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

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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (DEZA / COSUDE / DDC / SDC) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A Farmer Field School (FFS) is a community-based practically-oriented field study programme.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: It is usually a time-bound activity (generally one agricultural production cycle), involving a group (commonly 20-30) of farmers, facilitated by agricultural advisors or – increasingly – by other farmers. The FFS provides an opportunity for farmers to learn together, using practical, hands-on methods of discovery-based and participatory learning.

Methods: The methods emphasise observation, discussion, analysis, collective decision-making, presentation and taking appropriate action. Discussion and analysis are important ways to combine local indigenous knowledge with new concepts and bring both into decision-making. The aim is to develop participants’ decision-making and problem solving capacity among farmers. The process builds self-confidence (particularly for women), encourages group control of the process, and builds management and leadership skills. Although FFS are time-bound, many groups formalise their relations and continue study or action projects, including FFS on other subjects, after the FFS learning cycle is completed. The Farmer Field Schools on Integrated Land and Water Management (ILWM) in eastern and central Kenya focus on learning about how to improve management of land and water resources both on individual plot and farm level and within ‘landscapes’ and communal lands; including local watersheds, river-valleys, forested hill-tops, grazing lands, eroded gullies etc. Each FFS group experiments practically on selected SLM practices/ measures. All learning takes place in the field and farmers usually meet once per week at a selected host farm in their locality to monitor their field experiments and to discuss emerging issues. Trained facilitators, usually agricultural advisors, guide farmers in their observation and analysis of what is taking place in the field. Local farmer innovations are identified to feed indigenous knowledge into the FFS process: Innovators visit FFS groups or FFS members visit innovators farms to share their knowledge.

Other important information: The FFS process combined with the promotion of farmer innovation has proven to contribute to strong and cohesive groups that are able to make informed decisions and change cultural and practical behaviour in order to improve their production and land management. The process also builds self-confidence, and empowers especially women to take on leadership roles in the community. The impacts observed of FFS thus have strong biophysical and social dimensions.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (community organisational building for collective action and collective storage and marketing of products)

Support farmers’ knowledge levels and decision making capacity in relation to sustainable land and water management Raise farmers’ yields in a sustainable manner and ultimately contribute to increased net farm income Strengthen community organisation and collective efforts

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Land degradation, climatic variability and loss of agricultural biodiversity, Farmers focus on their own farms and income and lack of interest for wider watershed / environment

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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
planning	interactive
implementation	interactive
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• courses

Subjects covered:

Agricultural advisors were trained in the FFS approach and in ILWM topics through a total of four weeks of training. Farmers were trained in FFS through season-long FFS learning where farmers meet at a host-farm weekly to carry study activities.

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:

Name of method used for advisory service: Participatory extension; Participatory extension with season-long regular interaction between farmers and agricultural advisors. At a later stage also strong farmer-to-farmer extension

The approach requires an attitude shift among agricultural extension workers to become more client-orientated.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: international: 60.0%; government: 20.0%; local community / land user(s): 20.0%

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

Graduated FFS groups have organised themselves into a network and farmer organisations that have taken on collective activities following the end of the initial project. In some cases this has included starting up self-financed new FFS groups.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The collective action created in communities to deal with and manage their own resources.
Improved capacity of farmers for problem solving and innovation in ISWM.

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

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
A top-down and patronising attitude towards farmers are common among agricultural staff and experts, which prevents equal and trustful relationships	Institutionalisation of participatory extension is thus needed with a change in mindset among government and other agricultural support staff.
The various government bodies and ministries responsible for land and water issue often operate individually without strong synergie	A stronger collaboration is needed between ministries especially Ministry of Water and Ministry of Agriculture in order to deal effectively with land and water aspects in an integrated manner.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Duveskog D. 2001. Adapted from A Study Guide for Farmer Field Schools: Water Harvesting and Soil Moisture Retention.FAO-IIRR. 2006. Discovery-based Learning on Land and Water Management: Practical Guide for Farmer Field Schools.