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

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

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

2.1 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, VSF-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 analyze 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 school master trainer) 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.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

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 their support structures in disaster risk management to reduce food insecurity vulnerability.

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

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	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)

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

4.1 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 and NGO that implemented the approach in the target area have been strengthened through capacity building on PFS. Also the capacity on PFS of national Government institutions was strengthened.

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.

5.1 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

6.1 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:

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.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

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