Vietnam Cotton Company WB World Bank WN World Neighbours WNG World Neighbours Guatemala WR World Relief WUR Wageningen University and Research Centre v A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) for granting this consultancy to the team of authors. Keith Sones, Bruno Minjauw and Kim Groeneweg are specifically thanked for their comments and inputs to the drafts of this report. Section 3 and Appenix II would not have been possible without the inputs from a larger group of Farmer Field School practitioners from around the world. Particular thanks go to Kevin Gallagher for providing contacts addresses of FFS practitioners. We appreciate the inputs from all FFS practionioners that have responded to the request for inputs that has been sent out: Clarissa Adami, Iftikhar Ahmad, Souhila Aouila, Randy Arnst, Fantahun Assefa, Joost Bakkeren, Sajeda Begum, Hein Bijlmakers, Anna Blok, Mohamed Bouhache, Margriet Bredewold, Robert W. Caudwell, Ngin Chhay, Jacqueline Chenier, Philip Chung, Naomi Commodore, Loy Van Crowder, Jens Peter Tang Dalsgaard, Soniia David, Russ Dilts, Deborah Duveskog, Mohamed Elansary, Hans Feijen, Elske van de Fliert, Marjon Fredrix, Esbern Friis-Hansen, Edson Gandarillas, Lydda Gaviria, Brice Gbaguidi, Moahamad Gomaa, Femke Griffioen, Kim Groeneweg, Paco Guevara, Daniel Gustafson, Lars Hein, Ole Hendriksen, Alfredo Impiglia, Jayasundara, Ricardo Labrada, Alida Laurense, Vyju Lopez, Jrgen Karlsen, Ganesh Kumar, Eugenio Macamo, Francesca Mancini, Dave Masendeke, Michael McGuire, Bruno Minjauw, Kharrat Mohamed, Hasimi Mzoba, Jacob Ngeve, James Okoth, Peter Ooi, Oscar Ortiz, Palaniswamy Pachagounder, Larry Paul, Neiburt Phiri, Francis Porras, Yang Puyun, Jan Rijpma, Rodnez Pierre, Alfredo Rueda, Joseph Rusike, Nune Sarukhanian, Adrian Shuhbeck, Bill Settle, Stephen Sherwood, Manzoor Soomro, Ad Spijkers, Julianus Thomas, Jan Venema, Janny Vos and her CABI team, Edith van Walsum, Handoko Widagdo, Esther Wiegers, Siebe van Wijk, Midori Yajima, Piao Yongfan, all participants of the May 2005 Kenya FFS Networking and Coordination workshop and others who have contributed but have not been mentioned. Arnoud Braun, Janice Jiggins, Niels Rling, Henk van den Berg and Paul Snijders

vi A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

Executive Summary 1. Farmer Field Schools evolved initially to address the challenge of ecological heterogeneity and local specificity in pest management, by supporting ecologically-informed decision-making by farmers that would allow them to reduce pesticide use, improve crop management and secure better profit margins. 2. Classic FFSs rely for their effects on the development of learnercentred curricula for experiential learning that takes place in the field, allowing producers to observe, measure, analyse, assess and interpret key agro-ecosystem relationships as the basis for making informed management decisions. The adult education concepts and principles that underlie the design of curricula and of the learning cycle process have proven robust in all areas where FFSs have been developed. 3. FFSs have spread rapidly to all continents since their first introduction in 1989 in Indonesia, where Integrated Pest Management FFSs were developed to help farmers deal with the pesticide-induced problem of rice brown planthoppers in irrigated rice. As the concept has spread, it has been adapted for a wide range of crops (including tree crops such as bananas, various high value crops such as vegetables and fruits, industrial crops such as cotton, cocoa). FFSs curricula and learning processes also have been developed for the livestock sector (dairying, veterinary care, poultry and integrated rice-duck systems, goat husbandry, aquaculture and fishing), for land productivity issues (land and water management, soil fertility, land degradation), for a range of social and health issues, such as food security, HIV/AIDS and vectorborn diseases, and environmental issues, such as water quality. These innovations have brought new types of participants within its ambit, including school children. 4. In the course of the spread, adaptations have been made not only to suit the content and specific purpose but also in the methodology. Innovations here include community-based selection of participants, commercial plots that enable participants to recover (some of) the costs of running a school, farmer facilitators, spatially clustered FFFs,

and a range of community-based institutional developments that capitalize on the self-confidence and leadership capacities created through the FFSs. 5. FFSs are not a universal panacea for development, nor are they a substitute for more familiar technology-centred or profit-driven approaches to rural development, such as extension, credit cooperatives, core-estates with outgrowers, farmer training centres, or the use of mass media. They share some of the features of other participatory approaches, such as Participatory Technology Development, that seek to catalyse farmer-driven development. 6. On the present evidence they seem best suited for (i) problems and opportunities requiring a location-dependent decision or management, (ii) issues that entail articulation and implementation of changes in behavior within the farm enterprise, household, and community or among institutions at varying scales of interaction, and (iii) situations that can be improved only through development and application of location-dependent knowledge. 7. Their comparative advantage relies on skilful incorporation of the following principles: (i) learner-centred, field based, experiential learning; (ii) observation, analysis, assessment, and experimentation over a time period sufficient to understand the dynamics of key (agroecological, socio-ecological) relationships; (iii) peer-reviewed individual and joint decision-making based on learning outcomes; (iv) individual and group capacity building. 8. They are vulnerable to loss of quality (and thus impact) particularly in terms of: (i) poor or inappropriate curriculum design; (ii) inadequate attention to the quality of the learning process; (iii) poor or inappropriate facilitation. 9. They are not meant for technology transfer or the delivery of simple messages as such they do not have a comparative advantage and are also not cost effective for those purposes. FFS were designed to be timebound with a built-in exit strategy: graduation. Originally the FFS itself is not meant to be sustained. However, the impact of FFS in terms of

economic, social, environmental and political assets are hoped to be sustained. Therefore a livelihood analysis is perhaps more appropriate for sustainability assessments. FFS can be a stepping stone to selfsustained groups in some situations. The FFS format builds sustainable human and social capital needed for next step actions among farmers such as vii A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

collective marketing of produce and lobbying through farmer networks, savings groups and other associations that are sustained as independent groups, no longer registered by projects as outputs. 10. There is a need for experimention on how the effects of FFSs might be augmented in purposeful combination with mass media, folk media, extension activities and training. 11. The impacts of FFSs have been variously measured. No agreement as yet exists as to what to measure, how to measure, or how to assess the results of the measurement of impacts. The lack of consensus arises in part because of disputes over whether to classify FFS as an educational investment or as an extension activity and whether the important impacts are those relating to change in practice, knowledge, or technology used, productivity, and profitability, or whether changes in human and social capacity, and impacts on human health and the environment, are as important. There is also no agreement as to the weight to be given to participants own appreciation of the difference a FFS might have made to their lives, compared to objective measurements. 12. A particular concern regarding impact relates to the diffusion effect of FFSs. If the FFS is regarded as an educational investment, this could be considered the wrong question what a student learns at school is not expected to diffuse widely to those who do not attend. Preliminary data suggest that information, and simple practices that can be observed by non-participating farmers, do diffuse from FFS participants, to some extent, but not the self-confident knowledge and skills in problemsolving required for the kinds of purposes for which FFSs seem best suited (see point 6, above). 13. Another concern is the sustainability of FFSs impacts. There is insufficient long time series data to assess this definitively but the weight of the evidence so far suggests a potential for significant longerterm impact. 14. This appears to be achieved principally through the institutional innovations FFS alumni are able to set in place, or bring about together

with other actors, at local levels. The chances of such innovations occurring appear to be strengthened if care is given in the implementation phase to the longer term prospects (e.g. in the processes and criteria used for participant selection and site selection), follow up support is given to farmer facilitators and FFS alumni, and farmer-driven network development is encouraged. 15. There has been relatively little experience in adapting the FFS concept to the needs of livestock farmers. However, there is evidence both from practice and theory that livestock farmers in Africa, too, are facing the kinds of conditions and challenges noted in point 6 above. They thus could benefit substantially from further testing of the contribution FFSs might make to meeting producers needs for knowledge, enterprise organisation, and the discovery of locationdependent options for development. 16. FFSs hitherto have tended to focus on bringing a limited set of actors into effective relationships and social spaces for shared learning. However, to achieve impacts over the longer term in the livestock or other sectors, as noted in point 13 above, may require changes in larger sets of relationships and institutional arrangements. Evidence does not support the assumption that markets will organise themselves to set in place the institutional arrangements that would support the achievement of the Millennium Goals. Overall, the institutional aspects of innovation systems have not been well appreciated in FFS programmes, nor the effects studied from this perspective. There is scope here too for further exploration of the role of FFSs from an institutional perspective, i.e. their contribution to innovation systems that meet the multiple goals desired. 17. On the other hand, it has been emphasised that the sustainable, locallevel, institutionalised gains noted under point 14 above, can be negated or diminished if the framework conditions are hostile or unsupportive (e.g. policies and regulations that allow or promote the use of toxic chemicals, or that suppress citizens self-organising capacities and initiatives, or that hold farm gate prices down). Action at other scales

and hierarchical levels would be necessary to bring any required adjustment in the framework conditions. 18. A research organization such as ILRI could make a strong contribution to the further development and testing of the contribution of FFSs by: (i) supporting the design of science-based curricula and learning processes suitable for livestock farmers in specific places; (ii) contributing to the methodological development of impact assessment tools and procedures, as well as carrying out impact assessment viii A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

studies in the livestock sector; (iii) testing the (limits of the) comparative advantages of FFSs in relation to the sub-points noted in point 6 above; (iv) exploring how to amplify and augment the impacts of FFSs by skilful and purposive combination of FFSs with other investments; (v) testing how to support FFSs alumni so that local level institutional innovations arise and can be sustained; (vi) investigating the role of FFSs from the perspective of developing location-dependent innovation systems. ix A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

The authors of this document are Arnoud Braun, Janice Jiggins, Niels Roling, Henk van den Berg and Paul Snijders. Short FFS-relevant biodata of each of the authors is provided in Appendix III. 3 A formalised network of FFS contacts does not exist up to this point. However, at the global level the demand for such a network does exist. Based on this demand Endelea and partners have developed a proposal for funding a Global FFS Network and Resource Center. A list of contacts will become available through http://farmerfieldschool.net/. As a result of the survey carried out for this review a preliminary contact list of potential FFS national nodes has been compiled (Appendix 2, Table II.1 - contacts). 1. Introduction The Farmer Field School (FFS) has become an innovative, participatory and interactive model approach for farmer education in Asia, many parts of Africa, Latin America and more recently also introduced in the Middle East, North Africa and Eastern/Central Europe. The approach has been used with a wide range of crops and has subsequently expanded to topics such as livestock, community forestry, HIV/AIDS, water conservation, soil fertility management, food security and nutrition. The aim of an FFS is to build farmers capacity to analyse their production systems, identify problems, test possible solutions and eventually adapt the practices most suitable to their farming system. The knowledge acquired during the learning process enables farmers to adapt their existing technologies to be more productive, profitable, and responsive to changing conditions, or to test and adopt new technologies. A short description of the elements of the FFS approach is presented in Appendix I. FFSs are spreading and adapting at an enormous speed over the globe in terms of geographical distribution and entry points/topics. However, concerns have been expressed by various implementing organisations about the relative cost of the FFS approach compared to other extension approaches, the time consuming character of the approach as well as the impact the FFS approach achieves. The management of the International

Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) would like to know whether the concerns expressed by others are valid. For this reason ILRI is developing a Livestock Farmer Field School position paper for ILRI management and board, and other interested parties that will address the fundamental question How and with what intent should ILRI be working on FFS? This review document will serve as a key background document for the above-mentioned ILRI position paper. This comprehensive review is based on formal and grey literature, and experiences of the authors2 and a network of FFS contacts3. It will address the following key elements: Origins and evolution of FFS Current status of FFSs globally (in terms of geographic expansion and in terms of topics), including global experiences of livestock FFS FFSs in the broader education and extension picture Impact or lack of impact of FFSs Effectiveness of the FFS approach for stimulating farmer innovation Cognitive needs of livestock farmers How can research organizations, including ILRI, interact with FFSs to increase the efficiency of their innovations systems? What researchable questions remain to be answered in relation to livestock FFSs? The references in this report have been numbered (see list of references in section 11). In the text each reference is referred as follows: (224) this is reference no. 224 in the list of references (section 11). 1 A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

2. The origins and evolution of Farmer Field Schools This section will briefly cover the origins and evolution of Farmer Field Schools The FFS approach emerged out of a concrete, immediate problem. Farmers in Indonesia were putting their crops, their health and their environment at severe risk through massive abuse of highly toxic pesticides promoted aggressively by private industry and government. Pest species were becoming resistant and in some cases resurgent. What was called for was a large-scale decentralised programme of education for farmers wherein they become experts in managing the ecology of their fields bringing better yields, fewer problems, increased profits and less risk to their health and environment (68). The Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field School (IPM-FFS) and a corresponding large-scale Indonesian programme were developed in response to these conditions. The genesis of integrated pest management (IPM) was a response to the emergence of problems associated with the reliance on chemical controls for insect pests by governments, extension systems and farmers. The search for solutions to these problems led to the development of a more holistic view of what constituted an agroecosystem and how human interventions could either enhance or disrupt one. More on IPM development in the context of the FFS approach can be found in Chapter 6 of the book From farmer field school to community IPM (224). FFS alumni are able to not only apply IPM principles in their fields, but also to master a process enabling them to help others learn and apply IPM principles, and organise collaborative activities in their communities to institutionalise IPM principles. A good field school process ensures these outcomes. The educational concepts underpinning the FFS approach are drawn from adult non-formal education. These concepts have been found to be relevant across the many countries and cultures in which the FFS approach has been used, and have proven to be empowering for farmers. More on these concepts that underlie the learning activities found in a field school can be found

in Chapter 5 of the book From farmer field school to community IPM (224). One of the biggest problems with many of the developments in IPM over the years has been the tendency to generalise and make recommendations for farmers across large and highly heterogeneous areas. This has been true for all manner of input recommendations including fertilisers, pesticides and rice varieties. This problem, ecological heterogeneity, has also severely limited the effectiveness of government monitoring and forecasting systems. All of these practical issues vary on a small spatial scale. This local specificity requires that farmers become (IPM) experts. The main crop protection approaches since the late 1960s, from the perspective of donor support, are presented in Table 1. The recommendations or decision criteria of each approach reveal a steady progression in the accommodation of ecological heterogeneity and farmer control of agro-ecosystem management. Governments across Asia have enacted policy in support of one or more of the four approaches presented above. Some countries have supported each of the approaches over the last four decades, often using more than one approach at the same time. Countries have often adopted new approaches without abandoning old approaches, despite glaring contradictions. Presented in roughly chronological order of emergence from left to right, these four approaches place an increasingly larger burden on the user in terms of ecological knowledge, observation and analysis. Each successive approach requires more data for decisionmaking and the decisions made cover increasingly smaller units of area and time. This increased precision in decision-making, not surprisingly, has led to better control of insect pests and reduced use of pesticides. The FFS approach was designed to address the problem of ecological heterogeneity and local specificity by placing the control of small-scale agro-ecosystems in the hands of the people who manage them (224). 2 A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences. A. Braun, J. Jiggins, N. Rling, H. van den Berg and P.Snijders

In Agroecosystem Analysis (AESA) in the classical FFS, crop growth stages, presence and abundance of pests and beneficial insects, weather, soil and overall crop conditions in contrasting plots in a FFS, are recorded by farmers each week on a poster - a large piece of paper using skethches and symbols. The purpose of the drawing is to stimulate close observation of ecological and climate features that stimulate the crop. Table 1. Pest control approaches in tropical irrigated rice (224) Calendar-based applications Farmers, in this approach, apply insecticides based on number of days postsowing or transplanting. Goal: prophylactic control of pest populations. Relies on broad recommendations and assumes homogeneity among planting conditions. Developed in 1960s. Surveillance systems ETL-based decisions by farmers The count-andspray approach relies on use of criteria that assumes homogeneity across all local agroecosystems. Farmers as IPM experts

Usually an activity of agriculuture departments. Based on ETLs developed at national level to be applied in widely differing conditions. Goal: insure national yield targets achieved by usiung professional pest control agents. Emerged in 1970s as

Farmers as decision makers; decision based on analysis of agroecosystem4.

Goal: farmers as IPM experts Goal: employ taking action control tactics based on at analysis of their predetermined agropest population ecosystem; levels to avoid pesticide-free population rice production. levels to avoid FFSs economic loss. introduced in ETLs appeared 1990, has led to with advent of a rapid growth surveillance in number of

pesponse to massive pest outbreaks.

systems, promoted to farmers in 1980s.

farmer IPM experts.

Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 279 Methodology development for participatory monitoring and evaluation of farmer field school approach for scaling up the adoption of agricultural technologies Joseph G. Mureithi1, Festus M. Murithi1, Chigozie C. Asiabaka2, Jane W. Wamuongo1, Lawrence Mose1 and Benjamin Mweri3 The farmer field school (FFS) approach was adopted as one of the methodologies to scale up promising agricultural technologies developed by two Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) projects: the Soil Management Project and the Legume Research Network Project. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had earlier promoted the FFS approach in the coastal and western parts of Kenya to scale up agricultural technologies with promising results. Consequently, researchers in the two KARI projects began using this approach during the long rainy season in early 2001. Unfortunately the frameworks to assess the impact of this approach on farmers adoption behaviors were lacking. A six-day workshop was held in March 2002 with the following objectives: (a) to expose participants to the basics of participatory monitoring and evaluation (b) to jointly design and develop participatory

tools for internal monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of FFS as an approach for upscaling adoption of technologies, and (c) to develop participants skills in analysis and reporting for participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E). A total of 35 participants attended the workshop. The workshop began with an introduction to the basic concepts and principles of participation, monitoring, and evaluation. Participants were then divided into groups for brainstorming sessions aimed at identifying the PM&E measurements/outcomes and indicators. After days of brainstorming and participatory activities, measurements and indicators were identified by each group and synthesized in a plenary session. Techniques and tools for PM&E of FFS using the harmonized measurements and indicators were then developed. The methodology is now being used in the field. This paper discusses the mechanics followed in addressing the workshop objectives and also the relevant measurements/ outcomes, indicators, and tools for PM&E of the different stages of the farmer field school process. The Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) is a national agricultural research organization that contributes to the national goals of ensuring food security, poverty alleviation and environmental protection (KARI 2000). It undertakes this by raising agricultural productivity and incomes on a sustained basis through technology generation and dissemination in close cooperation with farmers, extension staff, and other stakeholders. In particular, KARI emphasizes generating 1 Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.

2 Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria 3 Coastal Development Authority, Kenya. 280 FFS monitoring & evaluation technologies, which are appropriate to smallholders, gender sensitive, and take into account existing local knowledge. Due to declining agricultural production and rising levels of poverty and food insecurity, KARI is keen to demonstrate the relevance and potential impact of its technologies on the livelihoods of its beneficiaries, the farmers of Kenya. Disseminating technologies is basically the responsibility of the public extension service and other extension service providers, including nongovernmental organizations and the private sector (Muchena and Gicheru 2001). Given the need for increased adoption of technologies by rural farming communities, KARI has been adopting various approaches to strengthen its working relationships with other development agencies to enhance the dissemination of agricultural technologies and information. The farmer field school (FFS) is one such approach that is currently being used by KARI. Others include: farmer participatory research (FPR), participatory rural appraisal (PRA), participatory learning and action research (PLAR) and agricultural technology and information response initiative (ATIRI). The FFS was chosen since it has been used successfully in some Asian countries, e.g., the Philippines and Indonesia (Pontius et al 2000) to promote integrated pest management technologies for rice production. The FFS is a participatory

approach that uses nonformal adult education methods based on experimental learning techniques and participatory training methods (Miagostovich et al 1999). The FFS approach shifts from targeting farmers with preset extension messages towards building on and improving farmers capacity to analyze their farming systems and practices, and to develop and test possible solutions that address their prioritized needs, combining local and scientific knowledge. The FFS approach emphasizes learning by doing. Learning takes place in the field and is normally designed to last a full growing/cropping cycle. This enables farmers to fully participate in implementing all components of the technology from planting to harvesting. The learning process provides farmers an opportunity to observe and reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of the technologies and thereby make informed decisions on whether to adopt them or not. Farmer field schools are not new in Kenya; the first ones were established in 1994-95 following the original model promoted by FAO in Indonesia. Similar to those in Southeast Asia, most FFS centered on integrated pest management (IPM) on various crops, with many focusing on vegetable and poultry production. In 1996 the FAOs Special Program for Food Security initiated FFS in the western province of Kenya in Kakamega, Bungoma, and Busia Districts and later in the Kenyan coast (Khisa 2000).

The schools in western Kenya have been reported to increase crop yield by up to three times and reduced chick mortality from 80% to 20% (Abate 2000). In Kenya FFS have been led mainly by extensionists and have been used to train farmers on only one technology (Augusta Abate, personal communication). KARIs farmer field school pilot project The FFS pilot project commenced in March 2001 and aimed at incorporating the FFS approach in the Soil Management Project (SMP) and Legume Research Network Project (LRNP) of KARI. The SMP and the LRNP were initiated in 1994 to combat soil fertility decline in smallholder farms in Kenya. The SMP was implemented through Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 281 two KARI Centers: the National Agricultural Research Center at Kitale and the Regional Research Center at Kisii. The SMP adopted the farmer participatory research (FPR) approach to implement research activities so that farmers and other stakeholders could actively participate in technology development and transfer. In addition to decline in soil fertility, farmers identified lack of suitable crop varieties and livestock feed as important constraints limiting smallholder agricultural production that the project needed to address. The LRNP was began as a legume screening network to primarily screen suitable green manure legumes in 11 sites across the country from 15 m to 1900 m asl. The Network expanded its activities to include coordinated studies in legume

residue management, evaluation of legume green manure as a component of integrated soil management, and livestock feeding studies based on selected legumes. The first phase of these projects ended in 2000 after being on the ground for six years. At the end of the phase about 10 technologies were identified as being ready for scaling up (i.e. wide-scale dissemination in neighboring villages and regions with similar agroecological characteristics as the study sites). These technologies include: Improved preparation, management, and use of organic manures to improve soil fertility. Different combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers for maize, finger millets, forages, and vegetables (kales and cabbages). Soil-improving green manure legumes. Low-cost soil conservation structures. Bean varieties tolerant of beanfly infestation and root rot. Food legumes other than beans for intercropping with maize. Suitable forages for water-logged soils. High-yielding forage species for milk production. Suitable crop varieties for different agroecological zones. Plant extracts for controlling crop pests. The FFS was one of the scaling up approaches adopted by the two projects in disseminating the technologies. Others included the conventional group extension approach and farmer research committees (FRC) as dissemination agents. The FFS was adopted on pilot basis for three years beginning March 2001 by five KARI Centers

- Kitale, Kakamega, Kisii, Embu, and Mtwapa (Figure 1). The FFS pilot project has six major activities: 1. FFS sensitization workshop. 2. Training of trainers course (ToT) on the FFS approach. 3. Development of farmer training curricula on the technologies to be scaled up. 4. Development of participatory monitoring and evaluation tools for the FFS approach. 5. Support for four MSc students. 6. Running of about 45 FFS in five KARI centers. 282 FFS monitoring & evaluation These activities are briefly described below. FFS sensitization workshop. This workshop was held on 6-8 March 2001 in western Kenya. Its primary objective was to sensitize senior managers of KARI and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD), researchers and extensionists implementing SMP and LRNP, and farmers on the FFS approach for information transfer and scaling up of agricultural technologies. About 90 participants attended the workshop. The workshop covered the genesis of FFS approach and its principles and concepts; FFS ToT course and running an FFS in the field; development of FFS training curricula; monitoring and evaluation of FFS; and FFS for integrated soil fertility and nutrient management and conservation. Country experiences on the FFS approach from the Philippines, Indonesia and Kenya were shared during the workshop.

Training of trainers (TOT) course on FFS approach (Mweri and Khisa 2001). The aim of this course was to equip the SMP and LRNP staff with methods, skills, attitudes, and knowledge to design, facilitate, and implement FFS in their project mandate areas. Participants came from KARI centers at Kitale, Kisii, Kakamega, Embu, and Mtwapa. The course had two parts: the first part covered FFS theory and the second part was a season-long training in the field. FAO Kenya provided two facilitators to conduct the training. The first part was held at Egerton University from 12-17 March 2001. Figure 1. KARI Centers running farmer field schools Kitale Kakamega Kisii FFS SITES Rainfall Over 1000 mm 500 - 1000 mm 0 - 500 mm Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 283 Topics covered introduction to FFS methodology, steps in conducting FFS, organizing and managing FFS, and nonformal education methods. It also included field exercises, group discussions, and plenary sessions. During the training participants developed tentative workplans for schools they plan to initiate in the field. They also developed tentative training curricula on technologies to be scaled up. The second part of the ToT was a season-long field-based training on how to

run a successful FFS. The workplans developed during the first part of the training were used to initiate and run the schools. KARI Centers in Kitale and Mtwapa started their schools in April 2001 because the long rainy season had just begun in their sites. Schools in Kisii were initiated in May/June, while in Kakamega they were started in late June. Embu was the last to start its school in late August 2001. Table 1 gives details on the FFS that were formed and when they were terminated. Figure 2 shows FFS participants inspecting and collecting data from a vegetable plot in Kitale. The FAO trainers provided technical backstopping and visited Kitale every first Monday of the month and Kisii every third Thursday of the month. Development of farmer training curricula on technologies to be scaled up. During part one of the ToT course participants developed draft training curricula for the FFS in their respective project areas. These draft curricula formed the basis for preparing weekly lessons of the FFS. The ToT participants met once a week to prepare the lessons for the following week and also to improve on the previous weeks lesson using feedback from farmers. At the end of the ToT, the weekly lessons were compiled into a farmer training curricula for each of the technologies to be scaled up. Participants were encouraged to document technologies being demonstrated at different stages, which were to be used to enhance the quality of the curricula.

Figure 2. FFS participants inspecting and collecting data from a vegetable plot in Kitale 284 FFS monitoring & evaluation Table 1. Summary report of farmer field schools initiated during the season-long training of trainers course. KARI Center Name of farmer field school (FFS) Technology being scaled up No. of school members Male Female Date initiated Date terminated 1. Bikholwa (Action) FFS Combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers for maize production 18 4 10 April 2001 2. Bulala (Unity) FFS Food legumes other than beans 15 10 20 April 2001 3. Busime (Love) FFS Management of organic and inorganic fertilizers for vegetable production 5 12 20 April 2001 4. Twende Mbele (Move forward) FFS Suitable maize varieties for Kitale mandate region 4 8 30 April 2001 5. Upendo (Love) FFS Quality seed production in smallholder farms 7 23 10 April 2001 6. Khuyetena (Helping one another) FFS Forage crops establishment, management, and utilization 12 11 20 April 2001

7. Mteremko (Steep slope) FFS Low-cost soil conservation measures 5 9 14 May 2001 Kitale 8. Mutua (Last born) FFS Use of plant extracts to control crop pests 9 16 21 May 2001 December 2002 1. Riboba (cultivated plot) FFS Combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers 10 18 4 May 2001 April 2002 2. Mlango (Door) FFS Improved soil conservation measures 29 23 4 May 2001 August 2002 3. Etono (small edible mushrooms) FFS Integrated pest management on bean production 8 19 27 June 2001 April 2002 4. Keroka FFS Improved fodder production 25 20 10 June 2001 August 2002 5. Riomwando (Inheritance) FFS Finger millet varieties tolerant to blast disease 5 27 10 July 2001 April 2002 Kisii 6. Umoja (Togetherness) FFS Use of legumes that improve soil fertility 11 25 13 June 2001 August 2002 Kakamega Malanga FFS Green manure technologies for soil fertility improvement 38 25 June 2001 September 2002 Embu Karurina FFS Upscaling green manure technology 31 August 2001 October 2002 Mtwapa Jembe (Hoe) FFS Combination of green manure legume with FYM and inorganic fertilizers 7 8 28 March 2001 September 2002 Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 285 Development of participatory monitoring and evaluation (PM&E) tools for the FFS. This

was to be done during the methodology development workshop and by four MSc students who were expected to undertake research to refine the FFS process and test tools developed during the workshop. a) PM&E methodology development workshop. The aim of the workshop was to jointly develop tools/frameworks for PM&E on the effectiveness of FFS as an approach to upscaling soil management technologies and information. This workshop is the gist of this paper and is discussed in greater detail in the later sections. b) Support for four MSc students. The MSc training was included in the project so that the students could undertake research that would contribute to developing and refining M&E tools for the FFS process. They were also expected to evaluate the rate of technology spread and its impact on smallholder farming. Table 2 shows the students that are on MSc training. New schools initiated in March/April 2002. So far a total of 30 new FFS have been initiated in three KARI centers (Table 3). Twenty-nine of them were farmer-led and one was extension-led. The farmer-led ones are near the old sites and are technically backstopped by researchers and extensionists. Participatory monitoring and evaluation of the FFS approach KARI embraces the need for an elaborate and systematic planning, monitoring, and evaluation (PM&E) system to generate information that will show the impact of its activities at different levels (KARI 1998). In most instances, planning accounts for

majority of the time spent on PM&E but with very little internal evaluation taking place. KARI is currently emphasizing the need for participatory planning, monitoring, and evaluation so that there is ownership of the process among the research managers, scientists, development partners, extensionists, other agricultural service providers, and the ultimate beneficiaries - the farmers. This calls for mechanisms involving key players to identify and agree on various performance indicators to be used in monitoring and evaluation. The need to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the FFS approach in scaling up adoption of agricultural technologies cannot be over-emphasized. Unfortunately, tools/frameworks for doing so either lacking or MSc student KARI Center University Course/Degree Tentative title of research work Gideon Mwagi Kisii Egerton M. Sc. Extension Factors influencing group effectiveness in FFS approach for up-scaling agricultural technologies: a case study of Kisii District David K. Bunyatta Kitale Egerton M. Sc. Extension Effectiveness of FFS in validation and dissemination of soil management technologies among small scale farmers in Trans-Nzoia District, Kenya

Sally Rono Kitale Moi M.Phl. Agricultural Development and Policy Not yet decided Micah Powon Kitale Egerton M. Sc. Horticulture Evaluation of the effects of farm yard manure, phosphorus and potassium on the growth and tuber yields of Irish potato using the FFS approach Table 2. MSc students undergoing training through the support of the FFS pilot project. 286 FFS monitoring & evaluation limited in scope. A methodology development workshop on PM&E of FFS was organized to develop such tools. The major objective of the workshop was to design and develop participatory tools/frameworks jointly for internal monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of FFS as an approach for upscaling technology adoption. PM&E methodology workshop (Asiabaka et al 2002) The workshop, which was held on 17-24 March 2002 drew participants from KARI (scientists) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (extensionists), the FAO office in Kenya, and the Coast Development Authority. The workshop was facilitated by Prof. C.C. Asiabaka, a professor of Economics and Extension at the

Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria. The workshop covered topics such as introduction of the basic concepts and principles of participation, activities that encourage participation, meaning of participatory monitoring and evaluation, differences between conventional monitoring and evaluation and participatory monitoring and evaluation. The concept of measurements and indicators, methodologies/techniques/tools for PME data collection, analysis, reporting skills, and PME data use. The concepts were discussed in plenary sessions and misconceptions/misunderstandings were cleared during the question and answer sessions. The participants were then divided into several groups for brainstorming sessions aimed at identifying the PME measurements/outcomes and indicators. The measurements and indicators were then synthesized in a plenary session. In the next stage, methodologies, techniques, and tools for participatory monitoring and evaluation of FFS were developed using the harmonized measurements and indicators. Definition of PM&E Participation was defined as the process by which people become involved in their own development. It can be described as the voluntary involvement of people in self-determined change. Participation includes joint planning, management and implementation, sharing benefits, and monitoring and evaluation. PM&E requires

the involvement of people in deciding what areas to monitor, selecting the indicators for monitoring and evaluation, designing data collection systems, collating and tabulating data, analyzing the results, and using PM&E information/data for their own use. Therefore PM&E improves peoples efficiency and effectiveness, and increases awareness and understanding of factors which affect their situation, thereby increasing control over the development process KARI center Farmer field schools Researcher-led Farmer-led Extension-led Kitale 13 4 1 Kisii 6 4 Mtwapa 1 1 Total 20 9 1 Table 3. New FFS initiated in 2002. Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 287 The following section presents the harmonized measurements/outcomes, indicators, and tools/frameworks for PM&E. An attempt was made to match the harmonized outcomes, indicators , and tools to the different stages of the FFS process. The tools are presented in Appendices 1-12. Collection of baseline information. Baseline information gives the current situation of farming and farming systems, and is important for future assessment of the impact of the approaches/technologies. Participants brainstormed during the workshop and identified the following key areas to be covered in a baseline study. Conventional methodologies can be used to collect information on identified areas.

Village immersion. In this activity, facilitators of the planned FFS enter into a community. They hold a series of meetings with the local opinion leaders and local administrators in which they explain the objectives and goals of the anticipated activities. They explain the roles of the facilitators and discuss what is expected of the community. This is all done to solicit support in forming the FFS. The main measurement/outcome of this activity is that the opinion leaders are sensitized on the goals and objectives of forming the FFS, hence supporting the formation of the schools. Indicators that this outcome has been achieved include the following: Number of schools formed Number of times opinion leaders participated in the FFS activities Number of times opinion leaders have invited FFS members to their meetings, e.g., chiefs Baraza Number of times opinion leaders have scheduled their activities on FFS days Number of times opinion leaders have been called upon to resolve conflicts in FFS Appendix 1 shows the tools for collecting information on these indicators. Groundworking. With the assistance of opinion leaders, facilitators convene an open meeting with community members. In the meeting, facilitators with the assistance of opinion leaders - explain the objectives and goals of the anticipated

activities, clarify the roles of facilitators, and discuss expectations of the community and facilitators (leveling of expectations). The site(s) for the school(s) is/are chosen and farmers willing to enroll in the school(s) are enlisted. Table 4 gives some outcomes Table 4. Outcomes and indicators of success of groundworking. Measurements (outcomes) Indicators Farmers sensitized on objectives of forming FFS Number of farmers that expressed willingness to enrol in FFS Number of farmers that later on joined FFS Number of farmer dropouts from FFS Number of farmers whose expectations were met by FFS Farmers enrolled in FFS Number of farmers enrolled in FFS FFS site selected Number of FFS schools formed Number and names of selected sites 288 FFS monitoring & evaluation and indicators of success expected in this stage. Appendix 2 gives the tools for collecting information on these indicators. Day 1 of FFS. In day 1 of the school, the school leadership is chosen as well as the norms and rules governing the school. The FFS concepts and objectives/goals are spelled out. The types of records kept by the school are also explained. Table 5 presents outcomes and indicators of results for day 1 of the FFS. Appendix 3 lists tools for collecting information on the indicators. Setting up participatory technology demonstrations (PTDs). In this stage plots

were laid out and planted with options of the technology to be scaled up. A farmer practice plot is included for comparison. Participation of farmers in planning, laying out, and planting the technological options including their participation in managing the plots enhanced their ability to experiment and fostered farmer-tofarmer communication by collecting data and interpreting the PTD results. The outcome and indicators for this stage are technology-specific. Table 6 gives an example. Appendix 4 gives the tools for collecting information on indicators at this stage. Running the FFS: Monitoring PTDs using the agroecosystem analysis (AESA) approach. In setting up the AESA, participants look at the interface between a crop and its physical environment. Farmers interpret the performance of the crop in relation to the physical environment. They collect data, process them and present them to the class. Based on the results, they decide on their next course of action. Table 7 lists some of the expected outcomes and indicators of success of the AESA. Appendix 5 gives the tools that can be used to collect information on the indicators. Area Indicators Economic Production levels, income levels, ownership of assets, poverty level, economic improvement, household food security, mechanization Sociocultural Group cohesion, gender participation, standard of living,

wealth, learning Technological Adoption, facilitation skills, communication skills, sustainability, post harvest handling, condition of the produce Institutional Capacity building, networking (linkages), access to credit, marketing Environmental Conservation of resources, afforestation, pesticide use Political Leadership Accountability Bank accounts, records kept, planning forums Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 289 Table 5. Outcomes and indicators of success of day 1 in the FFS school. Measurements (outcomes) Indicators School register developed and used Daily roll call Other uses for register later Percentage attendance (% of those enrolled) Number of farmers fined for lateness Number of farmers expelled for lateness Number of farmers approved for graduation FFS concept, objectives and process understood by farmers Number of farmers aware of objectives of FFS Number of farmers who can explain FFS concepts Number of farmers who can explain the FFS process School leadership put in place List of names of elected officials Date of election Tenure in office of elected officials Host teams (with name and slogan) formed

List of names and slogans of host teams Number of host teams formed FFS meeting day identified Name of meeting day of FFS Time of meeting of FFS Procedure for sharing benefits agreed upon Farmer knowledge of mode/method of sharing the benefits from FFS Norms and rules of school established Availability of list of norms and rules Table 6. Example of outcome and indicators of the PTD. Measurements (outcomes) Indicators Demonstrations established Plot size Date(s) of input(s) acquisition Date of planting Seed and fertilizer application rate by plot Type of feeds and amount used Number of livestock houses available Type of livestock houses available Number of records kept by type Measurements (outcomes) Indicators AESA chart prepared Availability of AESA charts Farmers can collect data from the demonstrations Number of farmers who can identify insect pests/ diseases, etc. Number of farmers who can assess extent of damage caused by pests/diseases Measurements made and recorded on AESA chart e.g., plant height, weight, insect damaged leaves, etc. Farmers can process data from the demonstrations Number of farmers who can process data Results of processed data presented in plenary

Number of farmers who can present results and frequency of plenary presentations Based on results, comparisons of demonstration made by farmers Number of farmers who can make comparisons among the demonstrations Based on results, decisions/recommendations made by farmers on future activities Number of times consistent decisions /recommendations are made based on results and curriculum Table 7. Expected outcomes and indicators of success of an AESA exercise. 290 FFS monitoring & evaluation Running and facilitating the FFS. Running an FFS involves a weekly routine starting with prayers, roll call, taking of the AESA and presentations, and finally deciding on the next course of action by the host team. The facilitator presents the lesson of the day and/or the special topic. Table 8 gives some outcomes and indicators for the facilitation of the FFS. Appendix 6 lists the tools for collecting information on FFS facilitation. Special topics covered in the FFS. Households have many objectives that need to be met. They could be productive, e.g., food production; or social e.g., disease control; or physical, e.g., water provision. These objectives, if not met, may adversely affect the performance of an FFS. On certain occasions, the FFS members may demand special topics to address the objectives. In most cases, this special topic is unrelated

to the lesson of the day for a particular FFS, but is nonetheless important. Table 9 gives some outcomes and indicators for special topics, while Appendix 7 provides tools for collecting of information on special topics. Field day hosted by the FFS. This is an open day for exchanging messages/ information about technologies shown to the wider community to increase diffusion and possibly enhance adoption. Table 10 gives some outcomes and indicators for field days hosted by the FFS. Appendix 8 gives tools for collecting of information on success of field days. FFS exchange visits. Exchange visits are made to other FFS in similar or different AEZs and socioeconomic settings, and other places of particular agricultural interest. The exchange visit is intended to broaden the visitors perspective on how other farmers manage their resources, given their circumstances to meet their farming aspirations. During such visits other unintended benefits may occur through personal Table 8. Outcomes and indicators of the success of the facilitation of the FFS. Table 9. Outcomes and indicators for special topics. Measurements (outcomes) Indicators Knowledge of the lesson of the day enhanced Content of the lesson of the day Method of presentation Length of presentation Understanding of subject taught enhanced Number of farmers practicing the skills learned

Quality of facilitation enhanced Type of topic facilitated Method of presentation Timeliness of topic (appropriate for the time presented) Length of presentation Feedback mechanism (Testing knowledge of presentation by farmers) Measurements (outcomes) Indicators Knowledge of the lesson of the day enhanced Content of the lesson of the day Method of presentation Length of presentation Understanding of subject taught enhanced Number of farmers practicing the skills learned Quality of facilitation enhanced Type of topic facilitated Method of presentation Timeliness of topic (appropriate for the time presented) Length of presentation Feedback mechanism (Testing knowledge of presentation by farmers) Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 291 interactions and observations, such as conflict resolution among FFS members. Table 11 gives some outcomes and indicators for exchange visits, while Appendix 9 lists tools for collecting information on the success of exchange visits. Group cohesion and group dynamics. Group cohesion is critical to the successful completion of any FFS. This is fostered by good leadership, facilitation, and social activities that bond the group together. Table 12 gives some outcomes and indicators for group cohesion and dynamics. Appendix 9 provides tools for collecting information on the same. Graduation of FFS. At graduation, farmers who have successfully gone

through the season-long FFS training and have met the group norms and conditions for graduation are given certificates. Some are able to facilitate new FFS with the same PTDs. Table 13 gives some outcomes and indicators for graduation, while Appendix 10 lists tools for collecting information. Table 12. Outcomes and indicators of group cohesion in FFS. Measurement (outcomes) Indicators Group cohesion/dynamics strengthened Types of conflicts encountered Methods of conflict resolution Frequency of conflicts Number of farmers dropping out from school Number of poems, drama, songs, etc ., composed Number of FFS-related messages in the folk media, etc. Number of income-generating activities Table 11. Outcomes and indicators for exchange visits. Measurements (outcomes) Indicators Linkages between schools established Number of visits made Number of FFS farmers who made visits Number of visitors received in FFS Nature of FFS linkages Number of linkages established FFS farmers exposed to other technologies, skills, and farming systems Type of messages and information exchanged Method of funding visits (whether group or farmer sponsored) Skills practiced as a result of exchange visits Farmers exchange knowledge on leadership

Number of new approaches in resolving conflicts Table 10. Outcomes and indicators of field days. Measurements (outcomes) Indicators FFS technologies demonstrated Number of exhibitions presented Number of invited guests Number of participants in attendance Number of institutions participating Number of prizes awarded FFS farmers share knowledge learned to the community Type of exhibitions presented Number and type of messages shared Record of speeches Documentation done e.g. Photographs, video taped messages, etc. FFS members get feedback from the community Record of questions and answers 292 FFS monitoring & evaluation Post-FFS evaluation: assessing FFS graduates one year after. Assessment aims at establishing the value of FFS in diffusing knowledge/technologies, how acquired knowledge contributes to the welfare of farmers, and how FFS enhances farmers experimentation skills. Conclusion The PM&E methodology tools that were developed are being used in the field by workshop participants to test their relevance, efficiency, and usefulness. The workshop was an initial process to develop PM&E tools, which will not be complete until the tools are tested in the field and fine-tuned using field experiences. A workshop is

planned to review experiences and make modifications. However, a few conclusions can be derived from the process so far: Measurements (outcomes) Indicators Recap of what was learned during the season-long school Number of poems, songs, and dances with FFS messages Chart displaying promising technologies and their performance Certificates and prizes in recognition of successful participation in school awarded Number of farmers that participated (in attendance) Number of farmers that graduated Number of certificates awarded Number of prizes awarded Action plan for way forward presented Record of action plan for way forward Table 13. Outcomes and indicators of the FFS graduation. Measurement Indicators FFS technologies diffused Number of non-FFS farmers practising the technology Number of farmer-led FFS formed Number of other groups (e.g., CBOs) formed Knowledge learned retained (technology and special topic specific) Number of farmers who remember the basics of lessons on technologies taught Number of farmers who remember the basics of lessons on special topics taught FFS technologies adopted Type of technology adopted

Number of FFS members practicing FFS technologies Number of FFS members practicing special topics Number of non-FFS members practicing FFS technologies Changes in levels of production Production before FFS (kg, L, etc.) Production after FFS Changes in levels of income Income level before FFS Income level after FFS Changes in food security status Months of food deficit before FFS Months of food deficit after FFS Standard of living of the graduates improved Number of graduates with access to good drinking water Number of graduates with access to better quality food Number of graduates with access to good health Number of graduates with access to good housing Number of graduates with access to better clothing Number of graduates with access to basic education Graduates ability to experiment enhanced Number of farmers comparing different practices/interventions in their farms Types of practices/interventions in those farms Table 14. Outcomes and indicators of success of FFS graduates. Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 293 1) The participants understood and appreciated the difference between PM&E of a process as opposed to monitoring and evaluating impacts of a project or a technology.

2) The workshop helped bring out the key steps in the FFS approach and made it possible to identify those that could be combined in PM&E exercises. 3) The multidisciplinary team of scientists appreciated their role in PM&E; before the workshop, many thought that PM&E tools were used by socioeconomists only. Acknowledgments We acknowledge the financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation. We are indeed grateful to Dr. Ruben Puentes of RF New York and Mexico, and Dr. John Lynam of RF Nairobi for the technical support they have given the pilot project from its inception. References Abate, A.N. 2000. Farmer field schools as a participatory research/extension methodology. Paper presented in the 2nd Scientific conference of the Soil Management and Legume Research Network Projects. 26-30th June 2000, Mombasa, Kenya. Asiabaka, C.C., J.G. Mureithi, F.M. Murithi, J.W. Wamuongo. 2002. Report of participatory monitoring and evaluation methodology workshop of the farmer field school approach for scaling up the adoption of INM technologies and information. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. p. 66. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI). 2000. Improved livelihood through appropriate agricultural research and technology. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Strategic Plan 2000-2010. p. 28.

KARI. 1998. Working paper on institutionalization of a harmonized planning, monitoring and evaluation system in KARI. KARI Working Paper Series. Working Paper No. 1. p. 11. Khisa G.S. 2000. Output of the intensive training of trainers course on farmer field schools. Mabanga Farmers Training Center, Bungoma District, February 13-23, 2000. Mweri B.M. and G.S. Khisa. 2001. Report of the training of trainers course on farmer field school methodology for KARIs soil management and legume research network project held at Utafiti Hall, Egerton University, Kenya, March 12-17, 2001. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. p. 71. Miagostovich M., J. Anderson and S. Sukwong. 1999. Farmer field school in integrated crop management. Rural learning networks. Regional Community Forestry Training Center (RECOFTC). p. 10. Muchena F.N. and T.G. Gicheru. 2001. Institutional and policy frameworks on soil fertility and productivity. Paper presented during the Consultative Workshop on Soil Fertility and Land Productivity Initiative for Kenya. 30-31st July 2001. Pontius J., R. Dilts and A. Bartlett, editors. 2000. From farmer field schools to community IPM. Ten years of IPM in Asia. The FAO Program for Community IPM in Asia, P.O. Box 1380, Jarkarta 12013, Indonesia. p. 141. 294 FFS monitoring & evaluation APPENDICES: PARTICIPATORY MONITORING AND EVALUATION TOOLS FOR FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS PROCESS

Appendix 1. Village immersion Checklist 1. What are the objectives/goals of the FFS set by the facilitators? 2. What are your expectations concerning the FFS after the meeting(s) with the facilitators? 3. What roles will opinion leaders play in the FFS? 4. What roles may opinion leaders not play in FFS? 5. What roles will farmers play in the FFS? 6. What roles may farmers not play in FFS? Questionnaire (Fill in the blanks appropriately) later in the life of the school 1. How many times in the life of the school have opinion leaders participated in the FFS activities? Name/title of FFS activity participated in Frequency of opinion leader participation ............................................. .......................................... .................. ............................................. .......................................... .................. 2. How many times have FFS members been invited to meetings organized by local opinion leaders (e.g., chiefs baraza, local community/locational/divisional development meetings, etc.)? Title or name of member(s) Type of meeting attended Frequency or date(s) attended ............................................. .......................................... .................. ............................................. .......................................... .................. 3. Frequency of scheduling opinion leader meetings on FFS days Title/name of Type of activity scheduled Date(s) attended opinion leader on FFS day ........................................ ........................................... ...................... ........................................ ........................................... ......................

4. Frequency of opinion leaders having been called upon to resolve conflicts among FFS members Title/name of Nature/type of conflict How resolved Date(s) conflict opinion leader resolved ............................ ...................................... ........................ .................... ............................ ...................................... ........................ .................... Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 295 Appendix 2. Ground working Checklist 1. Why was your FFS formed? 2. How was the name of your school and its site chosen? 3. What roles will farmers play in the FFS? 4. What roles may farmers not play in FFS? 5. What were your expectations concerning the FFS after the meeting(s) with the facilitators/opinion leaders? Questionnaire 1. How many schools were formed as a result of the ground-working meeting(s)? ....................... 2. How many farmers expressed willingness to enrol as members in the respective FFS (as enlisted in the ground working meeting)? ............................ Name of school Number enrolled .................................................................................... .................. .................................................................................... .................. ..................................................................................... .................. 3. How many farmers (not in the ground-working meeting) later enrolled in the FFS through the influence of others?................. 4. How many of the farmers initially enrolled in FF have dropped out? ................. 5. What are the main reasons for dropping out?

.................................................................................................................... ............... (a) Were your expectations of FFS met? Yes or No (Circle as appropriate) (b) If No, which ones were not met? .................................................................................................................... ............ 296 FFS monitoring & evaluation Appendix 3. Day 1 in school Checklist 1. School register opened 2. What are the main concepts and objectives of FFS? 3. Meaning of FFS as a process 4. Roles of FFS leaders by title 5. Date of election 6. Tenure in office of elected officials 7. What is a host team? 8. What is (are) the role(s) of a host team? 9. Day and time of FFS meetings 10. Norms and rules of the school 11. Procedure of sharing benefits/losses of FFS Questionnaire (Fill in the blanks or answer questions appropriately) 1. How many of the enrolled farmers attended the first day of school based on the school register?............ 2. How many farmers were aware of the objectives of FFS?.......... 3. Which FFS concepts were you exposed to? .................................................................................................................... .. 4. What does the FFS process involve? .................................................................................................................... ................ .................................................................................................................... . 5. Procedure of sharing of benefits/losses of FFS activities

................................................ ..................... 6. How is the FFS run? 7. What is the gender composition of your FFS group? Male... Female Youth ... 8. Leadership position by gender Leadership position Number by gender Male Female Youth ............................................. ................... ................. .................. ............................................. ................... ................. .................. Chairperson Secretary Treasurer Other (specify) List of names and slogans of the host teams ........................ ............................. Farmer Field Schools: emerging issues & challenges 297 Appendix 4. Participatory technology demonstrations (PTD) Checklist 1. Plot size of participatory technology demonstrations 2. Method(s) of acquisition of input(s) for the PTD 3. Type of seed planted 4. Type of feed used 5. Method of planting used 6. Method of weeding used 7. Type of livestock feeding system Questionnaire (Fill in the blanks or answer questions appropriately) 1. When were the inputs for the PTDs acquired? ...................... 2. When was the PTD planted? ........................................ 3. What seed rate was used? ................................................ 4. State type and number of livestock houses available

........................................................................................ .................. Type of livestock house Number ................................................................................................. .................. ................................................................................................. .................. ................................................................................................. ..................

Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 53 Farmer Field School (FFS) and Junior Farmer Field and Life School (JFFLS) as challenges to agricultural extension development and practice in Nigeria E. N Ajani* and E.A. Onwubuya** Department of Agricultural Extension, Faculty of Agriculture, E-mails: vnglajani@yahoo.com* and lizzybuya@yahoo.com** Mobile: 07037898918* and 08050338606** Abstract This paper discusses Farmer Field School (FFS) and Junior Farmer Field and Life School (JFFLS) as challenges to agricultural extension development and practice in Nigeria. FFS and JFFLS are participatory extension approaches which emphasize participation of local people and their communities working in groups and building upon the traditional or indigenous knowledge that they have acquired. Discovery learning is emphasized on FFS and JFFLS approaches whereby participants learn by doing as well as discovering new ideas by themselves. The paper suggests the need for promotion of these approaches by national extension policy and donor agencies to ensure sustainability. It notes that these approaches which encourages qualitative rather than often used quantitative researches will reduce unrealistic and crooked formal research data and also challenge other methods of extension delivery for better discovery learning. It concludes that developing an appropriate framework for analysis and evaluation of these approaches will help to more accurately measure their

effectiveness and impact on the lives of the participants and the society at large. Key words: Farmer Field School, Junior Farmer Field and Life School, agricultural extension, participatory approaches and discovery learning. INTRODUCTION Agricultural extension can be defined as a conscious provision of information and communication support to rural users of renewable natural resources. It involves offering advice, helping farmers to analyze problems and identify opportunities, sharing information, supporting group formation and facilitating collective action. Extension services are delivered not only by extension agencies but also by farmers, scientists, commercial companies, mass media organizations, among others (Garforth and Lawrence, 1997). In the last twenty years, many efforts have been made in trying to change research and development in agriculture to better involve farmers, to the extent that it has been widely accepted (Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (LEISA, 2006). However, most formal researches related to agriculture in developing countries are still carried out at large research institutions, and the extent to which farmers are involved in setting the agenda, taking part in experiments, monitoring, evaluating or using the results varies a lot, but is generally very limited. LEISA (2006) further stated that the vast range of participatory approaches promoted in the last twenty years have aimed in general at building technical knowledge in order to improve livelihoods ( examples, FFS and JFFLS). The participatory process involves narrowing the gap between research organizations and farmers realities by ensuring direct farmer involvement at different stages of the research process. Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 54

According to Hellin, Bellon and Badstue (2006), the most effective way for participatory research processes to benefit a greater proportion of farmers is by close coordination and collaboration with organizations that are better placed to link farmers and researchers due to their relatively long-term contact with farmers. These organizations include: extension services, farmer organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). As these organizations focus on development, they are better placed to ensure that research results reach greater number of farmers and that in the process more farmers are empowered. A number of agricultural extension approaches have been used in Nigeria. The major differences in their characteristics are based on how the extension services systems are structured and organized, the relationship and linkage mechanisms amongst the extension service actors, particularly farmers, extension agents and researchers, the range of agricultural services contained in the technical package, the types of extension methods that are used and the way the extension services are financed (Ministry of Agriculture, 2008). This paper discusses the concept of Farmer Field School (FFS) and Junior Farmer Field and Life School (JFFLS) and their challenges to agricultural extension development and practice in Nigeria. Farmer Field School (FFS) Approach Farmer Field Schools (FFS) are schools without walls where groups of farmers meet periodically with facilitators during the crop or animal cycle (Davis and Place, 2003). According to FAO (2008), FFS is described as a platform and schools without walls for improving decision-making capacity of farming communities and stimulating local innovation for sustainable agriculture. It is a school without walls that teaches basic agro-ecology and management skills that make farmers experts in their own farms. It is a participatory method of technology development and dissemination whereby farmers are given the opportunity to make a choice in the methods of production through discovery based approach based on adult learning principles and experiential learning (FAO, 2001). It reflects the four elements of experiential learning cycle, namely: concrete experience, observation and reflection, generalization and abstract conceptualization, and active

experimentation. These emphasize the importance of learning in practical field settings instead of through didactic modes in classroom settings (Farrington, 2002). FAO (2008) reported that the specific objectives of FFSs are to: empower farmers with knowledge and skills to make them experts in their own fields; sharpen the farmers ability to make critical and informed decisions that render their farming profitable and sustainable; sensitize farmers in new ways of thinking and solving problems; and help farmers learn how to organize themselves and their communities. The approach requires a group of 20 30 farmers to meet regularly on a given farm where they make field observations, relate their observations to the ecosystem and apply their previous experience and any new information to make a crop or livestock management decision with the guidance of a facilitator. The observations are carried out throughout the enterprise cycle (Farrington, 2002). Key non-formal education methods in the Farmer Field School learning include: sharing, case study, role play (dramatized sessions), problem solving exercises, panel Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 55

discussions, group dynamics, small group and large group discussion, brainstorming and simulation game. These key non- formal education methods encourage and contribute to the qualitative nature of this approach thus challenging the usual and often used quantitative methods involved in most formal researches. It also challenges these formal methods by reducing unrealistic crooked data in formal methods as experiential learning is involved through adult learning principles thereby bringing about effectiveness and efficiency in practices. This is achieved as the farmers are empowered with better and more knowledge and skills through their experiences which make them experts in their own fields. The farmers abilities are also sharpened enabling them to make critical, informed decisions that make their farm production efficient by being profitable and sustainable. The farmers are also sensitised in new ways of thinking and solving problems. The approach challenges farmers to learn how to organize themselves and their communities. Hein and Muhammad (2007) reported that the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach was developed in the late 1980s in Indonesia. The first FFS networks emerged in Western Kenya in the year 2000 as a result of exchange visits and communication between farmers, facilitators and trainers of different Farmer Field Schools. Similar networks have subsequently emerged elsewhere in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. These FFS networks were formed by farmers who had graduated from a FFS. The main reason for their formation was that the graduates wanted to continue the dynamics generated by the FFS process: to build local institutions to ensure the continuation of farmer-led FFS, and benefit from becoming a larger voice in expressing their demands (Arnoud, James, Habakkuk and Godrick, 2007). They further reported that the FFS approach was first introduced in East Africa in 1995 through a project of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Western Kenya. Since then, several projects have been successfully implemented in the region using various different entry points, including issues such as integrated production and pest management, land and water management, self sustainability for refugee communities, integrated crop

management of sweet potato, promotion of farmer innovations, livestock and control of banana bacterial wilt. To date, the FFS networks in East Africa support about 2000 FFSs with close to 50,000 direct beneficiaries. The main reason for the success of FFS in the region has been the involvement of farmers in identifying their problems, in selecting, testing and evaluating possible solutions. This paper is advocating that this approach should challenge (be used as a challenge) in the Nigerian extension service delivery and system to bring about such networks to generate dynamics and processes to build up local institutions and benefits (or that will benefit farmers) sufficiently. The approach is currently one of the fore-front extension-related activities sponsored by FAO, and the principles and methodology of the approach are being replicated by other technical services such as irrigation and water use and forestry. Irrigation and Water Use technical unit has already successfully piloted a FFS project in Zambia (FAO, 2008). FAOs Forestry Policy and Institutions branch have also adopted the FFS approach, but have changed the name to suit its community forestry development purposes: Farmers Forest Management Schools (FFMS). The Farmer Field School approach is relatively new to West Africa, and there are few examples of its application to tree crops and perennial crops. Sustainable Tree Crop Programme (STCP) has pioneered FFS on cocoa integrated crop and pest management in Cote dIvoire, Ghana, Nigeria, and Cameroun since 2003. Although it is based on the experience built with cocoa FFSs, many of the principles and Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 56

recommendations can be applied to FFSs on other tree crops (Soniia, 2006). FAO (2008) also reported that other African countries implementing this approach are Zimbabwe, Malawi, Ethiopia, Gambia, Egypt, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique. Hence the approach is being advocated for Nigeria as a challenge to our usual extension service delivery methods. According to Agro Care (2009), feedback from farmers and operators of the Farmer Field School (FFS) from Edo state, Nigeria have shown that this agricultural extension approach is capable of improving farm yields tremendously, particularly in the cocoa sub-sector where it is presently being put into use and in which many more farmers and states are adopting it. The programme, jointly funded by the federal government, cocoa producing states and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA)'s Sustainable Tree Crop Programme (STCP), is a school without border and is held fortnightly in the field in cocoa producing communities where FFS is located. FFS was adopted by the Sustainable Cocoa Development Committee (SCDC) in 2005 as an improved methodology for training cocoa farmers in Nigeria. The approach can be tried and used to challenge other areas of agriculture such as yam, rice and cassava producing areas as in the case of these cocoa producing areas. The overall objective of the project was to strengthen the capacity of the extension services of participating states to use the FFS extension approach to develop, implement and manage cocoa integrated crops and pests management. Following the adoption, the Sustainable Tree Crop Programme (STCP) of the IITA was commissioned to develop and implement the FFS capacity building project for the cocoa producing states. A total of 14 master trainers, 27 supervisors and 156 facilitators have been trained. Of these numbers, 12 master trainers, 24 supervisors and 136 facilitators from eight states have had at least a year experience in running FFS in their states. Besides, efforts are being made to constitute the Edo State Cocoa Development Committee, which would immediately be followed by the inauguration of the Local Governments Cocoa Development Committees, all aimed at enhancing the nation's cocoa production capacity and repositioning the country in the league of cocoa producing

nations (Agro Care, 2009). Other states of the federation should attempt to take up this challenge and replicate it for agricultural production and practices that suits their region or introduce other. Olukayode (2009) reported that Edo state presently has 22 Farmer Field Schools, second to Osun state which has 30. The first cycle of the state's Farmer Field School programme commenced in September 2007 and ended in October 2008, with the graduation of 500 cocoa farmers. The second cycle was officially flagged-off by Edo state deputy governor on Monday, 18th May, 2009 at Aihuobabekun/Obarenren Farmer Field School in Ovia North-East local government area of the state, with over 500 cocoa-farmer participants attending. FFS as an informal institution is based on the assumption that farming communities have a vast body of knowledge, skills and experience on which they can build their future. The local farmers knowledge and insights are based on their vast experience, rooted in their own local context (Raklin and Ajay, 2007). In this case, existing knowledge, values, cultures and practices are the key knowledge resources. According to LEISA (2001), in field schools, farmers learn to conduct experiments independently, create learning materials on their own, and manage field laboratory and plan for special sessions such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) field days or IPM popular theatre. Farmers do not master a specific set of contents Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 57

or messages, rather they master a process of learning that can be applied continuously to a dynamic situation. Field school intentionally included processes and methods that would provide such interaction. Participants work together in small groups to collect data from the field, generate analysis through discussion, present results, conduct experiments and make group decisions for field management. For many farmers unaccustomed to even speak in front of groups, this confidence building and process mastery is the most important outcome of their field school experience (Russ, 2007). This approach will challenge the collection of fake data common in quantitative research as small groups are involved in qualitative field data collection for analysis, discussions and effective group decisions. The operation of the extension delivery approach is that developmental organizations partner with extension personnel to identify or form farmer groups based on particular topics. For instance, there are groups based on passion fruit, poultry, beekeeping and vegetable production. Farmer Field Schools hold field days for other FFS groups and neighboring farmers. This is a chance for each participant to teach others what they have learnt. At the end of the FFS cycle, certain farmers are chosen by the group to be farmer facilitators. They can then lead their own Farmer Field School the next season (Davis and Place, 2003). Madukwe (2006) noted that the FFS have transformed farmers from recipients of information to generators and manipulators of local data. One important issue in FFS is that of sustainability without outside funding. It is a participatory approach, which facilitates farmers demand for knowledge and offers opportunity for the end users to choose, test and adapt technologies according to their needs. Through participation in FFS, farmers develop skills that allow them to continually analyse their own situation and adapt to changing circumstances (Madukwe, 2006). Junior Farmer Field and Life School (JFFLS) Approach HIV and AIDS have a tremendous impact on rural African societies: families and social networks of solidarity are disrupted, children are orphaned, the rural livelihoods and the mechanisms of knowledge transmission are grievously affected (Djeddah, 2005). She further

reported that the growing number of orphans is of direct concern to all sectors. Rural children orphaned by AIDS are more likely than other orphans to be at risk from malnutrition, disease, abuse and sexual exploitation. Often, orphaned children are growing up without the necessary knowledge and skills for their future livelihoods. From the farm-household perspective, food security is affected: both the quantity and quality of the food diminishes and orphans can often go hungry or are malnourished. From an agricultural perspective, these young boys and girls need to have the necessary agricultural and livelihood skills, the education and the food required to grow into healthy adults and become agents of their own change. The JFFLS objective is to improve their livelihoods and provide them opportunities for long-term food security, while minimising the vulnerability to destitution and extreme coping strategies (LEISA, 2007). Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools (JFFLSs) were developed by FAO, together with the World Food Programme (WFP), other UN agencies, national governments, NGOs and local institutions, as a way to counter the impact of HIV and AIDS on orphans and vulnerable children, to reduce their vulnerability and to improve their livelihoods and long-term food security. FAO has established JFFLSs in several African countries since 2004, with the objective of mitigating the impact of Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 58

AIDS epidemics on the rural populations and specifically empowering orphans, vulnerable children and youths by improving their livelihoods and their agricultural and life skills (FAO, 2007). Djeddah, Mavanga and Hendrickx (2005), reported that the JFFLSs are an adaptation of two successful participatory learning methodologies to the needs of rural youths: During an agricultural season, a group of 30 children/youths (boys and girls between 12 and 17 years) follow the life cycle of crops and make links and inferences regarding their own lives and problems. They meet once, twice or thrice a week in the field, and learn by doing and exploring. An inter-disciplinary team of facilitators accompanies the children to the field: a school teacher, an agriculturist / extension worker and a social animator, proficient in drama, dance and creative activities. Community volunteers always work in close collaboration with the facilitators. The curriculum of the JFFLS is built on four main pillars, namely: school site and the field activities where children learn by doing; special agricultural topics; life skills and cultural activities (theatre, dance, singing etc). The learning activities in the school site follow the local agricultural cycle, depending on the choices of the children and people of the community who own the project. The activities range from laying out the site, preparing the land, seeding or planting, weeding, thinning, constructing suitable storage units, storing harvests, making compost, managing livestock, establishing a nursery and irrigating vegetables. The JFFLS curriculum integrates and links the agricultural learning with life skills according to monthly themes, with a holistic perspective, which is its trademark and peculiarity. Art, theatre, song and traditional dance play a central role in encouraging self-expression and integration with peers; they also help to build trust, explore risks, solve problems and develop more gender-equal attitudes (Dimitra Newsletter, 2007). The JFFLSs were developed as a pilot initiative in Mozambique in 2003. Since then, they are refined, scaled up and enthusiastically adopted by

different stakeholders in nine African countries, namely: Kenya, Malawi, Namibia, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The JFFLSs are now embedded in the formal education system in most cases, providing new inputs to this sector in terms of participatory learning and good agricultural and life practices. When possible, the JFFLSs are also co-coordinated with the adult FFS network (Djeddah, 2005).This paper advocates that Nigeria joins these African countries in this regard using it as a challenge to stimulate our own version that could be called youth for Agriculture(YFA) Programme which can be embedded in our school programme for youths in school to improve agricultural production and practices in Nigeria. This will also enable the youths to be self reliant and improve their livelihood thus reducing their vulnerability. This approach according to Djeddah ( 2005) has been expanded to the Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya since 2006, with a particular focus on orphans and vulnerable children resulting from civil violence and displacement, with support provided by the United Nations System-wide Work Programme on scaling-up HIV/AIDS services for populations of humanitarian concern. Spore (2008) also reported that in Mozambique, the education and training on Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools (JFFLS) programme has trained 7,000 AIDS orphans in an effort to stop them from leaving their communities. These young people have not just acquired Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 59

farming skills and knowledge; they have also developed the capacity to understand their problems and ensure that their rights are respected. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) identified the Junior Farmer Field and Life School (JFFLS) concept as a useful way to assist rural youth in HIV/AIDS programmes. The JFFLS programme provided technical, business and life skills, while at the same time providing some constructive activities to get junior farmers started in income generating enterprises to help support their families and themselves into the future (LEISA, 2007). This can be replicated in Nigeria for our myriads/ vast youths especially unemployed school leavers so as to contribute to national development. Example, the Nigerian government through extension system can consolidate this approach (JFFLS) by empowering the youths through acquisition of agricultural skills that will make them experts in their own fields. Viable strategies of sustainability can be devised by developing alliances with government, Non- Governmental Organizations and extension agencies to scale up the JFFLS. Such strategies should/ may include developing appropriate framework for evaluating the approach. There should be proper/ efficient maintenance of its technical qualities and core nonnegotiable elements such as unique synergy between agricultural skills, life skills and the participatory field experience by the extension service. JFFLS have been labelled as one of the FAOs Best practices. The key challenges are: consolidation of the approach; devising viable strategies of sustainability by developing alliances with governments, NGOs and United Nations partners to scale-up the JFFLS and maintaining its technical quality and core non-negotiable elements, namely, unique synergy between agricultural skills, life-skills and the participatory field experience (FAO, 2005). Conclusion and Recommendations The approaches challenges agricultural extension development and practice in Nigeria by encouraging qualitative extension delivery, practice and research through encouraging realistic methods in them.

This paper advocates that the approaches be used to challenge our extension delivery system to bring about networks to generate dynamics and processes which could be used to spring up local institutions and benefits for our teeming unemployed Nigerians, young and old. Effective participation of farmers in Farmer Field Schools (FFS) will enhance development of appropriate skills in farming thus necessitating formation of groups that facilitate effective dissemination of agricultural information within a social system. Vulnerable children and orphans who participate in Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools acquire agricultural skills that empower them and also improve their livelihoods. In order to support sustainable agriculture, extension approaches should use extension resources to support the development of independent client organizations, work increasingly to influence and facilitate planning decisions and action at group and community levels; and incorporate bottom-up and interactive approaches for extension planning and technology development. The national extension policy and donor agencies should promote changes in extension approaches, which will enhance sustainability rather than merely increase efficiency of contact with clients and the relevance of top-down technology development and information delivery. Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 60

References Agro Care (2009). Farmers' Field School: An Agricultural Extension Model. Agro Care Newsletter, 1. Arnoud, R. B, James, R.O, Habakkuk, K and Godrick S.K (2007). Building Farmer Field Schools networks in East Africa. LEISA Magazine, vol.23 (1): 18. Davis, K and Place, N (2003).Current Concepts and Approaches in Agricultural Extension in Kenya. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of AIAEE. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA,745-756. Dimitra Newsletter (2007). Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools: A response to counter the impact of HIV and AIDS on orphans and vulnerable children in Southern and Eastern Africa. No. 13 (15). Djeddah, C (2005). Junior Farmer Field and Life School, empowering orphans and vulnerable children living in a world with HIV/ AIDS: Concept paper. FAO/WFP Djeddah, C, Mavanga, R and Hendrickx, L (2005).Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools: Experience from Mozambique. In Gillespie, S (eds). AIDS, poverty and hunger: Challenges and responses, IFPRI. Farrington, J (2002). Recent and Future Challenges in Agricultural Extension, Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London, LEISA Magazine, vol. 4 (2): 8. Food and Agriculture Organization (2001). Farmer innovation and new technology options for food production, income generation and combating desertification (99/2000). Progress report- 2001. Nairobi, Kenya. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization (2005). Harvesting for life, movie, director: Boudicca Downes. Food and Agricultural Organization (2007). Getting started! Running a Junior Farmer Field and Life School, FAO/WFP. www.fao.org. Food and Agriculture Organization (2008). FAOs current programmes for Agricultural and Rural Extension Worldwide. FAO corporate document Repository, 1.

Garforth, C and Lawrence, A (1997). Supporting sustainable agriculture through extension in Asia. Natural Resource Perspectives, No 21. London: Overseas Development Institute (ODI), London Hein, B and Muhammad, A.I (2007). Changing the strategies of Farmer Field Schools in Bangladesh. LEISA Magazine, vol. 23 (4): 21. Hellin, J, Bellon, M and Badstue, L (2006). Bridging the gaps between researchers and Farmers realities. Impact, Targeting and Assessment Unit, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), China. LEISA Magazine, vol. 22 (3): 6. Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (2001). Lessons in scaling up. LEISA Magazine, vol. 1(3): 18. Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (2006). Building knowledge, vol. 22 (3): 4 8 Low External Input and Sustainable Agriculture (2007). Junior Farmer Field Schools in Zimbabwe. LEISA Magazine,vol.23 (3): 9. Journal of Agricultural Extension Vol. 14 (1), June 2010 61

Madukwe, M.C ( 2006 ). Delivery of Agricultural Extension Services to Farmers in Developing Countries. CTA publications, Wageningen, Netherlands, 1-3. Ministry of Agriculture (2008). Agricultural approaches to Agricultural Research and Extension. Wageningen, Netherlands, 1-2. Olukayode, O (2009). Farmers' Field School: An Agric Extension Model. Agro Care Newsletter, 1 Rakhi, S and Ajay, S (2007). Farmer Field School: Farmer centric agriculture extension approaches. LEISA India Magazine, vol. 9 (1): 28. Russ, D (2007). From Farmers Field Schools to community IPM. LEISA Magazine, vol. 17 (3): 18. Soniia, D (2006). A guide for conducting Farmer Field Schools on cocoa integrated pest management. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Sustainable Tree Crops Programme, Accra, Ghana. http:www.treecrops.org. Spore Magazine (2008). Agricultural training: An imperative need. CTA publications, Netherlands, No. 136, 11.

M.C. Madukwe E.C. Okoli S.O. Eze ATPS Working Paper Series No. 35 Analysis and Comparison of the Agricultural Development Programme and University Agricultural Technology Transfer Systems in Nigeria Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Literature review 4 Chapter Three: Methodology 8 Chapter Four:

Results and discussion 13 Chapter Five: Conclusion and policy issues 36 References 40 Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1 Differences in technology generation practices between the ADP and university 25 Table 2 Differences in technology transfer practices between the ADP and university 28 Table 3 Socio-economic indices of agro-technology staff in the ADP and university system 31 Table 4 Socio-economic indices of farmers under the agro-technology transfer systems of ADP and university 32 Table 5 Farmers level of use of agricultural technology packages 33 Table 6 Farmers perception of contact methods used by the ADP and university 34 List of Figures Figure 1 Conceptual framework for a comparative analysis of ADP and university technology transfer system 9 Figure 2 Organogram of Isoya Rural Development Project of Obafemi Awolowo University 16 Figure 3 Administrative structure of agricultural media resources and extension centre of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta 18 Figure 4 Administrative structure of the cooperative extension center of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi 20 Figure 5 Organogram of ADP agro-technology transfer system 22 Figure 6 A proposed linkage structure for university and ADP in agrotechnology transfer in Nigeria 37

Figure 7 Proposed merge structure for university and ADP in agrotechnology transfer in Nigeria 39 List of Tables and Figures Nigerian agricultural technology transfer policy since political independence emphasized transfer of technical information to farmers using various agro-technology transfer systems. Currently, the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) and University are the prominent government funded agro-technology transfer systems in Nigeria. This study comparatively analysed technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems of the ADP and university in Nigeria. The study covered three out of five agro-ecological zones in Nigeria, namely: Southwest, Central and Northwest. Four states, namely: Benue, Kaduna, Ogun and Osun, were selected on the basis of geographical spread and the presence of universities with agro-technology transfer programmes. The staff of the ADPs and universities in the selected states and farmers served by the two agencies, constituted the research population. On the whole, 524 randomly selected respondents comprising from the ADPs and 160 from the universities made up the sample size for the study. One structured questionnaire for management staff and another for field extension workers; and an interview schedule for farmers, were utilized for data collection. Percentages, mean scores and t-test were the statistical tools adopted in analysing the data. The findings showed that the ADP had larger staff and wider technology transfer coverage, compared with the university. The organizational structure of the university had at most two supervisory steps,

compared with the ADP, which had four supervisory steps. The extension staff of the ADP had better tenets of field agro-technology transfer services compared to the field extension staff of the university with limited field exposure and orientation. The technology transfer staff of the University had better conditions of service and were more committed towards the farmers compared with the ADP, which lacked appropriate staff motivation. ADP had high rate of staff turnover compared with the University, which currently has high selectivity in staff recruitment. University organized agro-technology generation through research efforts in their faculties of agriculture compared with ADP which carried out limited technology generation activities, mostly through on-farm research (OFR) and on-farm adaptive research (OFAR) trials. ADP organized constant and decentralized staff training for field extension workers with poor training facilities, and provided inadequate training incentives to staff, compared to the universities, which provided competitive training incentives to extension workers. The ADP provided information on more agro-technologies and had higher socio-economic impacts on participating farmers, compared with the university. The study recommends restructuring of the ADP and university agro-technology transfer systems, taking into consideration their areas of comparative strengths and weakness. The location of agro-technology services within the university system is strongly recommended of the government contributing funds at different levels. Abstract Published by the African Technology Policy Studies Network, P.O. Box 10081, 00100 General Post Office, Nairobi, Kenya

 2002 African Technology Policy Studies Network (ATPS) ISBN: 9966-916-42-3 rinted by Newtec Concepts P.O. Box 00800, Westlands 14180 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 4449849, Fax: 4450399 newtec@bidii.com ABU Ahmadu Bello University ADP Agricultural Development Programme ADPEC Agricultural Development Project Executive Council AMREC Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre AMRECMAC Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre Management Committee APMEU Agricultural Project Monitoring and Evaluation Unit ARMTI Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute BESs Block Extension Supervisors BRM Block Review Meeting CEC Cooperative Extension Centre CRN Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria EA Extension Agent FACU Federal Agricultural Coordinating Unit FRI Forestry Research Institute FVS Fixed Visit Schedule HOUs Heads of Units IAR Institute of Agricultural Research IAR&T Institute of Agricultural Research and Training IITA International Institute for Tropical Agriculture IKS Indigenous Knowledge System LCRI Lake Chad Research Institute LGC Local Government Councils LRI Leather Research Institute MOA Ministry of Agriculture NAERLS National Agricultural Extension Research Liaison Services NAPRI National Animal Production Research Institute NARSs National Agricultural Research Institutes

NATSP National Agricultural Technology Support Project NCRI National Cereals Research Institute NFDP National Fadama Development Project NIFOR National Institute for Oil Palm Research NIHORT Nigerian Institute for Horticultural Research NRCRI National Root Crops Research Institute NSPRI Nigeria Stored Products Research Institute Abbreviations and Acronyms OAU Obafemi Awolowo University OFAR On-Farm Adaptive Research OFR On-Farm Research PCU Project Coordinating Unit PFT Project Facilitating Training PMU Project Management Unit REB Research - Extension Board RH Regional Heads RRI Rubber Research Institute SMS Subject Matter Specialists SPATs Small Plot Adoption Techniques TOT Transfer of Technology TRM Technology Review Meetings T&V Training and Visits VRI Veterinary Research Institute ZEO Zonal Extension Officer ZM Zonal Manager ZSs Zonal Supervisors ATPS Working Paper Series No.Title Publication Authors 1 The Effect of Economic Reform on Technological Capability T. Adeboye M. S. D. Bafachwa O. A. Bamiro 2 Methodological Issues in Science and Technology Policy Research T. Adeboye N. Clark

4 Rehabiliation in the Manufacturing Sector in Tanzania S. M. Wangwe 5 Agricultural Policy and Technology in Sierra Leone C. Squire 6 Effectiveness of Agricultural Research Extension in Sierra Leone A. K. Lakoh 8 Generation and Utilization of Industrial Innovation in Nigeria O. Oyeyinka G. O. A. Laditan A. O. Esubiyi 9 Irrigation in the Tuli Block, Botswana Water Conservation Techniqes or Optimal Strategies I. N. Masonde 10 Endogenous Technology Capacity and Capability Under Conditions of Economic Policies of Stabilization and Structural Adjustment S. E. Chambua 11 Technology and Female-Owned Business in the Urban Informal Sector of South-West Nigeria R. O. Soetan 12 Technology Innovations Used to Overcome the Problem of Resource Scarcity in Small Scale Enterprises C. W. Ngahu 13 Financing of Science and Technology Institutions in Kenya During Periods of Structural Adjustment M. Mwamadzingo 14 Impact of Economic Liberization on Technologies in Enterprises Processing Agricultural Produce P. Madaya 15 Technology and Institutions for Private Small and Medium Firms B. Oyeyinka 16 Institutiona Reform, Price Deregulation and Technological Change in Smallholder Agriculture E. C. Eboh 17 Adoption of Agricultural Technologies by Rural Women under the Women-in-Agriculture Program in Nigeria D. S. Ugwu 18 Electrical Power Utilities and Technological Capacity Building in Sub-Saharan Africa Brew-Hammond 19 Investigation into Factors that Influence the Diffusion and Adoption of Intentions and Innovations from Research Institutes and Bwisa, H. M. and Universities in Kenya Gachui 20 The effects of Economic Reforms on the Quality on the Quality of Technological Manpower Development in Nigeria H. E. Nnebe

21 Issues in Yam Minisett Technology Tranfer to Farmer in Southern Michael C. Madukwe Nigeria Damain Ayichi Ernest C. Okoli 22 Technological Respone to Telecommunication Development: A Study of Firms and Instituions in Nigeria Adeyinka F. Modupe 23 Gender Differences in Small Scale Rice Farmers Access to Technological Inputs in Enugu State of Nigeria David Nwoye Ezeh 24 Adoption of Sustainable Palm Oil Mini-Processing Technology in Nigeria Nkechi Mbanefoh 25 Domestic Energy Situation in Nigeria: Technological Implications Olabisi I. Aina and Policy Alternatives 26 Technological Capability in the Nigerian Leather Industry: A Uka Enenwe, Firm-Level Case Study Enwere dike, Anthony Ihuoma, Mike Duru. 27 Agricultural Research and Delivery in the South-Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: A Case Study of the SG-2000 Approach in Hitosa District G. Yiemene 28 Impact of Computer Technology Adoption on Banking Operations in Nigeria A. I. Odebiyi 29 Agricultural Technology Adoption on Small-Holder Farmers: Policy Policy Options for Nigeria J. O. Olusi 30 Donor Funding and Sustainability of Rural Water Supply and Aja Okorie, Sanitation Technologies in Swaziland M. Mabuza, U. Aja-Okorie. 31 Promotion of Production and Utilization of Ceramic Roofing Materials in the Informal Housing Industry in Sierra Leone Tamba Jamiru 32 Technology Transfer and Acquisition in the Oil Sector and Government Policy in Nigeria R.I. Chima E.A. Owioduoki

R.I. Ogoh 33 Acquisition of Technological Capability in Africa: A Case Study of Indigenous Building Materials Firms in Nigeria Yomi Oruwari Margaret Jev Opuene Owei 34. Analysis of Indigenous Knowledge in Swaziland: Implications for Sustainable Agricultural Development Musa A. Dube Patricia J. Musi Dr. M.C. Madukwe and Dr. E.C. Okoli are both Lecturers at the Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. Dr. S.O. Eze is a lecturer with the Ebonyi State Agricultural Development Programme Abakaliki, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. For more information on this series and ATPS, contact: The Executive Director The African Technology Policy Studies Network 3rd, Floor, The Chancery, Valley Road P.O. Box 10081 00100 General Post Office Nairobi, Kenya Tel: 254-2-2714168/092/498 Fax: 254-2714028 Email: info@atpsnet.org Website: http://www.atpsnet.org 1 This report examined the concept of agro-technology transfer and presents success indices. Features of each of the agro-technology sub-systems (generation, transfer and utilization) are discussed. The agro-technology generation sub-system, ecological distributions of agroresearch institutes and universities are presented. The agro-technology transfer sub-system, the historical involvement and

organizational structure of different universities, and the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) are examined. Similarly, the characteristics of the agro-technology utilization sub-system are presented. Two theoretical approaches commonly used in the analysis of agricultural technology transfer systems were examined and eight basic issues for comparative analysis of agrotechnology transfer systems were identified using the systems approach. This is followed by the comparison of the agro-technology generation practices of the ADP and university agro-technology transfer systems based on: the organization of staff, and farmer characteristics; use of agricultural technology packages; and contact methods. Recommendations and policy options for restructuring agro-technology transfer practices in Nigeria are presented. The problem Nearly two decades after independence, in 1960, the Nigerian agricultural technology transfer policy emphasized transfer of technical information on specific cash crops using regional Ministries of Agriculture (MOA) in the north, west and east. The period saw the establishment of agro-research institutes, namely: Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) in the north; Moore Plantation in the west; and National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike in the east, to link research and extension services. With state creation in 1968, the main focus of agro-technology transfer policy was food production through the Federal and states MOA. It was slow in achieving the desired objectives of agro-technology transfer, because of the bureaucracy. However, it was the sole agency responsible for agro-technology

transfer until the 1976 local government reform, which gave some specific agricultural technology transfer functions to Local Government Councils (LGC; Mijindadi, 1983). Some defects of the LGC technology transfer policy include poor job description of staff, lack of mobility and absence of staff training and contacts with farmers (Madukwe, 1996). Further reforms of the Nigerian agricultural technology transfer Chapter One Introduction 2 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 policy gave rise, in the seventies, to the involvement of universities and Agricultural Development Projects (ADPs) to transfer agro-technology to farmers. Initially, five conventional universities namely: Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; University of Ibadan, Ibadan; University of Ilorin, Ilorin; University of Nigeria, Nsukka; and Obafemi Awolowo University, IleIfe, were involved. Later, the university of agriculture policy was initiated in 1988 to amplify the efforts of conventional universities in agro-technology transfer services to farmers. This led to the establishment of the University of Agriculture at Abeokuta, Makurdi and Umudike. In addition, the successes of enclave ADPs at Ayangba, Lafia, Ekiti-Akoko, Gusau, Katsina and Gombe, gave rise to state-wide ADPs in the 1980s. Currently, the ADP and university are the prominent government funded agro-technology transfer systems in Nigeria. This pluralistic approach to government participation and funding in the transfer, has the potential for duplication of effort and waste. Beyon (1998) noted that African countries spend between 10 and 20 times on agro-technology transfer compared to developed countries.

An agricultural technology transfer system has identifiable organizational structure linked to institutionalized source of new agro-technologies and independent staff with appropriate channel for disseminating research information to end users (Madukwe, 1995). A viable agricultural technology system has technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems with notable indices of success. The success indices of a viable transfer system include: constant creation of technical knowledge, extension staff training and contacts, harmonious existence with other agencies, orienting technologies towards utilization and provision of information on necessary farm inputs (Mijindadi, 1994; Swanson,1997). The study considered the university and ADP as agrotechnology transfer systems and comparatively analysed the two systems using a systems approach. The systems approach recognizes three sub-systems necessary in implementing a viable agricultural technology transfer system, namely: technology generation, transfer and utilization. The question that arises is as to what extent ADP and university have developed these indices to justify their operation. The ADP used the training and visits (T & V) strategy which focuses on improving the knowledge and skills of small holder farmers, using technology testing and transfer techniques on state-wide coverage. On the part of the university, emphasis has been on generating relevant agricultural technologies within the faculties of agriculture and using available resources to transfer these technologies to the farmers at selected farming communities. What comparative advantages exist between the university and ADP in agro-technology transfer practices to the farmers? What were the practices

adopted by the university and ADP in sourcing research information, implementing staff training and contacts? What social and economic changes among the farmers could be attributable to each of these systems and what differences exist between farmers served by the two systems? What methods were employed by the ADP and university in persuading farmers to use improved technical packages? What policy lessons could be learned from the approaches of the university and ADP systems to enhance agricultural technology transfer process in Nigeria? ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 3 Purpose of the study The overall purpose of this study was to comparatively analyse the agrotechnology transfer systems of the ADP and university in Nigeria. Specifically, the objectives were to: (1) compare the agro-technology generation and transfer practices of university and ADP, (2) compare the socio-economic impacts of the agro-technology transfer systems of university and ADP, and (3) identify necessary policy issues to ensure the effectiveness of the agro-technology transfer process in Nigeria. 4 Literature is organized under agricultural technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems. Agricultural technology generation sub-system Agricultural technology has remained a viable tool for improving the productivity of the agricultural sector in Nigeria. Thus, a major step in the improvement of food production in Nigeria has been the

increase in the number of the national and international agro-research institutes from 3 in 1963 to the current 18. Agro-technology generation in Nigeria is carried out by National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) with mandate in arable crops, forestry and tree crops; livestock; fisheries; extension and training; and processing and storage. According to Okon (1998), the aim of agro-technology generation is to address better techniques of land development, crop and animal management and achieve higher yields. Thus, agricultural technology generation system is aimed at providing modern technology and facilities to communities (Bolade, 1990; Eziator, 1990 and Njoku, 1991). According to Ayichi (1995), agricultural technology involves the application of mechanical, chemical and biological inputs such as tractors, fertilizers, agro- chemicals, livestock breeds, high yielding crops, storage and processing facilities, to improve food production. Technology generation is influenced by determination of need,and research and management of technology generating institutions (World Bank, 1994). Previous research reports blamed ineffectiveness in technology generation on conventional research activities operated in Nigeria. Which have poor consideration of farmers problems, skill and scale of operation and financial status and orienting of research to journal publication (Zaria et al., 1994). In developing countries such as Nigeria, the acute lack of collaboration between the social and biological scientists on farming system research (FSR), has limited research efforts in generating relevant technologies (Van den Ban and Hawkins, 1992). The net effect of FSR adopted as a policy in the activities of the agricultural technology generation subsystem

is the evolvement of technologies best suited to existing farming system and accepted by farmers (Asiabaka, 1998). According to Blum (1991), most research efforts in technology generation in developing countries are wasted due to their inadequate orientation to farmers needs and utilization. Farinde (1996), added that the bureaucracy domiciled in the Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, under which research Chapter Two Literature Review ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 5 institutes operate in Nigeria, contributes to the inability of research into meeting technology needs of farmers. In the 1990s, emphasis on agricultural technology generation has shifted from euphoria of spectacular results to appropriateness of these technologies to the existing farming system. An agricultural technology is considered appropriate, if it provides a cost-effective level of productivity and has minimal effects on the environment (McNamara, 1990; Okigbo, 1991). According to Platt (1989), a critical issue to the appropriateness of technologies is in developing them at local levels using skills and perception of the people who live in the rural communities. Presently, technology generation sub-system in Nigeria experiences poor and uncertain funding, frequent government administrative changes and lack of policy initiative in research. According to Vengara and McDicken (1990), technologies which are capable of improving food productivity at farm level should evolve from well funded autonomous research sub-system, so as to

provide timely solution to priority problems of farmers. Farmer-driven research effort must be based on policy setting, utilization of research personnel, continuous flow of information and evaluation of its activities (ISNAR, 1984). The technology generation efforts should be oriented towards social desirability, economic feasibility and existing practices of the farmers as a priority (Monu and Omole, 1983; Farinde, 1996). Technology generation in Nigeria results from the national agricultural research system, namely; university faculties of agriculture and veterinary medicine including universities of agriculture, and international and national agricultural research institutes, which operate in Nigeria. The objectives of the research institutes are impressive, but the issues of establishing a workable relationship between institutional technology design and indigenous knowledge system (IKS), constitutes a critical issue in technology generation in Nigeria. A workable relationship between institutional technology generation and indigenous knowledge system is largely desired to enhance orientation of technologies towards utilization and overall participation of farmers in extension systems (Rajasekaran et al., 1993). This is necessary to achieve compatibility of technologies to farmers practices and overall suitability to field needs. Several studies such as those of Igodan and Adekunle (1993), Rolings and Pretty (1997), and Anyanwu (1997a), have highlighted the need for indigenous knowledge in generating appropriate technologies and overall sustainability in food production. Agricultural technology transfer sub-system There is a problem of choice of the right type of agricultural technologies and methods with which to

communicate relevant technologies to small scale farmers. To enhance adequate food production in Nigeria, demands that farmers should be reached with appropriate technologies that are economically viable and culturally acceptable (Sokoya, 1998). Utilizing appropriate methods in reaching small scale farmers with relevant agricultural technologies in order to improve their knowledge, skill and overall attitude towards agricultural productivity, is agricultural technology transfer. According to Farinde (1996), technology transfer involves complex processes consisting of diverse structures, and relationship of inter-dependent factors and related variables, aimed at enhancing adoption of innovations. 6 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Agricultural technology transfer constitutes a crucial sub-system in implementing any agro-technology process. Effective technology transfer involves organizing of personnel in a hierarchy, staff training and contacts, and adopting of appropriate communication process. According to Ogolo et al., (1994), effective communication is a pre-condition for feedforward and feedback mechanisms, necessary for sustainable agricultural technology transfer. Agricultural technology transfer as a communication technique requires a two-way directional information movement, which involves six elements, the source, message, channel, receiver, effects and feedback (Chinaka, 1993). Thus, effectiveness in technology transfer involves well articulated communication elements in the transfer process (Obinne and Anyanwu, 1991). In other words, effective integration of communication elements, enhances sustainability in communication of ideas and consequent transfer of agricultural technology to farmers.

Asiabaka (1998), added that formal arrangement of staff in the transfer of agricultural technology, enhances participatory approach in which farmers views are represented and practical orientation in which efforts are focussed on immediate problems of farmers. Chuta (1992), blamed inadequate organization and overall ineffectiveness of Nigerian agro-technology transfer systems on low and unsuitable qualifications of personnel operating in the system. According to Madukwe (1995b), most administrative staff in Nigerian agro-technology transfer organizations, have little training in basic issues of administering agro-technology transfer process. Organization of activities in any agricultural technology transfer system demands a chain of administrative commands, which largely depend on legal basis of operation (Adebayo, 1995). A legal base is required in order to define a number of programmes, determine qualification of personnel, manner of entry and exit, discipline, training and conditions of service (Madukwe, 1996). Legal basis indicates a policy document establishing the technology transfer system. Such policy document spells out the structure, budget, level of autonomy and clients. Effective technology transfer system places emphasis on simplicity in the structure of transfer organization in terms of the relationship existing among staff of the organization. Basically, we have vertical and horizontal relationships between staff of a technology transfer organization. Whereas vertical relationship indicates top down and bottom up relationship among staff of the organization, horizontal relationship depicts relationship between staff at the same level in an organization. Effective vertical relationship

requires well-articulated horizontal staff relationship. Thus, inadequate horizontal relationship of extension staff would largely limit meaningful vertical structure and overall efficiency in implementing technology transfer. Previous studies by Uwakah (1985) and Ijere (1992), have blamed delay in transfer of agricultural technologies and overall lack of adoption of recommended agrotechnologies on inadequate budgetary allocation and absence of autonomy. Autonomy indicates degree of independence necessary in establishing efficiency and sustainability in implementing agricultural technology transfer. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 7 Agricultural technology utilization sub-system Agro-technology transfer programmes are directed towards farmers with diverse social, educational, political and economic needs (Obibuaku, 1986). Studies by Titilola (1994) and Igbokwe (1995), identified socio-cultural and economic characteristics of farmers, as factors influencing farmer participation and adoption of agricultural technologies in Nigeria. Socio-cultural characteristics of farmers include, family size, farm size, social organizations, value orientation, belief system, prevailing norms, educational background and attitudes of farmers towards change and material well being (Jibowo, 1992; Sene, 1994). According to Ijere (1992) and Nweze (1995), economic characteristics of farmers include: income status, labour availability, internal resource mobilization, investment rate, saving potentials and marketing pattern. Husain et al. (1993) blamed

inadequate adoption and ineffectiveness of most agro-technology transfer programmes on lack of consideration of the socio-cultural practices and technology incompatibility with the economic status of farmers. Ayichi (1995), added that the impact of any agricultural technology transfer system could be measured on the basis of extent of changes in the socio-cultural and economic characteristics of the farmers. Impacts are enduring changes in the social and economic conditions of farmers, which have resulted from project effects (Obiechina and Otti, 1985; Ladele, 1991). Some related studies like those of Ogunbameru (1986) and Agwunobi (1993), reported that farmer participation in planning and project implementation, enhanced greater socio-economic impacts. They concluded that training of farmers facilitated adoption of recommended practices. The impacts of any extension system relate to improvement in the sociocultural and economic characteristics of the farmers, such as increases in farmers income and improvement in overall standard of living. Earlier impact studies identified increases in the levels of participation in programme planning, hectare of land cultivated by farmers, positive changes towards agriculture and greater access to social services, as success indicators (Aihonsu, 1992). 8 Conceptual framework Two theoretical approaches commonly employed in the analysis of agricultural technology transfer systems are: transfer of technology (TOT) and systems approaches. The TOT model posits a linear relationship between knowledge creation, exchange and user subsystems. Traditionally, the TOT model

involves a vertical one way directional communication, featuring technology generation, exchange and utilization sub-systems. The model is biased towards knowledge creation rather than knowledge users. Thus, knowledge creation commonly deals with those problems that are considered relevant to researchers interests, rather than orienting research efforts towards utilization. In other words, new technologies are constantly generated by knowledge creation sub-system and given to knowledge exchange sub-system, for transfer to knowledge user sub-system. The TOT model puts little emphasis on co-ordination between the technology generation and transfer sub-system (Asiabaka, 1998). The situation permits only feedback from knowledge user to knowledge creation sub-systems through knowledge exchange sub-system. This is a major defect of the this model. It neglects the role of both general and agricultural education as synergistic factors, enhancing the potential value of newly acquired agricultural knowledge. The approach also neglects the central impact, which policy making or the disastrous effects of its lack, has on the agricultural knowledge system. The systems approach seems to correct the imbalance inherent in the TOT model. It was introduced for the analysis of agro-technology transfer system by Nagel (1980). The approach was further amplified by Swanson and Claar (1983), Lionberger (1986), Rolings (1988a, b) and Blum (1989). The utilization of the systems approach for the analysis of agricultural technology transfer systems is based on the assumption that interactions exist between technology generation, transfer and utilization

sub-systems. The situation permits direct linkages and feedback across sub-systems interface. In other words, there are linkages between technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems, as well as direct linkages and feedback between technology generation and utilization sub-systems. This is schematically represented in Figure 1. Chapter Three Methodology ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 9 Figure 1: Conceptual framework for a comparative analysis of ADP and university technology transfer system. TECHNOLOGY GENERATION SUB-SYSTEM: . Evolution of new technologies . Involvement of Extension workers in technology . Distance to technology transfer subsystem. . Participation and control by user subsystem TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SUBSYSTEM . Degree of autonomy

. Legal statues . Cost of effectiveness Staff training . Extension teaching methods . Organizational structure . Number, type and rank of personnel . Level of interaction with other exchange sub-system. . Degree of influence by user sub-system TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION SUBSYSTEM . Social compatibility and economic feasibility of technologies . Categorization of user in technology transfer practices . Level of participation of users in technology transfer . Degree of farm inputs availability . Acceptance of new technologies . Improved statuses of technology users Types of

linkages in the ADPS and universities extension system INTERACTION BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY GENERATION AND TRANSFER SUB-SYSTEM IN ADP AND UNIVERSITY INTERACTION BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND UTILIZATION SUB-SYSTEMS IN UNIVERSITY AND ADP Types of linkages in the ADPS and universities extension systems DIRECT LINKAGES AND FEEDBACK BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY GENERATION AND UTILIZATION SUB-SYSTEM IN ADP AND UNIVERSITY 10 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 The schema suggests mutual interactions and linkages between the major sub-systems as a precondition for successful implementation of agricultural technology transfer systems. In other words, the schema posits users influence in technology generation and participation in technology transfer practices, as well as involvement of technology transfer personnel in technology generation. Earlier research

reports indicated that in a successful agricultural technology transfer system, technology users form part of a research team and participate in technology transfer activities (Ajala and Madukwe, 1992). The schema posits eight basic issues for consideration in the comparative analysis of agro-technology transfer systems of the ADP and university in Nigeria, namely: (1) sources of new technologies, (2) degree of linkages between technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-systems, (3) extent of users influence on technology generation and participation in technology transfer practices, (4) level of technology transfer workers involvement in technology generation and management of field trials, (5) degree of autonomy in the technology generation, transfer and utilization sub-system, (6) number, type, ranks and distribution of extension personnel, (7) degree of staff training and contacts with clients system, and (8) level of social compatibility and economic feasibility in technology generation and transfer programmes. The schema suggests that a successful technology generation involves variables such as field driven technology evolution, technology transfer workers and farmers participation in technology generation and a social distance span between technology transfer sub-systems. In addition, a successful technology transfer sub-system depends on issues such as legal status, organizational structure, budgets, autonomy of service and qualifications of staff. Also in significance is the staff training, teaching methods, level of interactions with other exchange sub-systems and degree of user influence over transfer activities.

Similarly, a successful technology utilization sub-system involves issues relating to social compatibility and economic feasibility of technologies, categorization of users in technology transfer, level of participation of users in technology transfer and degree of input availability. Levels of acceptability of new technologies and socio-economic characteristics among technology users in terms of improved productivity, income levels, and desired changes in knowledge, skills and attitudes towards extension programmes are also important. We argue that agro-technology transfer is an interactive process involving researcher, farmer and other key operators in agricultural development. The acid test of the success of agro technology transfer systems of the ADP and university is the extent to which their operations approximate the indices of a successful agricultural technology transfer system. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 11 Study population Nigeria is politically administered under a 36 state structures and a federal capital territory, Abuja. There are 37 ADPs, one in each of the 36 states and the federal capital territory, Abuja. In addition, there are seven federal universities with agricultural technology transfer programmes. The seven federal universities include Ahmadu Bellow University, Zaria; University of Agriculture, Abeokuta; University of Ibadan, Ibadan; University of Ilorin, Ilorin; University of Agriculture Makurdi; Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; and University of Agriculture, Umudike. All the ADPs and universities staff, and farmers in their operational areas, constituted the target population.

Sample size The study selected four states, namely Benue, Kaduna, Ogun and Osun. Their selection was based on the existence of universities with agro-technology transfer outreach programmes and geographical spread. Both the universities and ADPs in the selected states were comparatively investigated. From each university, the director of the agro-technology transfer unit and three departmental staff; one from research and two from agro-technology transfer (extension services), were selected. At field level, 12 agro-technology transfer workers and 24 farmers from each of the universities, were randomly selected. Thus, a total of 64 university agro-technology transfer workers and 96 farmers served by the universities, were randomly selected. At the headquarters level of each of the state ADP, the directors of three core sub-programmes, extension, technical and rural institution development, and one support subprogramme, administration, were involved. At the zonal level, three zones were selected per state, the Zonal Manager (ZM) and Zonal Extension Officer (ZEO) of each zone were selected. Three Subject Matter Specialists (SMSs) per zone (Agronomy, Women in Agriculture, and Livestock) were selected. At the block level, six Block Extension Supervisors (BESs) and six Extension Agents (EAs) (made up of one EA per block), were selected per zone. At the farmers level, 36 farmers per state (made up of 12 farmers per zone, that is, two farmers per selected EA), were randomly selected. Thus, 55 extension staff and 36 farmers per state ADP were involved in the study. A total of 220 extension workers and 144 farmers served by the ADP were involved in the study.

Thus, a total of 524 respondents made up of 284 extension workers and 240 farmers, constituted the sample size for the study. Data collection Data were obtained from both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources include interview with ADPs and universities staff as well as farmers served by the two agencies. Two sets of questionnaires, one for management staff and the other for field workers, were used to collect data from workers of both 12 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 agencies. Secondary data were derived from assessment of documented materials on agricultural technology transfer practices of the agencies. The management staff questionnaire measured organizational structure of the ADP and university, specific extension programmes, how programmes were initiated, frequency of implementation, inputoutput relationships, and funding, monitoring and evaluation. Section A of both extension staff questionnaire and the farmer interview guide, measured issues comparing technology generation in ADP and university, and involvement of extension workers in technology generation, and the influence of users in technology generation. Section B measured autonomy, legal status and structure of extension services, staff training contacts, and qualification, and farmers participation in technology transfer practices of the ADP and university. Section C investigated variables relating to type and number of technologies transferred to the farmers, input provision, method of communication adopted in transfer process and socio-economic characteristics of farmers. Assessment was also made under section C to

determine farmers evidence of expansion in farm holdings and use of agro-technology packages. Data analysis The information collected was analysed using percentages (based on the proportion of total respondents indicating an opinion to a question), mean scores,(average of the scores of individual responses to particular question on a 1-5 continuous scale), standard deviation and group t-test. The biodata of respondents and overall organizational structure of the ADP and university, were analysed using percentages. Sections A and B, which compared the means for agrotechnology generation and transfers, respectively, were analysed using group t-test at 5% probability for significance. Finally, section C which compared the extension systems of the ADP and university on socio-economic indices of the agencies and participating farmers, was analysed using percentages. 13 The findings are presented as follows: (1) features of the agro-technology transfer systems, (2) comparison of agricultural technology generation, and sub-systems transfer, and (3) comparison of socio-economic characteristics of ADP and university. Features of the agro-technology transfer systems In this section, information is provided on: (1) ecological distribution of agro-research institute in Nigeria, (2) involvement of university in agro-technology transfer, and (3) features of the ADP agro-technology transfer system. Ecological distribution of agro-research institute in Nigeria The Federal Government of Nigeria divides the country into five agroecological zones. The agroecological zones of Nigeria are southeast, southwest, central, northwest and northeast.

Southeast zone: The zone consists of nine states, Abia, Akwa Ibom, Anambra, Bayelsa, Cross River, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo and Rivers. Two research institutes are located in the southeast zone, National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Umudike; and Nigeria Stored Products Research Institute (NSPRI), Port Harcourt. Also, five federal universities with faculties of agriculture are located in the southeast zone. These universities which are involved in agro-research activities include: University of Nigeria, Nsukka, University of Uyo, Uyo; University of Calabar, Calarbar; Federal University of Technology, Owerri, and Federal University of Agriculture, Umudike. Southwest zone: The zone consists of eight states, Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ondo, Ekiti, Edo and Delta. The agro-research institutes located in the southwest ecology include: Institute of Agricultural Research and Training (IAR&T) Ibadan; National Institute for Oil Palm Research (NIFOR), Benin; and Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN), Ibadan. Others include: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Ibadan, Nigerian Institute for Horticultural Research (NIHORT) Ibadan; Forestry Research Institute Chapter Four Results and Discussion 14 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 agro research activities in the southwest zone. The universities include University of Ibadan,Ibadan; Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; Federal University of Technology, Akure; and University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. The central agro-ecology zone: The central agro-ecology zone consists of the Federal Capital Territory,

Abuja; Plateau, Niger, Nassarawa, Kogi, Kwara, Benue and Taraba states. The central zone has research institutes, National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI), Badeggi; Veterinary Research Institute (VRI), Vom; and Agricultural and Rural Management Training Institute (ARMTI), Ilorin. Also, federal universities with faculties of agriculture in the central agro-ecology zone include University of Ilorin; and University of Agriculture, Makurdi. Northwest zone: States within the northwest zone include Sokoto, Kebbi, Zamfara Katsina, Kaduna, and Kano. Research institutes located within the northwest are National Animal Production Research Institute (NAPRI), Shika-Zaria; Leather Research Institute (LRI), Kano; National Agricultural Extension and Research Liaison Services (NAERLS), Zaria; and IAR, Zaria. The federal universities located within the ecology, which engage in agricultural research activities are Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria; and Usman Dan Fodio University, Sokoto. Northeast zone: This zone consists of Borno, Yobe, Jigawa, Bauchi, Gombe and Adamawa states. The Lake Chad Research Institute (LCRI), Maiduguri has the responsibility of linking research and extension services in the northeast zone. Three federal universities, University of Maiduguri; Abubarkar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi; University of Technology, Yola, are involved in the agro-research activities in the northeast zone. Involvement of university in agricultural technology transfer The idea of involving universities in agricultural technology transfer services could be traced to the attempt by British universities establishing educational programmes outside the campus to assist farmers

benefit from research efforts of the university (Obibuaku, 1983). However, the practical step to involve universities in organized agro-technology transfer services was by Cambridge University in 1876 and Oxford University in 1878. The approach under British system was to give organized lectures under universities supervision to associations of men and women on the results of universities research efforts (Ogunfiditimi and Ewuola, 1995). In the United States of America, involvement of universities in agro-technology transfer services commenced with passing of three legislative acts between 1862 1914, to link research, educational institutions and informal educational orientation. The issue of agrotechnology transfer in the American universities system was aimed at incorporating adult education, agricultural extension, nutrition, home economics and mass communication in the educational programmes of the universities. To implement this, the cooperative extension services were formed in each state in association with the Land Grant Colleges, and farmers were granted land by the Nigeria Federal Government, to operate under the advisory services of the major universities (Obibuaku, 1983). ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 15 In Nigeria, universities involvement in agricultural technology transfer came into existence in the early seventies. The universities technology transfer system in Nigeria was modelled along the cooperative extension system of the United States (Ogunfiditimi and Ewuola, 1995). The approach involves the faculties of agriculture of universities utilizing research reports of their academic departments and their

independent staff, in implementing agro-technology transfer to selected farming communities. In the past, five conventional universities, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; University of Ibadan, Ibadan; University of Nigeria, Nsukka; University of Ilorin,Ilorin; and Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; were involved. Currently, the Isoya Rural Development Project of the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife; Badeku Rural Change Project of University of Ibadan, Ibadan; and the Agricultural Research and Extension Complex of the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, have persisted in agrotechnology transfer services to farmers in Nigeria. In addition to the functional conventional universities, the universities of agriculture located at Abeokuta, Markurdi, and Umudike assist in agro-technology transfer services to farmers in Nigeria. The universities approaches to agro-technology transfer differed among the universities, including the universities of agriculture. In Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), the Isoya Rural Development Project is a unit responsible for implementing agro-technology transfer services to the farmers. The Isoya Rural Development Project is in the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, but headed by separate staff below the rank of a Director. The head of the Isoya Rural Development Unit reports directly to the Head, Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology (Figure 2). 16 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Figure 2: Organogram of Isoya Rural Development Project of Obafemi Awolowo University. Source: Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria. VICE CHANCELLOR

HEAD DEPT. OF FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY HEAD DEPT. OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION HEAD DEPT. OF AGRIC. EXTENSION & RURAL SOCIOLOGY HEAD DEPT. OF SOIL SCIENCE HEAD DEPT. OF AGRONOMY HEAD OF UNIT: ISOYA RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FIELD AGRIC. EXTENSION ADVISORS CONTACT FARMER/GROUPS DEAN, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 17 The programme of the universities of Agriculture is designed to promote a more democratic and liberalised transfer of agro-technology to farmers. At the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, the agro-technology transfer programme is implemented by the Agricultural Media Resources and Extension Centre (AMREC), while the Cooperative Extension Centre (CEC) implements similar programmes at the University of Agriculture, Makurdi. Administratively, AMREC of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, consists of a board chaired by the university vice chancellor. Highly placed members of the society outside the university community are

also members. Other members of the board are deans of the academic colleges and the Director. Next to the board is the AMREC management committee (AMRECMAC). The Director chairs the AMRECMAC and other members include deans of colleges and the Director of Research and Development Centre of the University. Below the committee are seven relevant programme areas of agricultural technology, crops/forestry, livestock/wildlife/fisheries, post-harvest technology, women in development, training/ demonstration, and development communication and environmental protection, headed by programme leaders. Sectoral heads, further down the administrative hierarchy, are in charge of crops, forestry, livestock, wildlife, fisheries, processing, storage, utilization, cooperative groups, and adult functional/political education. Also included are groups in extension and farmer training, agricultural shows, education for coping with changes, health and nutrition education, information publicity, audio-visual aids, radio, printing, waterology, and toxicology. The agro-technology transfer services of AMREC are implemented by specialists in crops, forestry, livestock, wildlife and fisheries, and there are also processing, storage, utilization and support services sectors. The administrative structure of AMREC under University of Agriculture, Abeokuta is shown in Figure 3. 18 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Figure 3: Administrative structure of agricultural media resources and extension centre of the University of Agriculture, Abeokuta. Source: University of Agriculture, Abeokuta.

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 19 At the University of Agriculture, Makurdi, the administrative structure of the Cooperative Extension Centre (CEC) includes the Vice Chancellor, who is the Chairman of the Research-Extension Board (REB). Other members of the REB include the Director CEC and deans of relevant colleges. This board is the policy body that supervises the centres activities. The board coordinates the research and extension activities of the centre. The approved activities of the CEC are grouped into three major programmes, extension services, women in development and development communication. A senior extension officer heads each programme. Furthermore, the agro-technology transfer programmes are implemented through the grassroots and training programmes, which participate in adaptive research and demonstration, extension delivery, workshop and technology, review meetings (TRM). The women in development sub-programme operates the women in agriculture programme, which implements home economics and workshops programme, and the development communication unit implements audio-visual and publication programmes. The audio-visual programme operates radio, TV, graphic and photography activities; the publication programme is in charge of editorial and printing services. The administrative structure of the CEC is shown in Figure 4. 20 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Vice-Chancellor Director of Co-operative Extenstion Women in

Development Extension Service Development Communication Economics Workshop Extension Workshop Delivery Radio/TV Graphics Photography Editorial Printery Monthly Technology Review Meeting Adaptive Research and Demonstration Women in Agriculture Programme Grassroot Programme Training Programme Audio-Visual Programme Publicity Programme Contact Farmers/Contact Group Village Extension Advisor Figure 4: Administrative structure of the cooperative extension centre of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi. Source: University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 21

The agro-technology transfer services of the CEC are made available to farmers by officers of the grassroots extension programme; and the other programmes support activities of the grassroots programme. However, the focus of the grassroots agro-technology transfer programme of the CEC is to provide prompt solutions to the farmers practical problems using research findings of the University of Agriculture, Makurdi. Features of ADP agro-technology transfer system The ADP is modelled as a reform of the regulatory, highly bureaucratized office, based on MOA agrotechnology transfer system. The operation of ADP is preceded by the enactment of an edict giving it a legal status. An edict is a legal document, which gives formal approval for the establishment and operation of the ADP, as an agro-technology transfer agency in a state. Under the edict establishing each ADP, administrative, staffing, funding, supervisory, monitoring, evaluation and co-ordinating procedures are spelled out as basis for operation. The system posits that only integrated agricultural and rural development approaches applied simultaneously could reduce the problems of low productivity among the farmers. Its primary focus is the small holder farmer. However, operational technique of the ADP is to raise farmers productivity, increase total farm output, and improve income levels and standard of living of the small scale farmers. To achieve these primary objectives, the system adopted the features in Figure 5 as follows. 22 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Figure 5: Organogram of ADP agro-technology transfer system. Source: Project Coordinating Unit (PCU) Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Abuja, Nigeria.

ADPEC PMU DIRECTOR ENGINEERING DIRECTOR RID DIRECTOR TECHNICAL SERVICE DIRECTOR EXTENSION SERVICES DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATION DIRECTOR FINANCE DIRECTOR PME DIRECTOR IIRD DEPUTY DES. ZEO BES. BEA EA CONTACT FARMERS WGS KEYS: DES: Director Extension Services ZN: Zonal Manager ZEO: Zonal Extension Officer SMS: Subject Matter Specialist BES: Block Extension Agent

EA: Extension Agent WG: Women's Group ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 23 Vertical structure: The ADP in each state is organized for ease of operation, into four levels, headquarters, zone, block and circle supervisory. The headquarters level is responsible for policy articulation, budgeting, staffing, discipline, administrative control, supervision and coordination of extension activities. The ADP is organized into two broad subprogrammes, core and support. The core sub-programmes are extension, technical, engineering services and rural institution development. The support sub-programmes are finance, human resources development, administration and management, and planning, monitoring and evaluation. Administratively, the agricultural development project executive council (ADPEC) oversees activities of the ADP, including workplan, budget approval, senior staff appointment and discipline. The Programme Manager (PM) serves as an administrative head in the ADP and in conjunction with other members of the project management unit (PMU) make workplan and budget proposals, appoint junior staff and promote and discipline the staff. At the headquarters, the PM is the administrative head. Below the headquarters is the zone, which is in charge of six to eight blocks and headed by a ZM. Assisting the ZM in the implementations of the programmes are the ZEOs and a team of SMSs. Next to the zonal level is the block level, which represents an area with similar cropping/ farming pattern. Occasionally, a block corresponds to a political area known as local government council.

However, a Block Extension Supervisor (BES) who is in charge of six to eight circles heads the block. The circle is headed by an extension worker called Extension Agent (EA). The job of extension contact with farmers is executed at the circle level by the EA. The programme management unit (PMU): One basic step towards achieving effective administrative control and technical command in the ADP is the involvement of a virile PMU in implementation of programmes. The PMU is virtually autonomous in decision-making and project implementation and is constituted by the heads of six to eight sub-programmes and zonal managers, with the programme manager as chairman. Instituitionalized on-farm testing and adoptive trials: ADP has as linkage mechanisms, on-farm research (OFR); on-farm adaptive research (OFAR) and small plot adoption techniques (SPATs). The OFR is a researcher managed farm testing technique, aimed at testing the result of his laboratory research. It is set up to test the viability of the research results under farm situation. On the other hand, OFAR is a joint management technique between the researcher and farmer. It is implemented to test the adaptability of OFR results under various farm locations/environments. The OFAR also serves as a means of developing and validating new agro-technologies before transfer to the farmers. It enhances farmer participation in technology generation, design and supply services. Similarly, SPAT is a contact technique. It is a teaching laboratory aimed at enhancing communication on proven agricultural technologies. The SPATS is a demonstration, which is organized by field extension

workers at farm level in order to enhance increased knowledge and skill acquisition of the relevant agricultural technologies among the farmers. Necessary farm inputs for implementing SPAT are provided by the farmers, except in situations where such technologies are entirely new in the farming communities. Tripartite funding arrangement: Funding arrangement in the ADP system involves the World Bank, and Federal and State Governments. From the inception of the ADP system, the funding ratio has 24 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 been: World Bank (66%), Federal Government (20%) and State Government (14%). Currently, with the partial withdrawal of the World Bank sponsorship as a lending agency, the ADP has sought to involve local government councils and non-governmental organization (NGOs) in the funding arrangement. Regular staff training and contact with farmers on fixed scheduled basis: Training is organized as a matter of policy in the ADP, either as external and sponsored by the ADP or in-house. External training is organized in form of workshops, conferences and seminars, either within or outside the country, mainly for management staff and subject matter specialists to update their knowledge and skills. Similarly, in-house training is organized for headquarters, zonal and block levels staff. Headquarters training is organized in form of project facilitating training (PFT) for members of the PMU, workshop and specialized training in selected areas of ADP operations and technology review meetings (TRM). At zonal level, training is organized for zonal management staff, such as the ZM, ZEO, Zonal Supervisors

(ZSs) and a team of SMSs at TRMs, and monthly or fortnightly training for extension workers. At block level, training is organized in form of block review meeting (BRM) for field extension workers, aimed at fine-tuning relevant production recommendations acquired at FNTs and reviewing of field situation activities. In addition, the ADP system has scheduled contact with farmers under fixed visit schedule (FVS). The FVS is adopted to enhance agro-technology transfer process and technical backstopping, necessary in achieving efficiency of feedback mechanism between farmers and extension workers. Provision/maintenance of rural infrastructure: In the past, ADP was engaged in the provision of rural feeder roads, boreholes and storage projects, to enhance contacts with farmers. Currently, it has adopted the National Fadama Development Project (NFDP), National Agricultural Technology Support Project (NATSP) and maintenance of existing feeder roads. Under these projects, ADP is required to construct access and fadama roads, wash bores and tube wells, and organize the farmers into groups and associations, aimed at enhancing teamwork among the farmers. This assists the farmers in embracing irrigation agriculture and maintaining basic rural infrastructure located in farming communities. Institutionalised monitoring, supervision, and coordinating activities: The operations of the extension system of ADP is supported by monitoring, supervizing, and coordinating agencies, such as the agricultural project monitoring and evaluation unit (APMEU), and the federal agricultural coordinating unit (FACU), recently renamed PCU. The APMEU is organized into headquarters and regional offices

for ease of operations. The headquarters offices are headed by Heads of Units (HOUs) and regional offices by Regional Heads (RHs). The APMEU collates and analyses quarterly and annual reports on workplan and budgets, crop yield, and performance evaluation activities on ADP staff. On the part of FACU, emphasis is on monitoring, supervision and coordination of the ADP projects. FACU activities are organized in line with the five ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 25 agro-ecological zones in Nigeria with HOU at the national headquarters level and RH at the regional offices. Comparison of agro-technology generation practices of the ADP and university The results showed a significant difference (t = 2.03;p<0.05) in the levels of autonomy enjoyed by the ADP and university in generating agricultural technologies. The university (0 = 4.26) had greater freedom in generating agricultural technologies than the ADP (0 = 3.54). Table 1: Differences in technology generation practices between the ADP and university Technology generation Means indicating practices level of existence (max.=5) ADP University t-cal. Autonomy in technology generation 3.54 (1.47)+ 4.26 (1.19)+ 2.03* Technology generation based on field problem 4.05(0.93) 4.43(1.22) 1.80* Farmers participate in field research trials 4.00(0.10) 3.52(0.96) 1.78* Technology generation activities keep pace with

current field practices 3.76(1.11) 3.32(1.0) 1.67* Adaptive research trials are located in farmers field 3.17(1.11) 2.84(1.17) 1.18 Extension agents participate in field research trials 4.20(1.07) 3.89(1.49) 1.09 Adequate research facilities and incentives to workers 2.84(1.11) 3.15(1.17) 1.18 Distance between technology generation and technology transfer component 2.89(1.26) 2.21(1.36) 2.17* Farmers co-finance adaptive research trial 1.82(1.17) 1.63(1.14) 0.67 *P < 0.05. + Data in parenthesis are standard deviations Autonomy in technology generation had been identified as a major index of success in agricultural development (Blum, 1991; Madukwe, 1996). Autonomy in agrotechnology generation means independence, non-interference in problem identification and uninterrupted technology design and supply services. 26 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 The ADP and university differed on the extent to which their technology generation activities were oriented to farmers field problems (t = 1.80). Orientation of technology generation towards field problems, means directing research activities towards addressing the immediate and pressing field problems of farmers. Such technology generation effort should be cost-effective with minimum adverse effect on farmers environment (McNamara, 1990). The analysis indicates that ADPs (0 = 4.05) technology generation activities had poorer orientation towards the farmers field problem, compared to the university

(0 = 4.43). One reason for this could be because university research efforts were based or targeted at special problems of known farmers in a geographical location, while the research results implemented by ADP were conducted by research institutes. They provide answers to problems affecting farmers in diverse geographical location, thus making such solutions less targeted to the specific needs of farmers. Orientation of technology generation efforts towards farmers fields would ensure that new technologies evolve from farmers field problems. Evolution of technologies from farmers field problems had been identified as an index of a successful agro-technology generation subsystem (Blum, 1991). Other areas of differences in technology generation between the agrotechnology transfer systems of ADP and university, include levels of farmer participation in field research trials (t = 1.78), and the extent to which the technologies generated kept pace with current field practices (t = 1.67). Farmers participation in field research trials contributes largely to orienting agrotechnologies towards sustaining farmers interests. This practice ensures that technologies evolve from current field practices and problems. The indication was that farmers participated less in field trials under the university system (0 = 3.52), compared with the ADP (0 = 4.0). It was observed that though farmers participate less in terms of frequency of participation in university field research trials, they were more involved, mostly at the early stages of planning. In the ADP system farmers were called in later in the research process, usually after the technology was developed in the entire process of field testing.

Also, the university differed with the ADP in the physical distance between their agro-technology generation and transfer sub-systems, (t=2.17). The close physical distance between the technology generating and transfer sub-systems could explain why in the university system the technology generated kept pace with field practices. Distance between technology generation and transfer sub-systems had been identified as a major factor influencing the quality and time of providing technologies to participating farmers (Blum, 1991; Madukwe, 1996). The ADPs were located farther from their technology generating research institutes, compared with the universities. It depended on distant research institutes as sources of agro-technology, compared with the universities, which basically sourced relevant technologies from their academic departments. The physical distance between the locations of the agency for technology generation and technology transfer of any agricultural technology transfer system, could increase the cost and time of providing technical information to the participating farmers. The analysis showed that university technologies would be more available to the participating farmers compared to the ADP, which would involve longer period and higher financial cost sourcing technologies from distant research institutes. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 27 Data showed that the ADP and university did not differ on practices such as locating research in farmers field (t=1.18); and involving field agents in the management of field trials (t=1.09). Other areas of similarity

include: provision of adequate research facilities and incentives (t=1.18); and farmers participation in financing adaptive research (t = 0.67). Locating adaptive research in farmers field, demands field agents involvement in research management in order to establish the desired targets. In addition, provision of necessary research facilities and incentives would contribute largely to meaningful involvement of the field agents and overall participation of farmers in financing adaptive research activities. Thus, the analysis indicates that the ADP and university in Nigeria had agricultural technology generation indices identifiable in a successful agricultural technology transfer system. The areas of discrepancies and similarities are policy issues for consideration in harmonising agrotechnology transfer practices of the ADP and university in Nigeria. Comparison of agro-technology transfer practices of the ADP and university Data (Table 2) indicate similarities between university and ADP in the use of farmers organizations (t = 0.72), existing local communication channels (t = 0.61), in-house staff training (t = 0.70), demonstration method (t = 1.26), and print and electronic media (t = 1.03) in agrotechnology transfer. Involvement of farmers organizations could enhance employment of existing communication, while adoption of inhouse staff training would enhance staff learning and contact strategies necessary in achieving effective agricultural technology transfer to the farmers. Learning by firms and operators of technology transfer agencies, has been identified as the key to effective transfer and diffusion of innovative capability (Mytelka and Tesfachew, 1999). 28 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35

Table 2: Differences in technology transfer practices between the ADP and university Technology transfer Means indicating issues level of existence (max.=5) ADP University t-cal. Disseminating technology through farmers organization 4.03(1.33) 3.34(1.53) 0.72 Categorizing farmers according to needs 3.0(1.20) 3.67(1.3) 2.16* Orienting extension services to suit client interests 4.02(1.12) 3.67(1.16) 1.87* Disseminating technologies through farmers existing communication channels 4.16(0.94) 4.05(0.62) 0.61 Conducting short in-house staff training 3.65(1.48) 3.63(1.34) 0.10 Provision of training incentives to staff 3.39(1.37) 3.42(1.35) 3.33* Use of demonstration methods 4.39(1.04) 4.05(1.22) 1.26 Use of print and electronic media 3.06(1.31) 2.74(1.10) 1.03 Knowledge of rural dynamics 4.16(1.17) 3.37(1.12) 2.71* *P< 0.05. + Data in parenthesis are standard deviations Table 2 shows that ADP and university differed in the practice of categorizing farmers for technology transfer (t = 2.16), extension orientation towards clients (t = 1.87) and use of external training for staff (t = 3.75). University system (0= 3.67) significantly used farmer categorization strategy in technology

transfer more than the ADP (0 = 3.0). In other words, technology transfer practices of the university were more oriented towards meeting the specific farming needs of farmers than those of the ADP. Categorization of farmers into groups for technology transfer is an important survival strategy for agrotechnology transfer agencies. Categorization meansorganizing farmers according to similar farming patterns and socio-cultural interest for the purpose of transferring agricultural technologies that meet their specific needs. Other areas where the ADP differed from university include provision of training incentives (t = 3.33) and field agents knowledge of rural dynamics (t = 2.71). ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 29 The university system (0 = 3.42) provided higher training incentives to field staff than the ADP (0 = 3.39) and the ADP staff (4.16) had better knowledge of rural dynamics than the university (x = 3.37). Thus, it is suggested that the university system takes complete responsibility for extension staff training, while the ADP utilize their rural orientation and concentrate efforts to contact the farmers. In this regard, the university should strengthen their training arrangement and facilities and the ADP should improve on sponsorship of staff training, and payment of necessary incentives to the field staff. Comparison of the socio-economic indices of the ADP and university agro- technology transfer systems Comparison of the socio-economic impacts of the ADP and university agro-technology transfer systems

on the organizational, staff and farmer characteristic was carried out using socio-economic indices (Tables 3 and 4). Organizational characteristics: The ADP had a supervisory to field staff ratio of 1: 8, compared to 1: 6 for the university. The university will make more effective supervision of field staff with the smaller number of field extension staff. The field staff farmer ratio was 1: 200 for the university as against 1: 5000 for the ADP. Field staff of ADP move through four supervisory levels to get in touch with the head of the programme, while the university counterpart has a direct link with the head of the programme. The more the supervisory levels, the longer the chains of communication and the more relevant agro-technology information could be diluted and distorted between source and end users. Similarly, the university has less outside interference with the organizational procedure and process than the ADP. The university had a stronger linkage between the agro-technology generation and transfer subsystems (0 = 4.60) than the ADP (0 =2.56). This situation from the perception of the operators of the two systems is based on factors such as the physical distance between the sub-systems, the age (that is the period of existence of the sub-systems), differences in the qualification of the staff of the sub-systems, and the information technology facilities available for information exchange between the sub-systems. The greater the physical distance between the two sub-systems, the less the level of linkage. Again, the more the differences in age and staff qualifications, the less the differences in information technology between the sub-systems and the

level of linkage. Linkage between technology generation and transfer sub-systems has been identified as a necessary ingredient for success in technology transfer. The agro-technologies transferred and method of transfer used by the university was more compatible with the cultural practices of the recipient environment than that of the ADP. Understanding the needs and aspirations of technology recipients is a basic ingredient not only in developing technologies appropriate to them, but choosing appropriate methods for transferring such technology to them. The university with better trained and experienced technology transfer staff appears better equipped to handle the intricate process of identifying the needs and aspirations of farmers. Again majority of ADP 30 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 farmers (87.6%) reported that the ADP system was directed mostly to adults, and that of the university included youths in their programmes. The agro-technologies transferred by the two systems showed a wider distribution involving crops (23.2%), livestock (19.3%), processing (18.7%) agro-forestry (17.5%) and fisheries (21.2%) for ADP, than the university with a distribution of crops (40.1%), livestock (29.1%) and processing (30.7%). The ADP transferred crop based technologies in the area of yam/maize/cassava/egusi or telferia alternate row intercrop, cassava, rice, maize, sweetpotato and cowpea and the university concentrated on cassava, rice, maize and cowpea. In the livestock area the university concentrated on poultry and cattle and the ADP worked on poultry, cattle, sheep and goat. Most of the universities did not transfer technologies on agro-forestry and fisheries.

In terms of intra-organizational relationship among staff, 63.16% of university, compared with 55.94% of ADP staff, participated in intra-organizational relationship. Intraorganizational relationship patterns of staff are of two forms: vertical which takes place between superior and subordinate and horizontal, which takes place between staff at the same supervisory level. The university had higher intraorganizational relationship than the ADP. Also 42.30% of ADP and 36.05% of university staff were mobile, indicating low level of staff mobility in the two systems. Mobility of technology transfer staff enhances timeliness in implementing agro-technology transfer programmes. The analysis further shows that 17.83% of the ADP and 25.81% of university top management staff received in-house or external training, sponsored by their agencies. Under the ADP system, the field agents had regular in-house training, mainly the fortnightly training sessions. In contrast, the field extension staff of the university did not have similar regular staff training on production recommendations. Adequate staff training had been identified as an enabling factor towards achieving the success of any agricultural technology transfer system (Swanson, 1997). In terms of cost of providing staff training, the ADP spent Naira (N)6,270 compared with university, which spent N4,677 per staff a year. We recommend that the ADP could leave training to the university due to the comparative advantage of university in the area. Staff characteristics: Majority of the university (89.5%) and ADP (89.34%) agro-technology transfer workers were males. This indicates inadequate female agro-technology transfer workers in the two

systems. This may bias agro technology transfer efforts toward male farmers, when 70% of farmers in Nigeria are females (Anyanwu and Agu, 1996). Inadequate female agrotechnology transfer agents have been identified as a limiting factor in transferring agro-technology to female clientele (Sokoya, 1998). The majority of university staff (53%) and ADP staff (51%) were between 40 and 48 years old, and the next major group, 30% for university and 18% for ADP were 49-59 years old. The university had relatively older staff than the ADP. Similarly, 66% of staff of university had work experience of between 16 and 30 years and 60% of ADP staff had work experience of 6 and 25 years, the latter being a relatively young/ recent agency than the university. The few years of work experience in the ADP could also be a result ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 31 of staff turnover caused by poor work condition. The result indicates that agro-technology transfer staff of ADP and university had at least the West African School Certificate, that is 12 years of basic education. About 89% of university and 82% of ADP staff had at least a university bachelors degree. The indication is that staff of the two agro-technology transfer systems possessed relevant educational qualification for achieving the objectives of agro-technology transfer programmes. Selected socio-economic characteristics of agro-technology transfer staff of the ADP and university are presented in Table 3. The Table shows that a higher percentage of staff of the ADP than the university, owned a personal house, an electricity generating plant and had a better knowledge of rural life.

Ownership of a personal house and generating set, is a reflection of the external funding facility which ADP had, prior to this study. However, the superior knowledge of rural life better equips ADP staff for more effective performance as rural agro-technology transfer agents. Again a higher percentage of university staff more than the ADP were classified as having improved nutritional status, owned radio and television, were free from superstitious beliefs, and had additional academic qualification, better promotional prospect and higher technical skills. Generally, the university system appears to have more positive impact on the socio-economic characteristics of staff than the ADP. The implication is that the university will retain high quality agrotechnology transfer staff than the ADP, as it offers better conditions of service. Table 3: Socio-economic indices of agro-technology staff in the ADP and university system Socio-economic indices ADP (%) University (%) Own personal house 34.10* Improved nutritional status 30.67 49.26 Electricity generating plant 1.64 Radio/television 60.33 86.84 Furnished parlour and bedroom 38.20 40.33 Positive attitude towards jobs 42.11 46.72 Freedom from superstition 22.95 36.84 Improved knowledge of rural life 85.41 48.95 Additional academic qualification 18.20 41.05 Promotional prospects 47.54 80.11 Higher technical skills 57.89 70.49 * Multiple responses Farmer characteristics: Majority of the university (84.3%) and ADP (92.17%) farmers were males indicating bias of the two agro-technology transfer systems against women.

The majority of farmers with the university (86%) and ADP (78%) were in the active age group of 40 to 60 years. Years of contact of farmers with agro-technology transfer agencies ranged from 1 to 15 for 32 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 the bulk of ADP farmers (73.2%) and 6-20 years for the bulk of university farmers (76%). This indicates that farmers with the university system had longer period of exposure to technology transfer influence than farmers with the ADP system. The university system served mostly farmers without any formal education (64%) more than the ADP (40%), which served mostly literate farmers. Table 4 shows that a comparatively higher percentage of farmers under the ADP own personal houses (75.76%), used modern agricultural equipment (71.79%), were mobile (69.39%), paid their tax (85.29%) and possessed positive attitude towards agro-technology transfer (78.26%). Table 4: Socio-economic indices of farmers under the agro-technology transfer systems of ADP and university Socio-economic indices ADP (%) University (%) Furnished personal house(s) 75.76* 54.55 Wrist, table or wall clocks 72.45 42.29 Radio & T.V. 87.32 76.67 Accessibility to pipe-borne water 45.16 52.94 Use of modern agricultural equipment 71.79 53.33 Mobility facilities (cars, motorcycles or bicycles) 69.39 55.32 Better nutritional statuses 97.02 93.04 Membership of farmers organisations 77.20 89.17 Access to farm inputs 74.60 86.01 Prompt payment of tax 85.39 79.13 Accessibility to modern health care 54.31 73.04

Freedom from superstition 70.49 69.61 Positive attitude towards agro-technology transfer services 78.26 42.16 Cultivated additional 0.2-0.5 ha in the last five years 63.00 100.0 * Multiple responses. A higher percentage of farmers under the university had access to piped water (52.94%), were members of farmers organizations (89.17%), had access to farm inputs (86.01%), modern health services (73.04%), and in the immediate past five years cultivated additional 0.2 to 0.5ha. of farm land (100%). Farmers use of agricultural technology packages Mean scores were used to determine the extent farmers employed technical packages given to them in their farm operations. Data in Table 5 show that ADP farmers (0 = 4.22) compared to the university farmers (0 = 4.39), generally used crop based technologies, while the university farmers (0 = 3.93) ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 33 compared to the ADP farmer (x = 4.12), used less of livestock technologies. The analysis indicates that the bulk of farmers who participated in the activities of the ADP and university, generally used crop and livestock based technologies in their farm operations. Table 5: Farmers level of use of agricultural technology packages __________________________________________________________ _____________ Agriculture sub-sector ADP University Mean (max.=5) Improved crops technologies 4.22 4.39 Improved livestock technologies 4.12 3.93 Fisheries 4.48 1.43

Agro-forestry 3.05 1.02 Use of agro-chemicals 3.46 3.71 Storage, processing and utilization technologies 4.10 4.17 __________________________________________________________ ______________ Furthermore, the ADP farmers almost had monopoly in the area of fisheries (0 = 4.48) and agro-forestry (0 = 3.05) based technologies. Other areas where agro-technology packages were utilized and agrochemicals had means of 3.46 for the ADP and 3.71 for the university farmers and processing and utilization with mean of 4.17 for the university, compared to the mean of 4.10 for the ADP farmers. Farmers of the university better adopted the use of agro-chemicals, processing and utilization technologies than farmers of the ADP. Farmer-contact methods of the ADP and university Data in Table 6 show the percentage of farmers reporting contact methods adopted by the agro-technology transfer systems of ADP and university. The analysis indicates that ADP used more of personal contact method (78.15%) than the university (63.13). The ADP (62.17) and university (64.05) systems, generally used the demonstration method. Demonstration technique adopted use of trial plots to concretize development of necessary skills among the farmers. Comparatively, the ADP performed better than the university in the use of personal contact method, agricultural shows and field days, and the university used demonstration, rural groups and posters as contact method with farmers. The higher the use of demonstration and personal contacts by field workers, the greater the achievement of any agrotechnology transfer system in securing increased awareness, interest and participation of farmers in

agro-technology transfer practices. 34 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Table 6: Farmers perception of contact methods used by the ADP and university Extension contact methods ADP (%) University (%) __________________________________________________________ ____________ Personal contacts of extension agents 78.15* 63.13 Demonstration 62.17 64.05 Agricultural shows 44.25 31.37 Field days 52.05 29.32 Involvement of farmer organizations and rural groups 50.17 60.16 Use of posters 28.16 39.05 Use of radio 9.45 10.06 Use of television 7.06 6.15 __________________________________________________________ ____________ *Multiple responses About 10% of university farmers and 9.45% of ADP farmers reported use of radio and 7.06% of ADP and 6.15% of university farmers indicated use of television as contact methods. The two systems did not use radio and television as major methods of agro-technology transfer. Radio and television have high potential for contacts, because of their suitability to reach a large number of farmers simultaneously and disseminate urgent farm programmes (Anyanwu, 1997). However, the minimal use of radio and television by the ADP and university conformed with the expectation of Osuji (1983), who noted that radio and television were the least used extension-farmer contact techniques in Nigeria. This study comparatively analysed three sub-systems necessary in implementing a viable agricultural

technology transfer system, namely, technology generation, transfer and utilization of the ADP and university in Nigeria. There is a consensus from the study that the agrotechnology transfer systems of ADP and university could be accredited with achievement in terms of set goals and operational targets. However, these agencies have not been supported by coherent and targeted agro-technology transfer policies. Harmonization of field technology transfer services based on comparative advantages, is required to achieve a functional agro-technology system in Nigeria. The frequency of the agro-technology transfer activities re-located through earlier organizations to the present ADP, and the number of other organizations that have been called in to undertake agro-technology transfer activities as part of their mandate, has decreased. This is a reflection of the unstable nature of the environment in which agrotechnology transfer activities have operated in Nigeria. These changes usually resulted in the movement of staff from one agency to another and in some cases in loss of status and prospect for career development. The university system has had a relatively stable environment with little interference from outside. Based on the analysis, one possible policy option to pursue will be to foster a loose linkage between the two agro-technology transfer systems, such that the university will concentrate on technology design and supply, and the ADP as the implementing arm in the agrotechnology transfer process (Figure 6). ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 35

Another policy option will be to merge the two systems and situate all government agro-technology transfer efforts in the county within the university system ( Figure 7). To pursue this option, we suggest that one university in each state of the federation be designated as an agro-technology transfer centre. With this option, agro-technology transfer staff will become staff of the university responsible for agrotechnology transfer in each state of the federation. This arrangement will allow agro-technology transfer staff to enjoy the relatively better condition of service existing in the university. This may help to increase morale, job satisfaction and reduce staff turn-over. With this option, the federal state and local governments can contribute funds and programmes for transfer activities. Based on the findings of this study the following policy issues are critical in achieving success, irrespective of the options considered. The university should utilize the advantage of better quality research personnel and facilities, to address appropriate technology generation. The crucial technology generation roles of the university could be enhanced by utilizing high staff strength of the ADP in identifying field problems. This could be achieved by constituting the field reports of ADP agrotechnology transfer workers into critical inputs for basic research and improving of extension staff training on adaptive research management. The ADP had more field staff evenly distributed than the university and we recommend that ADP takes over responsibility for field agro-technology transfer activities. This will include identification of farmers problem and adaptive research trials in farmers field. The university in turn could absorb the

ADP as their implementing arm, while concentrating on technology design and supply services and linking with other research institutes on behalf of the ADP. To take over agro-technology transfer at farmers level, ADP should identify existing farmers field problems and subsequently implement adaptation trials and pursue enhanced training of field staff. Considering the comparative advantage of university over the ADP in terms of training facilities, qualities of training personnel and payment of incentives to staff, an agro-technology transfer policy that will allow the university to take over all staff training functions should be pursued. The ADP should concentrate on increasing sponsorship of staff for training and improving the payment of necessary incentives to staff after training. There will be need to strengthen staff training arrangement of the universities to meet staff training needs. Effective extension staff training under the universities, demands appropriate decentralization and adoption of the zonal and block office arrangement of the ADPs in providing extension staff training. The situation could imply improved logistic support for staff training and increased budgetary allocation to extension, in order to enhance payment of training incentives to trainees. The gender bias in staffing against women is a serious shortfall of the two systems. This bias against women is also manifested among farmers. There is need to pursue a policy that will substantially increase the number and quality of female agro-technology transfer staff in two systems. This will be one major way of ensuring that the majority of farmers in Nigeria, mainly female, are reached. Similarly, there is need for a policy that will make it mandatory for agrotechnology transfer institutions and systems

to specifically target their programmes on women. 36 The ADP should evolve an arrangement for using multiple farmer contact methods. Use of group approach and employment of existing rural communication patterns are policy options that should be pursued. This would enhance effective contact and facilitate farmers participation in agro-technology transfer services of the ADP. Examined as an agro-technology system, we observe that the linkage between technology generation and technology transfer sub-systems was weak in the system and strong in the university system. The ADP, as an agro-technology transfer system is a relatively younger organization, compared with the cooperating technology generating agencies. Most of the research agencies generating agro-technology for it were established in the 1960s and the cooperating ADPs were established in the 1980s. Our observation points to the difference in age of the agencies as an important issue that reduced cooperation between the sub-systems. The research agencies perceived the ADP as a relatively young and inferior agency to deal with. Consequently, its capability as an agro-technology transfer system to meet with the challenges of establishing new inter-organizational relationship with agro-research agencies, was absent. In the university system which showed a stronger link between the technology generation and transfer sub-systems, this difference in age did not exist. Another policy issue which this study is highlighting is the academic qualification differential existing between the two sub-systems under the ADP. Most of the research staff had at least a masters degree

and most of the ADP staff had at most a bachelors degree certificate. Most of the technology-generating staff in the cooperating research agencies had comparatively higher academic qualification than technology transfer staff. Most of the ADP staff were apathetic in dealing with the research staff. The Chapter Five Conclusion and Policy Issues ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 37 Figure 6: A proposed linkage structure for university and ADP in agrotechnology transfer in Nigeria. RESEARCH INSTITUTES UNIVERSITY ADP FARMERS Agro-technology generation Agro-technology transfer 38 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 ADP staff complained that the research staff see and treat them as people without knowledge. Thus, in developing an agro-technology transfer system the academic qualifications of the staff involved in technology generating and transfer sub-systems, should be harmonized. One other policy issue that played a role in weakening the link between the technology generation and transfer sub-systems of the ADP was the difference or nonsynchronization in the period of funding. The ADP came into existence with liberal external funding from the World Bank at a time when the

structural adjustment programme was adversely affecting the capability of the research institutes to generate agro- technology. This set off balance its agro-technology system. A holistic approach to developing or restructuring an agro-technology system, rather than dealing with each sub-system is an important policy option. The growing knowledge-intensity of agroproduction of rural farm level should be complemented by agro-technology generating and transfer subsystems or institutions. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 39 Figure 7: Proposed merge structure for university and ADP in agrotechnology transfer in Nigeria. RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY FARMERS Agro-technology Generation and Transfer 40 Adebayo, A. (1995). Principles and Practice of Public Administration in Nigeria; Revised edition; Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd., pp. 18-27. Agwunobi, C.A. (1993). Impact of the Shell Petroleum Agricultural Extension Programme on the Participating Farmers in Imo State. M.Sc. Project, Department of Agricultural Extension, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. Aihonsu, J.O.I. (1992). Group Farming Approach to Food Production and Rural Development: the Experience of Opticom Farm Scheme in Ogun State, Nigeria. In Rural Development in Nigeria:

Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the NRSA, S.S. Olomola and A.C. Nwosu eds., pp.106119. Ajala, A.A. and Madukwe, M.C. (1992). The Relevance of Plant Protection Research in Nigeria to Farmers Needs. Bangladesh Journal of Training and Development; Vol.5 No.1. Ajayi, A.R. (1996). Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Impact of the Ondo State Ekiti-Akoko Agricultural Development Project on the Rural Farmers. Ph.D Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. Anyanwu, A.C. (1997a). The Role of Extension in Agricultural Credit Administration in Nigeria, Nigerian Journal of Co-operatives and Rural Development, pp. 74-79. Anyanwu, A.C. (1997b). Appropriate Extension Communication Techniques for Interaction with Rural Farm Women. Journal of Agriculture, Technology and Education, pp. 32-34. Asiabaka, C.C. (1998). Agricultural Technology Transfer Strategies in Nigeria in the Past Decade. Paper Presented at the 13th Annual Zonal REFILS Workshop, Umudike, National Root Crops Research Institute. Ayichi, D. (1995). Agricultural Technology Transfer for Sustainable Rural Development. In Rural Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Processes and Prospects, E.C. Eboh; C.U. Okoye; and D. Ayichi eds., Enugu: Auto-Century Publishing Company, pp. 126-134. References ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 41 Beyon, J. (1998). Financing the Future: Options for Agricultural Research Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford Policy Management, Oxford, pp. 17, UK.

Blum, A. (1989). The Agricultural Knowledge System in Israel. Rehovot, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Israel. Blum, A. (1991) What Can be Learned From a Comparison of Two Agricultural Knowledge System? The Case of the Netherlands and Israel. Agricultural Ecosystem and Environment, 33, pp. 325-339. Bolade, E.O. (1990). Technological Innovations for Nigeria Fisheries Development: Issues and Analysis. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension; Vol. 5, Nos. 1&2. Chinaka, C. (1993). Extension Communication System. Paper Presented at the Orientation Course for Extension Agents. Enugu State Agricultural Development Programme, 19-24, April. Chuta, C.R. (1992). Comparative Assessment of Training Needs for Agricultural Administrators in Imo and Borno States of Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria. Farinde, J.A. (1996). Effective Agricultural Technology Transfer: Need for a Model Extension Delivery Body for Sustainable Rural Development in Nigeria. In Sustainable Development in Rural Nigeria; Proceedings of the Eight Annual Ago-Iwoye Conference of the Nigerian Rural Sociological Association, S. Fola Adedoyin and J.O.Y. Achonsu eds., Ogun State University, Nigeria, pp. 119-131. Hussain, S.S., Byeric, D. and Heisey, P.W. (1994). Impacts of the Training and Visits Extension System on Farmers' Knowledge and Adoption of Technologies: Evidence from Pakistan. Agricultural Economics, pp. 39-49. Igodan, C.O. and Adekunle, O. (1993). Utilization of Indigenous Knowledge in Agricultural Production: the Role of National Agricultural Research System. In Perspective on Food Security in Nigeria.

Proceeding of The Nigerian Rural Sociological Association (Olomole, A.S. and Nwosu, A.C. eds.). Ijere, M.O. (1992). Leading Issues in Rural Development. ACENA Publishers, Enugu, Nigeria. ISNAR (1984). Considerations for the Development of National Agricultural Research Capacities in Support of Agricultural Development. The Hague, The Netherlands, pp. 20. Jibowo, A.A. (1992). Essentials of Rural Sociology; Gbemi Sodipo Press Ltd., Abeokuta, Nigeria. Ladele, A.A. (1991). A Socio-Economic Analysis of the Impact of Agricultural Co-operative Organizations on Rural Development in Nigeria. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 42 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Lionberger, H.F. (1986). Towards an Idealised Systems Model for Generating and Utilizing Information in Modernizing Societies; In Knowledge Generation, Exchange and Utilization, G.M. Beal, W. Disanayak and S. Konoshim eds., Wesview press, Colorado, pp. 105-134. Madukwe, M.C. (1995a). Agricultural Extension Systems and Strategies in Nigerias Rural Development In Rural Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Processes and Prospects, E.C. Eboh; C.U. Okoye; and D. Ayichi eds., Auto - Century Publishing Company, Enugu, pp. 314-320. Madukwe, M.C. (1995b). Factors Constraining on-the-Job Training and Farm Visits of Extension Agents in Enugu State. Journal of Education and Vocational Studies; 1 (61). Madukwe, M.C. (1996). Restructuring Fields Agricultural Extension Services in Nigeria: Issues and Options. In Sustainable Development in Rural Nigeria: Proceedings of the Eight Annual Conference of the Nigeria Rural Sociological Association. S.F. Adedoyin and J.O. Aihonsu eds., Ogun State University, Ago-Iwoye, pp. 314-320.

McNamara, R.S. (1990). African Development Crisis: Agricultural Stagnation, Population Explosion and Environmental Degradation. Address to the African Leadership Forum, Lagos, Nigeria, June 21. Mijindadi, N.B. (1983). Who Controls Nigerias Extension Services? The Case of Sokoto State. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension; Vol.1, No. 2. Mijindadi, N.B. (1994). Sustainability Issues in Agricultural Technology Transfer in Nigeria, Issues and Priorities for Nigerian Agriculture in the Twenty-First Century. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria, pp. 47-56. Monu, E.D. and Omole, M.M. (1983). Adoption of Recommended Farm Practice by Nigeria Cocoa Farmers.The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension. 1(2), pp. 4353. Mytelka, L.K. and Tesfachew, T. (1999). The Role of Policy in Promoting Enterprise Learning During Early Industrialization: Lessons for African Countries. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Study No.7. Nagel, U.J. (1980); Institutionalization of Knowledge Flow. Special Issue of the Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture; No.3. Nweze, N.J. (1995). The Role of Informal Finance in Rural Areas of Nigeria. In Rural Development in Nigeria: Concepts, Processes and Prospects, E.C. Eboh; C.U. Okoye and D. Ayichi eds., Auto-century publishing company, Enugu, Nigeria, pp. 192-199. Obibuaku, L.O. (1983). Agricultural Extension as a Strategy for Agricultural Transformation, University of Nigeria press, Nsukka, Nigeria, pp. 16-22. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL ... NIGERIA 43

Obibuaku, L.O. (1986). Agricultural Administration in Africa. Mimeo, University of Nigeria, Nsukka , Nigeria. Obiechina, C.O.B. and Otti, F. (1985). Socio-Economic Impact of Rice Production Technology on a Rural Area of Anambra State. Journal of Rural Development and Cooperative Studies, Vol.1, No.2, pp.132-146. Obinne, C.P.O. and Anyanwu, A.C. (1991). Communication Factors Determining Adoption of Improved Cassava Technologies in Small Holder Agriculture. Nigerian Journal of Rural Extension and Development, Vol. 1, No.1, pp. 15-23. Ogolo, M.B.; Adekunle, O.A. and Akinsorotam, A.O. (1994). Effective Communication in Sustainable Agricultural Technology Transfer by the 21st Century in Nigeria: Issues and Priorities for Nigeria Agricultural Extension in the Twenty-First Century. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria, pp. 69-75. Ogunbameru, B.O. (1986). Application of REAP Model in Evaluating Extension Education Programmes: Focus on Borno Farm Mechanization Training Programme. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Vol.4, No.1, pp.2-9. Ogunfidititimi, T.O and Ewuola, S.O. (1995). The Synthesis of Comparative Agricultural Extension Systems. Emuni Press Ltd., Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 87. Okigbo, B.N. (1991). The Challenges of Farming Systems Research in Tropical Africa. Agricultural Systems in Africa. Vol I, No 1, pp. 7- 16. Osuji, L.O. (1983). Institutional Factors Associated with Adoption of New Farm Technologies Among Farmers in Eastern Nigeria. The Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Extension; Vol.1, No.2, pp. 45-53.

Platt, Adam (1989). Introduction and Verification on Household Technologies. In In Praise of Cassava, U.D. Kaku eds., International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 231 . Rajasekaran, B.; Martin, R.A. and Warren, D.M. (1993). A Framework for Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge System into Agricultural Extension. Indigenous Knowledge and Development Monitor, Vol. 1(31), pp. 21-23. Roling, N. (1988a). Extension Sciences: Information Systems in Agricultural Development. Cambidge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Roling, N. (1988b). The Research-Extension Interface: A Knowledge Systems Perspective. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR), The Hague, The Netherlands. 44 ATPSWORKING PAPER SERIES NO. 35 Roling, N. and Pretty, J.N. (1997). Extensions Role in Sustainable Agricultural Development. In Improving Agricultural Extension. A Reference Manual. B.E. Swanson, R.P. Bentz and A.J. Sofranko eds., FAO, Rome, Italy. Sene, D. (1994). The Role of Research and Training in Agricultural Extension. In Agricultural Extension in Africa: Proceedings of an International Workshop, J.N Wolf ed., Yaounde, Cameroon, pp. 21-28. Sokoya, O.G. (1998). Extension in the Service of the Small Scale Farmer in Nigeria: a Participatory Approach for Sustainable Agricultural Extension. Paper Presented at the 4th Annual National Conference of Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria (AESON). University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria. Swanson, B.E. (1997). Strengthening Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages. In Improving Agricultural

Extension: A Reference Manual; B.E. Swanson; R.P. Bentz and A.J. Sofranko eds., Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, pp. 171-180. Swanson, B.E. and Claar, B.J. (1983). Technology Development Transfer and Feedback Systems Analysis, University of Illinois, Illinois, Interparks. Titilola, T. (1994). Knowledge System and Sustainable Agricultural Development in Africa: Essential Linkages. Indigenous knowledge and Development Monitor , Vol. 2, No, pp. 18-20. Uwakah, C.T. (1985). The Agricultural Extension Approach to Rural Development in West Africa. University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria, No.2, August, pp. 27-36. Van den Ban, A.W. and Hawkins, H.S. (1992). Agricultural Extension, Second edition. Agricultural University, The Netherlands, pp.7-41. Vengara, N.T. and McDicken, K.G. (1990). Extension and AgroForestry Technology Delivery to Farmers. In Agro-Forestry Classifications and Managements; K.G. McDicken and N.T. Vengara eds., Bangkok, Thailand. World Bank (1994). Agricultural Extension in Africa: African Technical Development Series, World Bank, Washington D.C., USA. Zaria, M.B; Arokoyo, J.O.; Omotayo, A.M. and Akpoko, J.E. (1994). Extension Issues and Priorities from a Multi-Sectoral Perspective; Issues and Priorities for Nigerias Agricultural Extension in the TwentyFirst Century. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Agricultural Extension Society of Nigeria, Nigeria, pp. 89-95. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 15 (No 2) 2009, 146-153 Agricultural Academy

COMPARISON OF USE OF IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES BY CONTACT AND NON-CONTACT FARMERS IN KWARA STATE, NIGERIA B. M. MATANMI and G. B. ADESIJI Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Kwara State, Nigeria Abstract MATANMI, B. M. and G. B. ADESIJI, 2009. Comparison of use of improved agricultural practices by contact and non-contact farmers in Kwara state, Nigeria. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 15: 146-153 The study compared the use of improve agricultural practices between the contact and non-contact farmers in Kwara State, Nigeria. A three-stage sampling technique was used in the selection of 189 contact and 163 noncontact farmers for the study. The data was analyzed with the use of simple descriptive statistics such as frequency counts and percentages. The findings showed that majority of contact (93.2%) and non- contact (95.7%) farmers were males and also 98.9% contact farmers and 100.0% noncontact farmers were married. The results further revealed that more than half (58.3%) of the contact farmers and non- contact farmers (52.6%) were between 45 and 60 years percentage of the contact farmers that have no formal education is smaller (39.8%) than non-contact farmers (64.0%). The result showed that 22 improved agricultural practices have been introduced into the state before the study was carried out. These were categorized into seven based practices. The study further showed that contact farmers used more of the improved agricultural practices than non-contact

farmers and there were significant differences in their use of these improved agricultural practices except in fisheries. It was therefore recommended that the contact farmer approach to agricultural information dissemination should continue. However, there is the need to periodically re-evaluate the performance of the contact farmers and make the needed changes or replacement of those who are not performing to expectations. Also an agricultural extension policy that adhere strictly to the criteria for the selection of contact farmers laid down by the Kwara Agricultural Development Project (ADP) should be followed strictly. Key words: comparison, use, agricultural practices, contact farmers and non-contact farmers, Kwara ADP E-mail: drgbolaadesiji@yahoo.com Introduction Rural development has been approached from many perspectives: political, industrial, economic and agricultural. Also, Nigerian government over time had instituted various programmes and policies to increase agricultural productivity Most of such programmes had been scrapped due to their failure in achieving set objectives but out of the existing few programmes, the Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) however, possesses a high prominence and state-wide status (Olarinde et al., 2005). It is one of such approaches 146 to rural development. The need to improve agricultural production and rural income led to its establishment in 1975 to break the barriers to agricultural development and more importantly, to meet the needs of the small-holders and rural farmers (Fasoranti, 2006). The Training and Visit Extension System was introduced into Agricultural Development Project to be

the main medium of communicating agricultural information to the farmers and also for the Training of Extension Staff. The Training and Visit Extension System has been in operation in Kwara State since 1988 when Ilorin Agricultural Development Project went state-wide (MANR, 1988). It is a well known fact that the critical function of agricultural extension is to enhance the diffusion of agricultural innovations generated from research, and more often, the success of an extension program is associated with the level of adoption of recommended agricultural innovations. A very important component of the Training and Visit Extension System is the contact farmer. Frequent contact between a Village Extension Agent (VEA) and all farmers in his circle is not possible. Instead, while being responsible, to all farmers, on each forthrightly visit the VEA focuses on a small, selected numbers of farmers contact farmers in each farmers group and meets with any other farmers who are willing and interested to attend his visits and seek his advice. Benor and Baxter (1984) contact farmers are selected according to the following characteristics Benor and Baxter (1984): They should represent proportionately the main socio-economic and farming conditions of their group and be regarded by other farmers as able and worthy of limitation; They should be practicing farmers; They should be willing to adopt relevant recommendations on at least a part of their land, and allow other farmers to observe the practices, and explain the practices to them; As far as the size and composition of farmers groups permits, they should come from different families;

and Their farms should be dispersed throughout the group area. Tenants, share croppers, young farmers, and women farmers may be contact farmers if they possess these characteristics. No major type of farmer should be over or under-represented among the contact farmers of a group. Once a contact farmer becomes disinterested in the work of the VEA or becomes in other ways ineffective, he should be replaced. In his work on the Training and Visit in Somalia, Chapman (1987) reported an overall adoption rate of around 60% for contact farmers and 26% for fellow farmers, after four years of extension activities in three key regions. Khan et al. (1984) reported that yields obtained by contact farmers in cotton, what, rice, maize and groundnut were higher than those of non-contact farmers in project and non-project farmers, while yield difference was significant between contact and non-contact farmers for cotton, it was not significant for other crops. In Tanzania, Due et al. (1987) found a significant difference in yields between contact and non-contact farmers, female headed and non T and V farmers yields per hectare of maize 1648,914,837 and 618kg respectively. In Nigeria, Windapo (2002) found that contact farmers were more aware of maize and Cassava technology recommended practices than non-contact farmers. They were also more knowledgeable than non-contact farmers in terms of the recommendations since they are more aware and more knowledgeable; they are also more accurate at implementation of recommendations. The objectives of this study are to: Determine the personal characteristics of contact and non-contact farmers; Identify the improved agricultural practices introduced

into the KwADP; Determine the use of improved agricultural practices by the contact and non-contact farmers in Kwara State Agricultural Development Project. Hypothesis There is no significant difference in the use of selected improved Agricultural practices (crop varieties, land preparation, agro-chemicals, animal rearing, tree fruits, soya products and use of fisheries) by contact and non-contact farmers. Comparison of Use of Improved Agricultural Practices by Contact and Non-Contact.... 147 Methodology The study was carried out in Kwara State of Nigeria. Kwara State came into existence on 2nd May, 1967 when the country was split into twelve states by the Federal Military Government headed by Major General Yakubu Gowon. Initially the state was called Central West State, but was later changed to Kwara a name derived from the local name of the River Niger in some parts of the State. The state was carved out of the defunct Ilorin and Kabba provinces (The Herald, Jan, 30, 2002). The unit of analysis was (1) contact and (2) non-contact farmers. A three-stage sampling technique was used in the selection of zones, blocks, cells and villages for the study. There are four zones in Kwara State ADP namely: Zone A has Kalama as the Zonal Headquarters, Zone B has Pategi as the Zonal Headquarters, Zone C has Malete and Zone D has Igbaja as Zonal Headquarters respectively. A total of 189 contact farmers were selected from the list of contact farmers with the Kwara Agricultural Development Project while a total of 163 noncontact farmers was selected using systematic random sample of selecting every 5th house in the selected

cells and villages for the study. Variables that were measured in the study were improved agricultural practices introduced into Kwara ADP and the use of improved agricultural practices by the contact and non-contact farmers. It was discovered that about 22 improved agricultural practices have been introduced into the ADP before the study was carried out. These were categorized into seven namely: Improved crop varieties, improved land preparation, use of agrochemicals, and use of animal rearing, tree fruits, soya products and fisheries. Use of improved agricultural practices was measured by assigning O for No answer and 1 for yes response. The data was analyzed using frequency counts and percentages to compare the responses of the contact and non-contact farmers. Results and Discussion Characteristics of the Respondents On Table 1 the general characteristics of the contact and non-contact farmers are presented: The table shows that more than half (58.3%) of the contact farmers and non- contact farmers (52.6%) were between 45 and 60 years. This is similar to the result of Windapo (2002) who found that most of the contact and contact farmers are middle aged in Oyo agricultural development programme. About 93.2% of the contact and 95.7% of the non-contact farmers were males. Majority of contact farmers (about 60.20%) had some level of formal education. On the other hand, about 64.0% of the non-contact farmers were without formal education. These results have an implication on the disparity between the adoptions of innovations such as improved seeds, modern farming practices etc. by the contact and non-contact. They also have implications

on their productivity (Nasko, 1990). Most of the contact (98.9) and non-contact (100.0) farmers were married but 1.1%of the contact farmers were divorced. Results further show that 78.6% of the contact and 80.3% of non-contact farmers had between 1-2 wives while 21.4% of the contact farmers and 19.7% of the non contact farmers had 3-4 wives. Less than one third of the contact farmers (26.6%) and non-contact farmers (28.8%) were small sized farmers with less than 2 hectares farm size while more than one third (contact farmers-40.2%, and 33.6% non-contact farmers) had between 2 to 5 hectares. The result also shows that 28.4% of contact farmers had less than 25 years of farming experience, while it is 36.6% for non-contact farmers. It also shows that 48.4% of contact farmers had between 25-40 years of farming experience, but it is 34.8% for non-contact farmers. There are 23.2% of contact farmers with over 40 years of farming experience while it is 28.6% for non-contact farmers. Improved Agricultural Practices Introduced into Kwara ADP Results in Table 2 show the improved agricultural practices introduced into Kwara Agricultural Development Project as at the time of this study. The table shows that about twenty-two improved agricultural practices have been introduced into the ADP. These 148 B. M. Matanmi and G. B. Adesiji twenty-two improved agricultural practices were as follows: Improved maize, improve cassava, improved cowpea, improve rice, improve yam, tractor plugging, animal plugging, see dressing, insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, fertilizer, grain storage, animal vaccination, goat rearing, sheep rearing, poultry keeping, citrus growing, cashew growing, soya beans milk, soya

beans cheese, fish keeping. These twenty-two improved agricultural practices were categorized into seven based on their similarity in usage, as shown on Table 2. Use of Improved Agricultural Practices by Respondents The results in Table 3 show the use of improved agricultural practices by contact and non-contact Comparison of Use of Improved Agricultural Practices by Contact and Non-Contact.... 149 Frequency % Frequency % Age (in years) <45 26 14 31 20.1 45-60 109 58.3 81 52.6 >60 52 27.8 42 27.3 Sex Male 177 93.2 154 95.7 Female 13 6.8 7 4.3 Marital status Single - - - Married 189 98.9 161 100 Divorced 2 1.1 - No of wives 1-2 136 78.6 118 80.3 3-4 37 21.4 29 19.7 Educ. Levels No formal Edu. 76 39.8 103 64 Adult/Arab Edu 61 31.9 29 18 Primary Edu. 40 20.9 14 8.7 Secondary Edu. 10 5.3 7 4.4 Tertiary 4 2.1 8 4.9 Farm size(Ha) <2 49 26.6 42 28.8 2-5 74 40.2 49 33.6 >5 61 33.2 55 37.7

Farming Exp. <25 years 54 28.4 59 36.6 25-40 92 48.4 56 34.8 >40 44 23.2 46 28.6 Source: Field survey: 2007 Contact farmers Non-contact farmers Table 1 Characteristics of the Contact and Non- Contact Farmers Characteristics farmers in Kwara ADP. Farmers who used at least one of the improved agricultural practices in each category were regarded to have used improved agricultural practices. Farmers who did not use any of the improved agricultural practices in each category were regarded as not using. As can be seen in Table 2, about 87.5% of contact farmers used improved crops varieties compared with 84.5% for non-contact farmers. The table shows that a high proportion of both the contact and non-contact farmers used improved crop varieties. This shows that the T and V extension system has been able to push to farmers in Kwara ADP improved crop varieties over the years. Results further showed that 44.5% of the contact farmers used improved land preparation while 55.5% did not use improved land preparation. Also 45.8% of NCF used improved land preparation while 54.2% did not use it. The data showed that a high percentage of both groups of farmers did not use improved land. This showed that improved land preparation of tractor plugging and animal plugging, is not very popular in Kwara ADP. This implied that the T and V extension has not been able to push this improved agricultural practices to the farmers. Results in Table 3 further showed that a high percentage of contact and non-contact farmers used

Agro-Chemical in their farming operations. About 87.1% for contact and 85.1% for NCF respectively used Agro-Chemicals. As for animal rearing a high percentage of contact farmers 87.1% used animal, rearing compared to 13.1% for non-contact farmers. With regards to use of Tree fruits, about 74.7% noncontact farmers used Tree fruits compared with 23.4% contact farmers. This finding is surprising because one would expect a high percentage of contact farmers to use tree fruits than non-contact farmers; as for soya products 71.5% of contact farmers used soya product compared with 63.5% for NCF. Finally, 32.6% of contact farmers used Fisheries compared with 30.5% for non-contact farmers. It can be seen that Fisheries even though it has been pushed through the T and V is not very popular in Kwara State. Testing of Hypothesis There was a major working hypothesis set for this study: There is no significant difference in the use of selected improved Agricultural practices by contact and non-contact farmers. Data in Table 4 is a result of the t- test analysis to 150 B. M. Matanmi and G. B. Adesiji S/No. Categorization of improved agricultural practices Improved gricultural practices 1 Improved Crop Varieties 2 Improved land preparation Tractor plugging and animal plugging 3 Agro-Chemical usage 4 Animal rearing 5 Tree fruits Citrus growing, and Cashew growing 6 Soya products Soya milk and Soya beans cheese 7 Fisheries Fish keeping Source: Field Survey (2007) Table 2 Improved agricultural practices introduced into Kwara ADP

Improved Maize, improved Cassava, improved Cowpea, improved Rice, and improved Yam Seed dressing, use of insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, chemical storage and fertilizer usage Animal vaccination, goat rearing, sheep rearing, and poultry keeping show whether there is significant difference in the use of selected improved Agricultural practices between contact and non-contact farmers. There were seven improved agricultural practices (crop varieties, land preparation, agro-chemicals, animal rearing, tree fruits, soya products and use of fisheries) considered. Out of all the practices, six showed significant differences. These included crop varieties, land preparation, agro-chemicals, animal rearing, tree fruits and soya products. The values were as follows: crop varieties (t=3.913, p=0.00), land preparation (t=3.903, p=0.00), agro-chemicals (t=5.084, p=0.00), animal rearing (t=3.996, p=0.00), tree fruits (t=5.011, p=0.00) and soya products (t=5.062, p=0.00). All these were as a result of the fact that contact farmers generally first use new agricultural Comparison of Use of Improved Agricultural Practices by Contact and Non-Contact.... 151 No. % No. % a Use of improved crop Varieties Yes 165 87.3 136 84.5 No 24 12.7 25 15.5 Total 189 100 161 100 b Use of improved land preparation Yes 77 44.5 71 45.8 No 96 55.5 84 54.2 Total 173 100 155 100

c Use of Agro-Chemical Yes 162 87.1 137 85.1 No 24 12.9 24 14.9 Total 186 100 161 100 d Use of Animal rearing Yes 162 87.1 21 13.1 No 24 12.9 139 86.9 Total 186 100 160 100 e Use of Tree Fruits Yes 141 23.4 118 74.7 No 43 76.6 40 25.3 Total 184 100 158 100 f Use of Soya Products Yes 133 71.5 101 63.5 No 53 28.5 58 36.5 Total 186 100 159 100 g Use of Fisheries Yes 59 32.6 45 30.5 No 122 67.4 104 69.5 Total 181 100 149 100 Source: Field Survey (2007) C.F. N.C.F. Table 3 Use of improved gricultural practices by respondents Improved agricultural practices practices. Use of fisheries did not show any significant difference (t=0.420, p=0.675). Conclusion The study revealed that the percentage of respondents that used improved agricultural practices is higher for contact farmers than that of the non-contact farmers (except for improved land preparation) and there were significant differences in their use of these improved agricultural practices except in fisheries .The findings also showed that the percentage of the contact

farmers that have no formal education is smaller, about 39.8% and this contributed to their easy acceptability of the new technologies while for the noncontact farmers the percentage of those that have no formal education is higher, about 64.0%. The contact farmer concept is an important factor in the Training and Visit Extension System and in the interface between agricultural technology generation and dissemination. Effective dissemination of generated agricultural technology has remained an intractable problem in Nigerias agricultural extension efforts. The use of contact farmer as a link between the extension agency and the farming population has been in practice for over a decade in Kwara State. The over all effectiveness of the agricultural information dissemination process will depend primarily on who was selected to serve as a contact farmer. It is therefore recommended that the con tact farmer approach to agricultural information dissemination should continue. However, there is the need to periodically re-evaluate the performance of contact farmers and make the needed changes or replacements of those who are not performing of expectation. An agricultural extension policy that adheres strictly to the criteria for the selection of contact farmers laid down by the ADP should be followed strictly. References Benor, D. and M. Baxter, 1984. Training and Visit Extension. Washington D.C. The World Bank. Chapman, M. P., 1987. The Evolution of Training and Visit in Somalia. Agricultural Administration and Extension, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, 22: 151-163. Due, J. M., N. Mollel and V. Malone, 1987. Does the T and V System Reach female headed families?

Some evidence from Tanzania, Agricultural Administration and Extension, 26: 209-217. Fasoranti, O. O., 2006. Impact of Agricultural Development Programme (ADP) on the Quality of Social Existence of Rural Dwellers in Developing Economy: Ondo State ADP Experience. International Journal of Rural Management, London, pp. 213-227. Khan, M., J. Sharif and M. Sarwar, 1984. Monitoring and Evaluation of Training and Visit System of Agricultural Extension in Punjab, Pakistan, Publ. No 152 B. M. Matanmi and G. B. Adesiji Improved practices t-value Significant difference Remark Crop varieties 3.913 0 Significant Land preparation 3.903 0 Significant Agro-chemicals 5.084 0 Significant Animal rearing 3.996 0 Significant Tree fruits 5.011 0 Significant Soya Products 5.062 0 Significant Fisheries 0.42 0.675 Non- Significant Table 4 T-test for equality of means between the contact and non-contact farmers Source: Field Survey 2007 212, Lahore, Pakistan Punjab Economic Research Institute. Kwara ADP: Agronomic Survey Report for 1996 Cropping Season Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Department. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1988. Kwara Agricultural Development Project, Objectives, Functions, Values and Achievements, Ilorin Yek Printing Production. Olarinde, A. O., A. O. Ajao and J. O. Ajetomobi, 2005. Socio-Economic Characteristics and Profitability

of the Contact and Non- Contact Farmers in Oyo Agricultural Zone in a Deregulated Economy. Journal of Social Science, 11 (3): 177-181. The Herald, 2002. Wed. January 30th Brief of Kwara State, Kwara State Printing and Publishing Corporation, Ilorin. P.14. Windapo, O., 2002. Knowledge Implementation Accuracy of Maize and Cassava Technology Transfer in Oyo Agricultural Development Program. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Department of Agricultural Extension Services, University of Ibadan. Received September, 9, 2008; accepted for printing February, 23, 2009. Comparison of Use of Improved Agricultural Practices by Contact and Non-Contact.... 1 PROGRESS REPORT OF THE KARIS FARMER FIELD SCHOOL PILOT PROJECT Joseph G. Mureithi, Project Coordinator Introduction This is a brief progress report of the Farmer Field School (FFS) pilot project that was initiated in March 2001. The project aims at incorporating the FFS approach in the Soil Management Project (SMP) and Legume Research Network Project (LRNP) of KARI. The first phase of the two projects ended in December 2000 after being on the ground for about six years. Ten technologies were developed and were ready for scaling up at the end of the first Phase. The two projects adopted the FFS approach as one of the methodologies for scaling up the technologies because of the successes it has had in Asia in dissemination of IPM technology. Since the FFS approach is

new to most project staff, the pilot project was designed to include a strong training component. The project has six main activities, which are; a) Holding of a FFS sensitization workshop b) Training of Trainers course (TOT) on the FFS approach c) Development of farmer training curricula based on the technologies to be scaled up d) Development of monitoring and evaluation tools for the FFS approach e) Support of three Msc. students f) Running about 45 FFS in five KARI centers FFS sensitization workshop This workshop was held from 6-8th March 2001 in western Kenya. Its primary objective was to sensitize senior managers of KARI and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MoARD), researchers and extensionists implementing SMP and LRNP, and farmers on the FFS approach for information transfer and scaling up of agricultural technologies. About 90 participants attended this workshop. The workshop was facilitated by two experienced FFS practitioners from FAO, Drs Kevin Gallagher and Russ Dilts; Prof. Agnes Rola of Philippines University and Dr. Jaap van de Pol who has worked extensively in Africa on soil fertility management. The workshop covered, genesis of FFS approach and its principles and concepts; FFS ToT course and running FFS in the field; development of FFS training curricula; monitoring and evaluation of FFS; and FFS for integrated soil fertility and nutrient management and conservation. Country experiences on FFS approach from Philippines, Indonesia and Kenya

were shared during the workshop. Participants visited two FFSs that were in session in Busia; one led by farmers and the other led by extension to see in practice what they had learnt during the workshop. The last day of the workshop was spent in discussing the way forward for the pilot project and a number of issues were discussed. They included the merits of working with existing groups vs. forming new ones, backstopping of farmer-led FFS, monitoring and evaluation of FFS process, sustainability of FFS, enhancement of local technical knowledge, FFS ToT course, and strengthening research and extension linkages (see Appendix 1). Training of Trainers (TOT) course in FFS approach The aim of this course is to equip the SMP and LRNP staffs with methods, skills, attitudes and knowledge to design, facilitate and implement FFS in their project mandate areas. The 2 participants come from KARI centers at Kitale, Kisii, Kakamega, Embu and Mtwapa. The course is in two parts; the first part is to cover the theory of the FFS and planning and running FFS. The second part is a season long training in the field where participants will initiate and run FFS. FAO Kenya is to provide two facilitators to conduct the training. About 60 participants are to participate in this training. The first part of the ToT was held at Egerton University from 12 to 17th March 2000. Topics covered included introduction to FFS methodology, steps in conducting FFS, organization and management of FFS, and non-formal education methods. It also included field exercises, group

discussions and plenary sessions. During the training participants developed tentative workplans of the schools they were going to initiate in the field. They also developed tentative training curricula of the technologies to be scaled up. A report of the training is available from the Project Coordinations office. The second part of the ToT is season long field-based training on how to run a successful FFS. The workplans developed during the first part of the training were used to initiate and run the schools. KARI Kitale and Mtwapa started their schools in April 2001 because the long rainy season had just began in their sites. Schools in Kisii were initiated in May/June while in Kakamega they were started in late June. Embu was the last to start its schools in late July 2001. Table 1 gives details of the FFS that have been formed and are in session to date. FFS on combination of organic/inorganic fertilizers FFS on low cost soil conservation for maize production in KARI Kitale method in Kisii. The grass strip is of Vetiver grass The FAO trainers provide technical backstopping and have scheduled to visit Kitale every first Monday of the month and Kisii every third Thursday of the month. The Project coordinator also supervises the ToT during his routine visits to the Centers. Appendix 2 is an example of a backstopping visit report. The participants have been provided with many reading 3 materials/publications of the FFS approach to enrich their knowledge on the subject (Appendix

4). Development of farmer training curricula of the technologies to be scaled up During part one of the ToT course at Egerton University, participants developed draft training curricula of the FFS they were to initiate in their respective centers. Some of these drafts are shown in Appendix 3. These draft curricula form the basis for preparation of weekly lessons of the FFS. The ToT participants meet once a week to prepare the lessons for the following week and also improve the contents of the lesson of the previous week using feedback from farmers. At the end of the ToT the weekly lessons will be compiled into a farmer training curricula for each of the technologies to be scaled up. Participants have been encouraged to take photographs of different stages of the technologies being demonstrated which will be used to enhance the quality of the curricula. Development of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools for the FFS The tools were to be developed during an M&E workshop scheduled to be held in June 2001. Due to lack of suitable facilitators the workshop was postponed to a later date. Several meetings and consultations have been held regarding this workshop and it is now proposed to be held in mid-September. Two experienced facilitators in M&E from the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) are keen to facilitate the workshop. They have shown a good understanding of the aspects of participatory M&E training we would like offered to the ToT participants. The outcomes of the M&E training they are likely to offer are presented here. nderstand the basic principles of monitoring and evaluation U

Differentiate between the types of information required for learning compared to that required for accountability Involve farmers in order for them to learn more about the quality of training and support offered to farmers by the project both during and after FFS training events Design and use tools, qualitative and quantitative, to understand and learn about the extent to which farmers (female and male, young and old, poorer and better off, more and less literate) are responding to project services through the application and adaptation of knowledge and linked technology hard-ware to their own situations. Assess the attitudes and responses to project services and outputs among non-participating farmers/communities Work together with farmers and other stakeholders to better integrate processes of M&E into project practice, using results to influence decision making at various levels with a view to improving project delivery. Support for three Msc. students The Msc. training was included in the project so that the students could undertake research that would contribute to the development and refinement of M&E tools for the FFS process. They 4 were also expected to evaluate the rate of technology spread and the impact it is will have on smallholder farming. The original thinking was that the students would undertake Msc. studies by research but this was not possible because it is mandatory to take a taught course in the local public universities for such training.

KARI Kisii and Kitale nominated a student each for the training and KARI Kakamega was supposed to provide the third student. The student from Kisii has been admitted in Egerton University while the one from Kitale has been admitted in Moi University. The two students are joining their respective universities in September 2001 and they are expected to finish their taught course in May 2002 and embark on their research work in June/July 2002. Running of FFS in 5 KARI centers So far 17 FFS have been initiated during the season long ToT course (Table 1) and most of them will be terminated by the end of the year. It is hoped that a similar number will be conducted in year 2002 and double that number in year 2003. Acknowledgement We would like to acknowledge the financial support we have received from the Rockefeller Foundation. We are in deed grateful to Dr. Ruben Puentes of RF New York and Mexico and Dr. John Lynam of RF Nairobi for technical support they have given the pilot project from its inception up to now. Special thanks are extended to Ruben for provided many FFS reading material in Appendix 4. 5 Table 1: Summary report of Farmer Field Schools initiated during the season long Training of Trainers course KARI Center Name of farmer field school (FFS) Technology being scaled up Number of school members

Male Female When initiated Special topics taught up to end of June 1. Bikholwa (Action) FFS Combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers for maize production 18 4 10 April 2001 Poultry and dairy production; vegetable production; group dynamics and good leadership; tree management 2. Bulala (Unity) FFS Food legumes other than beans 15 10 20 April 2001 What is soil and soil fertility indicators; types of inorganic fertilizers and application methods; dairy production; nitrogen cycle 3. Busime (Love) FFS Management of organic and inorganic fertilizers for vegetable production 5 12 20 April 2001 Local vegetables known to farmers; poultry production 4. Twende Mbele (Move forward) FFS Suitable maize varieties for Kitale mandate region 4 8 30 April 2001 None 5. Upendo (Love) FFS Quality seed production in smallholder farms 7 23 10 April 2001 Hybrid seed development; role of Kenya Plant Health Services inspectorate; seed borne diseases 6. Khuyetena (Helping one

another) FFS Forage crops establishment, management and utilization 12 11 20 April 2001 Group dynamics; benefits of intercropping; poultry diseases Kitale 7. Mteremko (Steep slope) FFS Low cost soil conservation measures 5 9 14 May 2001 Control of stalk borer in maize; plant deficiency symptoms; maintenance of soil fertility, poultry production; vegetable production; 6 8. Mutua (Last born) FFS Use of plant extracts to control crop pests 9 16 21 May 2001 Farm yard manure management and storage; compost making; construction of water tanks, sheep and dairy production 1. Riboba (cultivated plot) FFS Combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers 10 18 4 May 2001 Food security; dairy feeding; poultry production; group dynamics 2. Mlango (Door) FFS Improved soil conservation measures 29 23 4 May 2001 Compost making; low cost

methods for soil erosion control 3. Etono (small edible mushrooms) FFS Integrated pest management on bean production 8 19 27 June 2001 None 4. Keroka FFS Improved fodder production 25 20 10 June 2001 None 5. Riomwando (Inheritance) FFS Finger millets varieties tolerant to blast disease 5 27 10 July 2001 None Kisii 6. Umoja (Togetherness) FFS Use of soil fertility improving legumes 11 25 13 June 2001 None Kakamega Malanga FFS Green manure technologies for soil fertility improvement 38 25 June 2001 None Embu Karurina FFS Up-scaling green manure technology - - To be formed in July Mtwapa Jembe (Hoe) FFS Combination of green manure legume with FYM and inorganic fertilizers 7 8 28 March 2001 Group dynamics; pest and diseases of maize and their control measures 7 APPENDIX 1 FARMER FIELD SCHOOLS SENSITIZATION WORKSHOP (6-8th March 2001, Golf Hotel, Kakamega)

Issues arising for the way forward 1. Work with existing groups or form new ones? The participants felt there was need to work with already existing farmer groups e.g. the merry-go-round as the FFS activities can be conducted concurrently with the initial activities of the group. However, each KARI center will have to evaluate its own local conditions as situations maybe different between the different KARI centers to be involved with FFS activities. In some regions, Farmer Research Committees (FRCs) are already in existence and are conducting field experiments. These FRCs are in the forefront in strategically setting up demonstrations of promising technologies, and they train and assist other new groups in setting up experimental activities. They can thus be transformed into Farmer Field Schools. Some disadvantages of working with some pre-existing groups are:Old groups may not accept a FFS curricula for only integrated soil & nutrient management topics Weakness and problems are inherited. 2. Farmer-led vs extension-led FFS It was observed that usually it is graduates from Extension-led FFS who become trainers in Farmer-led FFS. It is not common to find a trainer originating from a Farmer-led FFS. Extension-led FFS have more to learn and share in terms of knowledge and skills, as the input of extension personnel cannot be ignored. Backstopping is useful to prevent new groups from repeating the same experiment the old groups had conducted.

Backstopping by the extension in the Farmer-led FFS should be more than twice a month. In case of setting up new FFS, there was need to include subject matter specialists from problem diagnosis and through the season long experiment so as to backstop the project all the way through. 3. Monitoring and Evaluation The data that the farmers were documenting was technical data, but there was need for farmers to generate and document the indicators they use for monitoring and evaluation. For example, farmers have their own indicators for evaluation of crop varieties and needed also to use them in M&E. 8 It was also felt that Researchers, Extension and Farmers might have different indicators, which should be identified and used in the M&E process. But it was important to set up a benchmark, which should be the basis for future M&E assessments. There was also a feeling that the farmers and trainers can develop and run a M&E system that: (i) Provides good data to outside decision-makers. (ii) Strengthen Farmer Groups for sustainability. (iii) Allow FFS participants to use data to gather support for their own programs. 4. Sustainability of FFS Farmers suggested that they needed small grants (funds) in order to initiate new schools. The participants felt there was need to provide new FFS with basic materials e.g. paper, markers, new seeds etc. so as to assist in the running of new FFS. This kind of support was seen as

different from that of giving handouts. Critical support to the farmers should be in the form of collegial, moral, technical, networking and organization and not necessarily monetary support. Farmers should be encouraged to manage their resources as Group Resources to optimize on available assets. 5. Enhancement of Local Technical Knowledge Since the technical knowledge held by farmers is limited, there is need to supplement it with scientific knowledge from the extension and research personnel. One case in point is the use of the local concoctions against pests and diseases. KARI should come in and test these concoctions for proper dosage application to avoid toxicity. Another case is on fertilizers where the farmers apply handfuls of fertilizer without an idea on the proper quantities to be used. The frontline extension personnel should consult subject matter specialists from the Agriculture Office or in Research Stations so as to access the available information that exists and pass on the same to the farmers. It was noted that KARI has been producing extension leaflets/pamphlets with simplified language for the extension and farmers. Any extension leaflet with difficult language can be brought to the notification of KARI Publications Unit for simplification of language. 6. ToT course It was felt that the initial one-week training was short, but this could be overcome by conducting another joint training week in the middle of the season-long FFS.

More regular follow-up meetings (backstopping) for problem solving and experience sharing were emphasized. It was suggested that there be weekly or bi-weekly 12 days team meetings for reviews and planning the way forward. These regular meetings are essential especially at the implementation phase of the FFS where the teams would consult and exchange ideas with their facilitators. 9 The ToT was expected to also cover the following specific topics such as:Group development Facilitation skills Technical skills Management Monitoring & Evaluation 7. Manual development The teams were advised to start with a draft FFS program and on the basis of experiences on what they have learnt, they can develop them into manuals. 8. Research and Extension Linkages The participants felt there was need to continue the collaboration and linkages between Research and Extension. This would facilitate implementation of some joint activities such as production of leaflets/bulletins for farmers. Overall it was felt that the collaboration between Research and Extension should be strengthened for mutual benefits to farmers. 10 APPENDIX 2 Backstopping visit to FFS of KARI-Kitale on 11th June 2001 Comments/observations 1) Khuyetane FFS

(Forage crops establishment, management and utilization) Host team concept did not come out strongly. Facilitators were doing most of the things and so the role of host team should be emphasized. Field schools usually deal with comparative studies and this should be emphasized. During AESA presentation there was no presentation on comparative studies and this made it difficult for farmers to notice any differences between plots. There should be summary of presentations across the board by facilitators after all the presentations have been done. This was not done. Planning for next week should be participatory. That is all the farmers should be involved and not dictated by the facilitator Ownership of the FFS should be by the farmers. The farmers should own the FFS and not look at it as if it is for KARI. Tagged plants should be inside the plot and not at the edge. Group dynamics were good. Overall the field school was well organized 2) Busime FFS (Management of organic and inorganic fertilizers for vegetable production) Plot size was Small. Control plot not very clear Host team role was also not clear. One farmer was dominating. 2) Bulala FFS (Promotion of alternative food legumes to than beans) Technology being scaled up should be emphasized. Not very clear from the visit Late planting Generally FFS process is being followed well although we arrived late and so not much could be seen.

General comments The Rotational systems by groups between plots should be implemented AESA taking, analysis and presentation should be done on the same day, during the learning day. Farmer selection is very critical and only practicing farmers should be nominated to join the FFS and not those working elsewhere. The officials elected in FFS should be strong. 11 APPENDIX 3 Draft training curricula developed during ToT course of some technologies to be scaled up 1. Low cost soil conservation methods Soil Definition Importance Genesis composition Management (general Soil Erosion Definition When? Why? How? Soil Conservation Definition Importance When? Why? Soil Conservation Structures - Biology Structures - Physical Structures Economics of Soil Conservation - Maintenance of soil conservation structures

Options/basket Both biological and physical Biological structures - Makarikari - Vetiver Trash line Napier grass Physical structures - Fanya juu - Stone lines Fanya chini 2. Organic manure management and its use in combination with inorganic fertilizers for crop production Teach and train Soil genesis Soil management technologies 12 Collection management and use of manures Demo on compost management preparation and storage Collect materials Set up compost Monitoring FYM management Boma composting Collection of crop residue into cattle Boma Teach aspects of maize production Teach about seed production such a Teaching on harvesting, storage of maize. 3. Quality Seed production Introduction Basis for developing varieties Altitude, rainfall, temperature Lightly methods of development Type of varieties

Characters of good seeds Hybrids, open pollinated (composites Isolation Selection of crop and variety to plant Source of good quality seed Land preparation and field layout (per crop variety) Planting - site selection and time of planting Weeding - noxious weeds Crop management - as per crop Weekly observations, monitoring and data collection Harvesting - time of harvesting and Economic analysis - Seed processing - (as per crop) threshing, cleaning, pure g. seed - Seed treatment - (as per crop) i.e. use insecticide/ash), fungicide - Seed storage - Temperature, humidity (as per crop Data to collect as per crop variety - Include seed processing - Seed storage 4. Suitable crop varieties for different AEZs in Kitale Region Introduction - Basis for developing varieties e.g. altitude rainfall, temperature etc - Diversity of AEZ in the country - Participatory description of the environment 13 - Establish farmer practices and reasons (Ground working) Participatory selection of treatments from the basket Land preparation and field layout Planting, weeding, top-dressing, pest management (and general crop management) Weekly observation, monitoring and data collection Harvesting and economic analysis 5. Bean varieties tolerant to bean fly and root-rot Importance of beans (food, soil improvement, income generation) Problems related to bean production( diseases, pests, soil fertility)

Problems limiting bean production in the area (Marani) Bean-fly pest-Infestation, Life-cycle, effect on plant vigor Root-rot disease Infection, Typical symptoms, effect on crop Establishment of insect zoo (bean-fly) Farmer evaluations of the different varieties size, color, taste, yields, cookability (ranking to be one) Special topics as need arises Seed production selection, storage, treatment 14 APPENDIX 4 Reading materials issued to FFS ToT participants 1. Making Farmers Better Decision - Makers Through the Farmers Field School By Rola A.C. Provido Z.S, Olanday M.O, Paraguas A.S, Sirue, A.S., Espadon, M.A. and Hupeda S.P Kasakalikasan. The Philippine National IPM Program 2. Rural Learning Networks - Farmer Field School in Integrated Crop Management By Marco Miagostovich 3. Economics of IPM FFS Knowledge Diffusion in Rice Farming Communities: A Case Study in Iloilo, Philippines By Agnes Rola 4. Can the Farmer Field School Replace the T&V System of Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa? By Cees Leeuwis, Neils Roling and Gerard Bruin 5. A Note on the Sustainability of the Farmer field School Approach to Agricultural Extension By Jaime Quizon, Gershon Feder and Rinku Murgai 6. Output of the Intensive Training of Trainers Course on Farmers Field School - Mabanga 7. Guidelines and Reference Material on Integrated Soil and Nutrient Management and

Conservation for Farmer Field Schools FAO, ROME, AGL/MISC/27/2000 8. Community Driven Development; from vision to practice A technical Source book 9. Process Monitoring Report Pilot Sweet Potato IPM Farmer Field Schools and Field By Kim Groenewg 10. FFS studies in Vietnam 11. Searching for Strategies to Replicate a Successful Extension Approach: Training of IPM Trainers in Indonesia By E. van de Fliert, J. Pontius and N. Roling 12. The IPM Farmers field School An Indonesian contribution to Sustainable Agriculture 13. Do farmer field school graduates retain and share what they learn? An investigation in Iloilo, Philippines 15 A.C. Rola, J.B. Quizon and S.B. Jamias 14. An economic framework for assessing the impact of farmer field schools: A case study in Iloilo, Philippines A.C. Rola 15. Living soils Training exercises for integrated soils management UNFAO Program for Community IPM in Asia, JI Jati Padding no. 38B, Pasar Minggu, Jakarta Indonesia 16. An introduction to the IPM farmer field school Russ Dilts and John Pontius 17. Beyond the farmer field school: IPM and empowerment in Indonesia Peter A. C. Ool, gatekeeper series no. 78 comfortable in field situations than in classrooms. In most cases, communities can provide a study site with a shaded area for

follow-up discussions. The facilitator Each FFS needs a technically competent facilitator to lead members through the hands-on exercises. There is no lecturing involved, so the facilitator can be an extension officer or a Farmer Field School graduate. Extension officers with different organisational backgrounds, for example government, NGOs and private companies, have all been involved in FFS. In most programmes, a key objective is to move towards farmer facilitators, because they are often better facilitators than outside extension staff - they know the community and its members, speak a similar language, are recognised by members as colleagues, and know the area well. From a financial perspective, farmer facilitators require less transport and other financial support than formal extensionists. They can also operate more independently (and therefore cheaply), outside formal hierarchical structures. All facilitators need training. Extension facilitators need seasonlong training to (re)learn facilitation skills, learn to grow crops with their own hands, and develop management skills such as fund-raising and development of local programmes. Computer literacy is often included in the training of facilitators, especially for preparing local training materials, budgets and project proposals. Email is also becoming more widely available. Once the facilitators have completed their training and are leading the FFS process, it is easy to identify capable farmers who are interested in becoming facilitators. Farmer Field School graduates are usually given special farmer facilitator training (10-14 days) to improve technical, facilitation and organisational skills. The curriculum The FFS curriculum follows the natural cycle of its subject, be it crop, animal, soil, or handicrafts. For example, the cycle may be seed to seed or egg to egg. This approach allows all aspects of the subject to be covered, in parallel with what is happening in

the FFS members field. For example, rice transplanting in the FFS takes place at the same time as farmers are transplanting their own crops - the lessons learned can be applied directly. One key factor in the success of the FFSs has been that there are 5 LEISA MAGAZINE . MARCH 2003 Kevin Gallagher In general, Farmer Field Schools (FFS) consist of groups of people with a common interest, who get together on a regular basis to study the how and why of a particular topic. The topics covered can vary considerably - from IPM, organic agriculture, animal husbandry, and soil husbandry, to income-generating activities such as handicrafts. FFS are comparable to programmes such as Study Circles, religious studies at a church, mosque or temple, or specialised study programmes for any skill. The FFS, however, are particularly adapted to field study, where specific hands-on management skills and conceptual understanding is required. So what are the essential elements of a FFS? Below is a list of elements that commonly appear in successful FFS programmes: The group A group of people with a common interest form the core of the FFS. The group may be mixed with men and women together, or separated, depending on culture and topic. The group could be an established one, such as a self-help, womens, or youth group. Participatory technology groups, for example, sometimes undertake a season of study in FFSs before starting their research. The FFS tends to strengthen existing groups or may lead to the formation of new groups. Some FFS groups do not continue after the study period. The FFS is not developed with the intention of creating a long-term organisation - although it often becomes one. The field FFSs are about practical, hands-on topics. Study Circles and other study methods do not take place in the field, as they are about more theoretical topics. In the FFS, the field is the teacher, and it provides most of the training materials like plants, pests

and real problems. Any new language learned in the course of study can be applied directly to real objects, and local names can be used and agreed on. Farmers are usually much more An Indonesian training coordinator demonstrating techniques for catching insects during a lesson on IPM in Gambia. Photo: FAO/A. Proto Fundamental Elements of a Farmer Field School A typical FFS session in the original Indonesian setting 8:00 Opening (often with prayer) Attendance call Days briefing of activities Stretching exercises 8:30 Go to the field in small teams Make observations that are noted by the facilitator and one other person in the group records. Facilitator points out interesting new developments 9:30 Return to shade. Begin making agro-ecosystem analysis (see box) drawing and discuss management decisions. 10:15 Each team presents results and the group arrives at a consensus on management needs for the coming week. 11:00 Short tea/coffee/water break 11:15 Energiser or group building exercise 11:30 Special study topic or second crop/livestock study. This could include nutrition, or chicken or parasites, or something else of special interest to group. 12:30 Closing (often with prayer). no lectures all activities are based on experiential (learning-bydoing), participatory, hands-on work. This builds on adult learning theory and practice. Each activity has a procedure for action, observation, analysis and decision making. The emphasis is not only on how but also on why. Experience has shown that structured, hands-on activities provide a sound basis for continued innovation and local adaptation, after the FFS itself

has been completed. It is also one of the main reasons that farmer facilitators can easily run FFSs - once they know how to facilitate an activity, the outcomes become obvious from the exercise itself. Activities are sometimes season-long experiments - especially those related to soils or plant physiology (for example soil or variety trials, plant compensation trials). Other activities in the curriculum include 30-120 minutes for specific topics. Icebreakers, energisers, and team/organisation building exercises are also included in each session. The curriculum of many FFSs is combined with other topics. In Kenya, for example, the FFSs follow a one-year cycle including cash crops, food crops, chickens or goats and special topics on nutrition, HIV/AIDS, water sanitation and marketing. FFSs for literacy are also promoted where there is a need. The programme leader Most FFS programmes exist within a larger programme, run by government or a civil society organisation. It is essential to have a good programme leader who can support the training of facilitators, get materials organised for the field, solve problems in participatory ways and nurture field staff facilitators. This person needs to keep a close watch on the FFSs for potential technical or human relations problems. They are also the person likely to be responsible for monitoring and evaluation. The programme leader must be a good leader and an empowering person. He or she is the key to successful programme development and needs support and training to develop the necessary skills. AESA in a typical FFS for rice The basic format of an IPM Farmer Field School consists of three activities: agro-ecosystem observation, analysis, and presentation of results; a special topic; and a group dynamics activity. The Agro-Ecosystem Analysis (AESA) is the FFSs core activity, and other activities are designed to support it.

The agro-ecosystem analysis process sharpens farmers skills in the areas of observation and decision-making, and helps develop their powers of critical thinking. The process begins with small group observation of the IPM and non-IPM plots. During the observation process participants collect field data such as the number of tillers per hill, the varieties of insects and their populations and samples of insects and plants. These data are collected from ten rice hills. The facilitator is present throughout the observation to help participants in their observations. Following the field observation, the farmers return to the meeting place and, using crayons, draw what they have just observed in the fields on a large piece of newsprint or poster paper. The drawings include: a) pests and natural enemies observed in the fields (pests on one side, natural enemies on the other); b) the plant (or animal) indicating the size and stage of growth, along with other important growth features such as the number of stems/tillers, the colour of the plant and any visible damage; c) important features of the environment (the water level in the field, sunlight, shade trees, weeds, and inputs). All members of the small groups are involved in the creation of the drawing and data analysis. While drawing, farmers discuss and analyse the data they have collected. Based on their analysis they determine a set of management decisions to be carried out in the field. A summary of these management decisions as agreed by the group is also included in the drawing. One member of each small group then presents these findings and decisions

to the larger group. After this brief presentation of results there is time for open questions and discussion. Good large group discussions often involve posing alternative scenarios, for example, questions such as What would you do if.... This cycle of presentation, question, answer and discussion is repeated until all the small groups have presented their results. Agroecosystem drawings from previous weeks are kept on hand as a reference and as material for discussion later in the season. The role of the facilitator is central to the EASA process. In the field, they will guide participants to see what they may not have seen before, such as tiny predators or changes in soil. To ensure a balanced and participatory discussion, a good facilitator understands that the more participants talk, the more they learn, and encourages discussion rather than lecturing. During presentations, the facilitator ensures that all participants have an opportunity to present during the season, and that the group covers all the important issues. The facilitator needs farming and technical skills and needs to know how to ask good questions, guide participants through exercises and ensure that sound management decisions are taken by the group by introducing new information when appropriate. Financing FFSs can be expensive or low-cost, depending on who implements them and how they are conducted. When carried out within a World Bank-type programme, they are usually expensive, due to high allowances, transportation costs and several layers of supervision (about US$30-50 per farmer). Obviously, the greater the distance that facilitators need to travel to get to the field, the higher the cost of transport. Transport is one of the biggest costs in any extension programme. When the

FFS is carried out by local organisations and farmer facilitators, initial start-up costs may be moderate, but the running costs will be much lower (about US$1-20 per farmer). A trend in East Africa is to manage small commercial plots alongside the FFS study plots, so that the FFS can actually raise more funds than it uses for inputs and stationary (Okoth p. 27). Final word Farmer Field Schools are not difficult or mysterious. However, they are meant to empower through education on skills and concepts (hows and whys) and therefore, require an empowering environment. The basis for a successful FFS starts with the programmes culture of operation - from a nurturing and empowering programme leader and good facilitators, to transparent budgets and open management. FFSs are not difficult to set up if there is a commitment to, and faith in farmers and facilitators ability to learn locally and apply learning to local problems themselves. Kevin Gallagher. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. Email: Kevin.Gallagher@fao.org. For more information on Study Circles and 4-H groups, please see the following websites: www.studycircles.org and www.fourhcouncil.edu. 6LEISA MAGAZINE . MARCH 2003