Approaches

Pastoralist field schools [Ethiopia]

approaches_3337 - Ethiopia

Completeness: 97%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Duveskog Deborah

Deborah.Duveskog@fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

United Nations Complex in Nairobi, UN Avenue, Gigiri, Block P Box 30470 Nairobi, Kenya

Kenya

SLM specialist:

Nega Solomon

Solomon.Nega@fao.org

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

CMC road Near ILRI, Kebele 12/13 Bole Sub City, Gurd Shola P.O. Box 5536 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Ethiopia

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Improved food security, livelihoods and resilience of vulnerable pastoral communities in the Greater Horn of Africa through the pastoralist field school approach
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
FAO Kenya (FAO Kenya) - Kenya
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/04/2014

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Pastoralist field schools improve livelihoods and resilience of pastoral communities through a process of hands-on experimental and participatory learning. They are "schools without walls" that introduce good agricultural and marketing practices while building on local knowledge. The PFS approach builds heavily on the basic principles of discovery based learning to address a wide range of issues affecting pastoral livelihoods.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Pastoral Field School (PFS) approach was the key development tool used in the FAO project entitled “Improved food security, livelihoods and resilience of vulnerable pastoral communities in the Greater Horn of Africa through the pastoralist field school approach”. The project was implemented between June 2011 and July 2015 and targeted agropastoralists in the West Pokot and Turkana areas of Kenya, the Karamoja area of Uganda and Borena and Guji Zones of Ethiopia. Indirect beneficiaries included Non-governmental organizations (NGO) and development actors involved in PFS actions across the region, largely through capacity building. The project was implemented through FAO regional and country offices in close collaboration with selected implementation partners in the countries, including communities, both local and international NGOs and governments.

The PFS approach is an adaptation of the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. The FFS approach emerged in South East Asia in 1989 as a way to better engage farmers in a field-based enquiry for participatory identification and adoption/adaptation of solutions to local problems. The approach builds on the principles of adult and non-formal education, and experimental and emancipatory learning with a focus on learning processes and building analytical capacity as opposed to traditional extension approaches that focus on top-down dissemination of information to farmers. The PFS approach was first tested in 2006 in Kenya by FAO, Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Belgium and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

A PFS can be described as "school without walls" that introduces new pastoral techniques and practices (including SLM technologies) while building on indigenous knowledge, with community empowerment as a result. Through experiential and participatory learning techniques applied in a group setting (25-30 members), with regular meetings over a season/production cycle, , (agro-)pastoralists learn how to analyse their situation and make informed decisions about their livelihood practices and resource use strategies. When empowered to make informed decisions and adapt to changes in the environment, community members are better able to support disaster risk reduction and mitigation of climate change impacts. A facilitator (trained by an experienced field schoolmaster trainer and with a good understanding of pastoral issues) guides the learning process and ensures that the group activities are interlinked with a community managed disaster risk reduction plan. The technical topics covered can include animal production and health, pasture and range management, dryland farming, livestock fodder production, community-managed disaster risk reduction and alternative incomes. The informal nature of the approach further provides an excellent entry point to address social issues of gender inequities including gender-based violence, HIV, public health, population growth as well as conflict.
Mobility is an important factor to be considered in PFS as it bears on aspects such as the frequency and location of meetings. In some cases, PFS activities have to be interrupted during pastoral movements while in others the facilitator has to follow the field school group during migration. Agro-pastoralists may not always be available to participate in PFS activities as they may spend many hours or days with their livestock in search of water or fodder. Generally, PFS has a longer cycle than groups focusing on small-scale farming, and flexibility is needed when unforeseen events disrupt learning activities. Pastoralists and agro-pastoralists often live in conditions of high environmental uncertainty.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos of the Approach

Comments, short description:

Link: https://youtu.be/9rqZUEVF_kA
Schools Without Walls', (Agro)Pastoralist Field Schools in the Horn of Africa
See how members of Arbale Pastoralist Field School in Borana Zone, Southern Ethiopia are applying knowledge gained to implementing community managed disaster risk reduction action plans for the protection of vast areas of communal grazing lands.

Date:

28/05/2013

Location:

Borana Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Name of videographer:

© FAO: http://www.fao.org

Comments, short description:

Link: https://youtu.be/W0blRPPn3hg
Community Fodder Production in Mandera - Kenya
This video highlights how a pastoralist community in Mandera, Kenya applied knowledge gained in a pastoralist field school to improve their livelihood through fodder production.

Date:

28/05/2013

Location:

Mandera, Kenya

Name of videographer:

© FAO: http://www.fao.org

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Ethiopia

Region/ State/ Province:

Oromia region

Further specification of location:

Borena zone

Comments:

The PFS approach was applied in the Borena Zone as part of a FAO regional initiative that targeted agropastoralists in the West Pokot and Turkana areas of Kenya, the Karamoja area of Uganda and Borena and Guji Zones of Ethiopia.

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2011

Comments:

The approach was used within the framework of the FAO project entitled “Improved food security, livelihoods and resilience of vulnerable pastoral communities in the Greater Horn of Africa through the pastoral field school approach”. The project was implemented from 1 June 2011 to 31 July 2015. PFS learning enabled members to continue PFS activities and learning also after the end of the project.

2.7 Type of Approach

  • recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

To strengthen the capacity of pastoral communities and support improved natural resources management and disaster risk management to reduce food insecurity vulnerability.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

- Pastoralists were able, committed and willing to work in teams and to invest their time in PFS learning activities.
- The community had a positive attitude to change and the local culture allowed for innovations.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • enabling

- PFS activities, learning and group action facilitated leveraging of financial resources and services. All PFS groups developed savings and credit schemes.

institutional setting
  • enabling

- Efforts towards institutionalization enhanced PFS sustainability, improved quality, and strengthened impact and continuity.

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • hindering

- Networking among implementing actors and key stakeholders could have been stronger.

policies
  • hindering

- The PFS approach wasn't part of Government structures and procedures, so no enabling policies were in place

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

- PFS facilitators received technical support from subject matter specialists (e.g. animal scientists, veterinarians, agronomists). The specialists were invited to the PFS by the facilitators whenever technical inputs and assistance in designing appropriate experiments were needed.
- SLM technologies/ PFS practices were built on indigenous knowledge and local practices.

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

- Promoting the use of locally available resources (e.g. agricultural and livestock inputs) was crucial to ensure PFS sustainability and the continuity of PFS activities.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Pastoralists- PFS members and their communties.

Field school activities were carried out by the pastoralists themselves, ensuring a strong level of involvement of the beneficiaries throughout all stages of implementation.

  • NGO

Gayo Pastoral Development Initiative.

Implement Pastoralist Field School in the Borena zone.

  • local government

- Miyo Pastoral Development Association (Government Institution).
- Moyalle Pastoral Development Association (Government Institution).

Implement Pastoralist Field School in the Borena zone.

  • international organization

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

FAO was responsible for overseeing the overall implementation of the intervention, providing mentoring and technical support, create platform for harmonizing the field school approach and allocate required resources for implementation, provide guidance on linkages with related regional pastoral initiatives. The overall day-to-day management of the project was led by FAO's Resilience Team for Eastern Africa (RTEA), drawing on the technical expertise and experience of its headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya and its Subregional Office for Eastern Africa in Addis Ababa. Activities in Ethiopia were supported by the FAO Country Office. FAO field offices implemented the project in the targeted field locations, in collaboration with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Government partners.

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation interactive The PFS approach was presented to pastoral communities and their leaders as well as to local stakeholders (e.g. local government, development partners) to seek buy-in and collaboration.
planning interactive Needs, priorities and opportunities for improvement were identified through a consultative process with the community before and throughout PFS implementation. The PFS members, not the facilitator, decided what was relevant to them and what they wanted the PFS to address.
implementation interactive As per PFS principles, the pastoral community was involved in all activities during project implementation and had a decision-making role. The dissemination of PFS practices/SLM technologies was encouraged among members and pastoral communities. Exchange visits (educational tours to other PFS), field days (getting non-PFS members involved in PFS activities), and share fairs were organized to promote trade and exchange of ideas.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive The expansion of monitoring and evaluation tools and processes was part of the regular PFS implementation, with exercises and tools embedded in the PFS sessions to assess progress and allow members to take corrective action based on the results.
Impact assessment interactive A major achievement of the intervention was the participatory impact assessment. The assessment was conducted using a mix of methods, including focus group discussions with PFS members, case stories, semi-structured interviews and scoring of perceived change before and after PFS membership.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Phases and steps of Pastoral Field Schools.

Author:

FAO

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
Explain:

In PFS, learning is by doing, i.e. through practical activities and exercises. Throughout PFS implementation, members tested, validated, and adapted SLM technologies to their environments.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
  • hands-on testing and adaptation for local use

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

PFS are schools without walls where members actively learn through comparison of local practices with new ideas through Agro ecosystem analysis and comparative experiments, observation, critical analysis, discussion and making decisions. Technical training of PFS members forms part of the regular learning curriculum and is based on learner driven.
The intervention also involved the training of facilitators, mentors and master trainers.
Facilitators guide PFS activities and group discussions and help the group to reach a consensus on the actions that need to be taken. Before the onset of the PFS, facilitators organize preparatory activities, such as community consultations and PFS group formation and organization. The intervention trained new facilitators and carried out refresher training of existing facilitators. Training was supported by on-the-job training events and regular support to facilitators.

The main role of PFS master trainers is to train facilitators, mentoring FFS activities, planning, mentoring and monitoring and evaluation of FFS activities and promoting the field school approach. They received training through a three-month master trainer course. In direct connection with and during the master trainer training course, a number of PFS groups were established at community level for practical and hands-on learning among master trainers. Throughout the implementation period, FAO provided continuous mentoring to the master trainers to support their continuous professional development.

In the Borena zone, PFS activities were complemented by the strengthening of water points developed thorough an earlier SDC project.

Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
Subjects covered:

The curriculum of PFS groups generally focused on: methodology and implementation, participatory learning and facilitation, group management and technical topics.
Some of the technical topics covered by the facilitator include gender, NRM, nutrition, forage production and health, conflict management, business skills development, village community banks (VICOBA), rangeland management, soil and water conservation and community-managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR), and water scheme management.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

PFS are ‘schools without walls’ where capacity is developed from existing local knowledge. They are learning by doing and problem based, on the fields/rangelands of the community. PFS usually comprises a group of 25-30 pastoralists who meet regularly in a local field setting, under the guidance of a trained facilitator. They make observations on livestock production and rangeland ecosystem, focus on a topic of study, and compare the effects of alternative practices. As a result of the observations and analyses done directly on-site, participants make decisions on how to improve their practices. All PFS follow this systematic action learning process where the key steps are observation, reflection, group discussion, analysis, decision making and action planning.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, moderately
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The two government institutions (Miyo Pastoral Development Association and Moyalle Pastoral Development Association). and the NGO (Gayo Pastoral Development Initiative) that implemented the approach in the target area has been strengthened through capacity building on PFS.

Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Monitoring was conducted by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) office in Addis Ababa as well as through field missions and regular dialogue with the FAO Country Office in Ethiopia.
As per PFS priniciples, participatory M&E was also conducted during every PFS meeting. Both the PFS members and facilitator continuously assessed whether they were bringing any behavioural changes and actually achieving the learning objectives. Participatory M&E helped PFS practitioners actively observe and analyse situations and performances and understand what they were observing.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • economics / marketing
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

When needed, researchers and subject matter experts were invited to provide technical support to PFS groups. PFS developed/strengthened linkages between pastoral communities and researchers.

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • 2,000-10,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

The budget range above refers to the costs incurred for implementing a single PFS within the project.
The Government of the Swiss Confederation, through the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, contributed USD 2 154 100 for this FAO for this FAO project in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Each PFS group received direct grants of USD 940 for their learning activities and to purchase inputs for PFS experimentation.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • none
 

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

PFS enabled and empowered pastoralists, their families and pastoral communities to understand and respond to local challenges. PFS members improved their understanding of the environment, obtained knowledge and learned additional skills which lead to improved capacity to manage available resources. PFS groups showed a greater level of cooperation and mutual help compared to the situation prior to the PFS project. PFS groups demonstrated enhanced capacity to seek self-generated solutions to problems identified by the group, generally developed through the experimentation and field analysis component of PFS, which in turn positively impacted on adoption rates of new practices and technologies.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

PFS helped pastoralists to develop the skills required for informed decision-making in their environment.

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

As PFS members carried out PFS practices themselves and saw the direct results of the processes, they took ownership of the innovations and decisions on their livelihood activities. This was further enhanced by reduced production costs and the proceeds which the groups received from PFS practices that encouraged the members to continue with the efforts since they paid off.

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Policy dialogue for institutionalizing PFS as an extension approach were successfully conducted with the federal Ministry of Agriculture and regional agriculture bureau and donors . The initial policy processes were funded by the European Union (EU) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). They involved field implementation of field schools with policy deliberations at the local Government levels and cascading slowly to the National level. Later, an FAO project funded by SDC continued with the institutionalization process at the National level, Universities and research institutions. Policy makers are now willing to use the approach in the (agro)-pastoral areas of Ethiopia.

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

PFS increased the abilty of pastoralists to leverage appropriate financial services through group action and improved skills and knowledge. The savings and credit schemes built into PFS interventions and resulting income generating activities contributed to an increase in financial capital. In general the money contributed benefited both men and women equally. However, in many cases women were the more frequent beneficiaries since they frequently borrowed to engage in petty businesses.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

PFS activities increased the awareness of communities on the sustainable management of natural resources and its relation to group productive and income generating activities. The PFS approach, in contrast to most conventional extension approaches, strengthens the capacity of local communities to analyse their livelihood systems, identify their main constraints and test possible solutions. By merging their own traditional knowledge with external information, stakeholders can eventually identify and adopt the most suitable practices and technologies to their livelihood system and needs to become more productive, profitable and responsive to changing conditions

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The PFS approach improved knowledge and capacities of stakeholders at different levels starting from Federal to communities level.

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach strengthens individuals’ knowledge and practices whilst reinforcing collaborative learning and bonding. By learning together over an extended period of time, collaboration between stakeholders/beneficiaries is strengthened.

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Part of this approach includes incorporating conflict management more strongly. Through the PFS approach, stakeholders developed a greater understanding of how to plan for and mitigate disaster, and recognized how social factors such as conflict and gender inequality can exacerbate the effects of disasters.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Many groups had set rules for dealing with individual financial requirements, as well as individual emergencies, requiring group cohesion and solidarity support mechanisms, thus enhancing the community internal safety net for vulnerable members.

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Women benefited from the initiative through empowerment and income generation through livelihood diversification. Women’s empowerment – i.e. enabling their inherent potential – was considered as one of the most prominent impacts of the intervention. Changes in gender relations as a result of the PFS approach was prominent. Women appreciated the fact that the PFS groups offered the opportunity for them to discuss issues and challenges with men in an organised and moderated manner. In general, and given the prevailing cultural norms, women had the opportunity to make their voices and arguments heard in all PFS groups.

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Elema Kensa, a young PFS lady member said, “Women benefit from the enclosure in many ways. Before, women used to go very far in order bring food to our livestock. But, thanks to the PFS and our enclosure now we can harvest the grass nearby and give it to our livestock. Having this grass nearby reduces the burden of the women and this is a result of the education we got from PFS.”

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The community initiative led by the PFS group has taken to practicing the approach for their own livestock needs. The protected community grazing lands were fenced off, and livestock grazing was restricted and managed.

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Supported by PFS training and financed through the group saving schemes, most PFS groups initiated alternative income sources, resulting in diversified livelihood options and thereby increased food security and nutrition. The domestic food situation improved since the start of PFS activities in the target area as a result of increased agricultural production and increased purchasing power to buy additional food from alternative income sources.

Did the Approach improve access to markets?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

PFS activities increased access to input (e.g. agricultural equipment) and output markets and helped pastoralists to leverage appropriate markets and market information.

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Water for human and livestock use was improved through the improved water management practices applied by the group.

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

By closing off grazing areas, shrubs and trees were also protected. These species can be a source of fuelwood, but are often degraded.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The PFS members developed different alternative income generating activities which range from petty business especially for women, beekeeping, purchasing animal for fattening and re-sale, and purchasing and sale of animals without fattening.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

The PFS promoted practices that build on local knowledge and practice and that require locally available production inputs.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
This activity has improved the status of women through enabling them and offering them a greater spectrum of livelihood options.
PFS activities increased the awareness on sustainable management of the natural resources. This is an achievement as the PFS communities increase their income diversity and income generating capacity facilitated through natural resources.
The groups decided by discussion on emerging issues to be dealt with. This built considerable coherence within the group and ensured that those topics that were important were selected.
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The PFS approach in general contributed to generating increased, appropriate and self-defined livelihood options. Members have therefore the opportunity to improve their livelihood portfolio by spreading their activity base and thus prepare better for emerging challenges of greater variability than the community is used to.
The opportunity for members, especially women to meet, discuss at equal level with men and focus on problem solving. This is very much appreciated in a community setting where tribal institutions are respected. PFS groups show a greater level of cooperation and mutual help as compared to the situation prior the PFS intervention.
The approach does not rely on highly trained external advisors but on pastoralists' own discovery and reflection. It can function well even with facilitators of relatively low technical skills. This allows for scaling up of interventions more easily, since solutions are obtained jointly through an experimentation process.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
Attending PFS sessions requires time and effort, something participants not always have. This is mostly a problem at the beginning. As soon as it becomes clear to participants what the added value of the approach is then they are perfectly fine with putting in the required effort and time. It is therefore important to make clear right from the beginning what the (expected) benefits to participants are.
Quality of implementation of PFS largely depends on the organizational, communication and methodological skills of facilitators as well as on their regular availability throughout the FFS cycle. In some instances, poor quality of facilitators has led to inadequate experimentation and ecosystem analysis. Continuous support is required to improve the facilitation skills of facilitators.
Aligning PFS approach into the government extension system requires commitment of policy makers. National platforms, policy makers visit of PFS activities and use of public media are some the mechanisms for creating awareness for institutionalizing PFS into the government extension sytem.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
There is room for improving experimentation and linking it more strongly to an ecosystem analysis. Better training of facilitators.
While taking up the issue of conflict and conflict management, the approach does not always fully cover the complete socioeconomic interconnections that the problem of conflicts in pastoral areas is linked to. Make sure that a detailed socioeconomic analysis is undertaken before the interventions start. This will help in ensuring better coverage of all the complex relationships and interconnections.
Different institutions implement PFS differently. Harmonization of the field school approach is critical among the field school practioners.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Impact Assessment of Pastoralist Field Schools in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda

Available from where? Costs?

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/drought/docs/PFS%20IA%20report%20final.pdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Improved food security, livelihoods and resilience of vulnerable pastoral communities in the Greater Horn of Africa through the pastoral field school approach OSRO/RAF/103/SWI - Final report

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Pastoralist field schools- Training of facilitators manual

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl492e.pdf

Title/ description:

Farmer field school guiadance document - Planning for quality programmes

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5296e.pdf

Title/ description:

Global farmer field school platform

URL:

http://www.fao.org/farmer-field-schools/en/

Title/ description:

Pastoralist field schools: Discovery based learning in practice

URL:

http://www.celep.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/PFS-Reglap-learning-practice.pdf

Title/ description:

Farmer field schools for small-scale livestock producers- A guide for decision makers on improving livelihoods

URL:

http://www.fao.org/3/I8655EN/i8655en.pdf

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules