1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

Improved food security, livelihoods and resilience of vulnerable pastoral communities in the Greater Horn of Africa through the pastoralist field school approach

Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)

FAO Kenya (FAO Kenya) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Quand les données ont-elles été compilées (sur le terrain)?

01/04/2014

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

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 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

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 inquiry 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 schoolmaster 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 de l'approche

2.4 Vidéos de l'Approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

2.7 Type d'Approche

• initiative/ innovation récente locale

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

To strengthen the capacity of pastoral communities and their support structures (including through improved natural resources management) for disaster risk management in order to contribute to reduced vulnerability to food insecurity.

2.9 Conditions favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche

	Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales	Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
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.
planification	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.
mise en œuvre	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.
suivi/ évaluation	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 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Indiquez qui a décidé de la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies à mettre en œuvre:

• principalement les exploitants des terres soutenus par des spécialistes de la GDT

Expliquez:

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.

Spécifiez sur quelle base ont été prises les décisions:

• expériences et opinions personnelles (non documentées)

• hands-on testing and adaptation for local use

4.1 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

Spécifiez qui a été formé:

• exploitants des terres
• personnels/ conseillers de terrain

Si pertinent, spécifiez le genre, l'âge, le statut, l'ethnie, 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.

Formats de la formation:

• sur le tas
• entre agriculteurs (d'exploitants à exploitants)
• zones de démonstration

Thèmes abordés:

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 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Oui

Spécifiez si le service de conseils est fourni:

• dans les champs des exploitants?

Décrivez/ commentez:

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 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?

• oui, modérément

Spécifiez à quel(s) niveau(x), ces institutions ont été renforcées ou mises en place:

• local
• national

Décrivez l'institution, ses rôles et responsabilités, ses membres, 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.

Précisez le type de soutien:

• renforcement des capacités/ formation

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

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.

Si oui, ce document est-il destiné à être utilisé pour le suivi et l'évaluation?

Non

4.5 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Oui

Spécifiez les thèmes:

• économie/ marketing
• technologie

Donnez plus de détails et indiquez qui a mené ces recherches:

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 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:

• 2 000-10 000

Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

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 Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils reçu un soutien financier/ matériel pour la mise en œuvre de la Technologie/ des Technologies?

Oui

Si oui, spécifiez le(s) type(s) de soutien, les conditions et les fournisseurs:

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

5.3 Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques (incluant la main d'œuvre)

• aucun

5.4 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

5.5 Autres incitations ou instruments

D'autres incitations ou instruments ont-ils été utilisés pour promouvoir la mise en œuvre des Technologies de GDT?

Non

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

6.2 Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en œuvre la GDT

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?

• oui

Si oui, décrivez de quelle manière:

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

6.4 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
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.

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
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 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue de l’exploitant des terres	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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.

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé	Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
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 Méthodes/ sources d'information

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

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

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

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

Titre, auteur, année, 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 Liens vers les informations pertinentes disponibles en ligne

Titre/ description:

Pastoralist field schools- Training of facilitators manual

URL:

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

Titre/ description:

Farmer field school guiadance document - Planning for quality programmes

URL:

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

Titre/ description:

Global farmer field school platform

URL:

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

Titre/ description:

Pastoralist field schools: Discovery based learning in practice

URL:

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

Titre/ 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