3. The IPM farmer field school

There is a standard model FFS. This standard model establishes a norm for the implementation of an FFS. There is plenty of room for variation as long as the resulting process is learner-centred, participatory and relies on an experiential learning approach. There have been variations in the standard rice IPM FFS model; different situations call for adaptations. When an FFS is conducted in a crop other than rice, there are necessarily changes based on factors such as the key growth stages of the crop, local cropping patterns and specific local problems. Any FFS should rely on the same process; it is the content that changes as the FFS is conducted with different crops. The four IPM principles, of course, underpin any IPM FFS.

This chapter begins with a general description of the FFS approach followed by more detailed discussion of relevant implementation issues.

3.1 The typical rice IPM field school

The following is a list of rice IPM farmer field school basics.

• The IPM school is field-based and lasts for a full cropping season.

• A rice FFS meets once a week with a total number of meetings that range from at least 10 up to 16.

• The primary learning material at a farmer field school is the rice field.

• The field school meeting place is close to the farming plots, often in a farmer's home and sometimes beneath a convenient tree.

• FFS educational methods are experiential, participatory and learner-centred.

• Each FFS meeting includes at least three activities: the agro-ecosystem analysis, a special topic and a group dynamics activity.

• In every FFS participants conduct a study comparing IPM with non-IPM treated plots.

• An FFS often includes several additional field studies depending on local field problems.

• Between 25 and 30 farmers participate in an FFS. Participants learn together in small groups of five to maximize participation.

• All FFSs include a field day in which farmers make presentations about IPM and the results of their studies.

• A pre- and post-test are conducted as part of every field school for diagnostic purposes and for determining follow-up activities.

• The facilitators of FFSs undergo intensive season-long residential training to prepare them for organizing and conducting field schools.

• Preparation meetings precede an FFS to determine needs, recruit participants and develop a learning contract.

• Final meetings of the FFS often include planning for follow-up activities.

3.1.1 To the field

The following boxes contain observation notes of FFSs that were made by members of the FAO technical assistance team while conducting FFS quality monitoring in Indonesia. A visitor to a rice IPM field school would see the things described in these notes. This section is organized around the schedule of an FFS meeting. Box 3.1 concerns the meeting place of an FFS. Experience has shown that FFSs that meet near the field in less formal situations, for example a participant's house, result in more effective meetings than those held in more formal settings, such as village offices, where the process is more likely to be interrupted by outsiders.

The FFS does not depend on outside materials, but it does depend on having access to fields where observations can be made and studies organized. The materials that can be found in an FFS are those that learners use to construct experiments or in making analyses and presentations. Box 3.2 presents a discussion about the materials available to the farmers of Uma Bun FFS.

07.30 hours: agro-ecosystem observation, analysis and presentation

Working in five member teams, participants enter the FFS learning fields to observe general field conditions, sample plants, collect insects, make notes and gather live specimens. The field provides all of the basic learning materials and subject matter for the FFS. Each team analyses its field samples and notes by creating a visual analytical tool known as the agro-ecosystem drawing. This tool is made up of key ecosystem factors such as pest/predator densities, plant health, field conditions, weather, and current management treatment. The output of the analysis is a field management decision. Following the analytical session, a member of each small group presents his or her group's analysis and decisions to the rest of the members of the FFS. The presenter and his or her group then defend their analysis in this open discussion. "What if...?" problem-posing questions further hone analytical skills during the discussion among groups. Box 3.3 provides a description of the agro-ecosystem process.

10.30 hours: special topic

This activity is linked to the stage of growth of the crop and specific local issues. This part of the curriculum should be tailored for each FFS. The topic is selected from a large menu of potential topics that are mastered by FFS facilitators during their training. Special topic activities cover such issues as community rat control, crop physiology, health and safety, food webs, field ecology, economic analysis, water management and fertilizer use. Most but not all of these exercises require that participants again enter the field. The process involved in a typical special topic is described in Box 3.4

11.30 hours: group dynamics

The goal of group dynamics exercises is to strengthen group cohesion, maintain motivation and help participants develop organizational skills. There is a large menu of group dynamics activities that facilitators learn during their training. Often facilitators will help farmers process the activity by asking them how the activity is relevant to the special topic of the day or to some local farming problem. The group dynamics activity described in Box 3.5 concerns communications.

12.00 hours: review and planning

The FFS meeting ends with a summary of developments in the field in which results of the agroecosystem analysis are reviewed. Other long-term activities such as field studies in plant nutrition or plant compensation are also reviewed at this time. Plans for future field school activities (for example determining the topic for "insect zoo" studies) are usually discussed at this point.

3.1.2 Further notes on the FFS

There remain a few details on FFS activities to provide a picture of the FFS. The following notes add some details to the field visits.

Activity matrices: The following tables describe discreet steps and behaviours that an observer should be able to see when the agro-ecosystem analysis process, a special topic or a group dynamics exercise is being conducted. While these are primarily outlines, the "indicators" column presents the observable steps that are fundamental to the process. Note that for any of the activities the role of the facilitator is to help participants learn, not to teach them.

Table 3.1 Agro-ecosystem activity matrix

Special topics activities are discovery learning activities. They depend upon the facilitator's ability to pose questions that will help participants to critically analyse what they have observed during the activity.

Table 3.2 Special topics activity matrix

Many of the group dynamics exercises are physical and active; others are more like brain teasers. The role of the facilitator is to help participants analyse what they have experienced so that they reach a greater understanding of how people tend to behave in various situations.

Table 3.3 Group dynamics activity matrix

The insect zoo: The insect zoo and cage studies should be conducted as part of any FFS. The insect zoo can be considered to be either a special topic or an additional study. This activity can focus on locally identified pest problems, but it is often used in any of several possible general topics such as pest and predator relationships, insect life cycles and plant and insect relationships.

Often the insect zoo is used to help participants discover the predatory capacities of natural enemies. In general, the insect zoo helps FFS participants to increase their understanding of ecological principles in their agro-ecosystems.

The insect zoo consists of a rice plant placed in a pot and enclosed either with clear plastic or very fine netting. The point of the enclosure is that nothing can get in or out. The photograph above shows the physical structure of the insect zoo. Several stakes keep the enclosing plastic or netting off the plant.

A fairly simple insect zoo study would be to examine the capacity of a wolf spider to consume BPH. The spider and a number of BPH - the number of BPH should be sufficient to provide the spider a couple of days of hunting, maybe 40 adults - are placed together in the zoo and the zoo is sealed. FFS participants are then asked to observe the insect zoo over the week between FFS meetings and take note of what happens. The following week at the FFS, they would be expected to report on what happened. The goal of insect zoo studies is to help increase the participants' understanding of relationships among insects found in the rice field agro-ecosystem.

Field studies: In contrast to special topics, which are usually short exercises or experiments, a field study usually continues for the entire season of the FFS. One example of an FFS field study is the comparison study of IPM-treated and non-IPM-treated field plots that is conducted as part of every FFS (see Box 3.2). These plots could be further divided into subplots to conduct additional studies, often known as supporting studies. In general the supporting studies focus on local issues identified in the needs assessment conducted as part of the preparation meetings for the FFS. Almost any study done as a part of the season-long training of IPM field trainers could be designed as a supporting study for an FFS. Participants begin to learn the process of doing applied field research from these field studies. Farmers who had gone on to conduct their own research pointed out that the exposure to various studies in the FFS provided them with the motivation to continue applied research in their own fields.

An example of a common supporting field study at an FFS is the simulation of stemborer damage by the cutting of rice plant tillers. In this study, plants in study blocks within one of the comparison study fields would have their tillers cut (see photo above). The study could be as simple as cutting 20 percent of the tillers in 1 m2 blocks at 14, 30 and 55 DAT. During the FFS, participants would make weekly observations of the growth of the treated plants and take note of the numbers of tillers in these plants. At harvest, the participants would compare the number of tillers and grains, grain weight, and yield of the study blocks with samples from the larger field in which the supporting study was conducted. The study is a good demonstration of the capacity of a plant to compensate for damage due to stemborers.

Preparation meetings: Preparation meetings have become an important part of organizing FFSs in many countries. In general these meetings are used to:

• brief local leaders about the FFS process and goals;

• brief potential participants about the FFS process, conduct a gender analysis and a needs assessment, and select participants.

Local leaders will want to know about administrative issues such as the general timing of the FFS. The purpose for meeting with local leaders is to help them understand the FFS process and how they can contribute to making the FFS successful. The meeting with potential participants should be relatively structured and scheduled so that most of the farmers in the area, cooperative or neighbourhood can attend. This meeting can affect the make-up of the FFS in terms of the curriculum of the FFS, the number of women who will participate in the FFS and the understanding of participants about the FFS (this understanding will in turn affect their commitment to the FFS). Community mapping is a technique that can be used in these meetings to help participants analyse field realities.

The gender analysis activity is meant to raise the awareness of the group regarding the role of women in agriculture. The goal of the analysis is to recruit women for the FFS or to increase the number of women participating in it. Women play an important role in agriculture throughout Asia. A policy of actively recruiting women is almost the only way to guarantee that significant numbers of women participate in FFSs.

Materials: Some of the materials required to support FFS activities include plywood sheets (as bases 24 to draw on), large pieces of newsprint or poster paper, crayons, large felt-tipped pens, and notebooks and pens for farmers. Farmers generate their own learning materials, from drawings of insects to analytical tools. These materials are more consistent with local conditions, are less expensive to develop and are controlled by the learners themselves.

The ballot box: Usually an FFS has a pre- and post-test. The ballot box is a diagnostic test developed in the 1980s for IPM training in the Philippines. This is a field-based test in which 20 to 25 "balloting" stations (bamboo stakes with three small boxes and a multiple-choice question attached) are placed around the edge of a rice plot. The boxes have small slots in their tops through which ballots are entered. The ballots are usually cardboard paper "coins" that are numbered. Each participant is given an identifying number from one to twenty-five. Participants are given a set of 25 paper "coins" with their number inscribed. They then go from station to station and place their coins in the boxes that are lettered according to the choices associated with each question. The questions might include:

• identification of the roles of various insects (the insects should be in clear plastic bags or bottles attached to the question);

• damage on rice plants (a string should run from the question and be attached to the damaged area on a nearby plant); and

• other relevant field questions that can be readily seen and identified with live samples.

Balt box "polling station"

No drawings or pictures are used and no abstract questions are asked that cannot be based on a live sample. The pre- and post-tests should cover the same material and be of the same relative difficulty.

The tests are usually conducted as part of the first and last meetings of an FFS.

The results should point out weak areas of knowledge (in the case of the pre-test) or the learning needs of participants. The post-test, when compared to the pre-test, can be used to indicate improvements in knowledge among FFS participants and to determine needs for follow-up activities.

3.1.3 The role of the facilitator

The role of the facilitator is crucial in an FFS. In general the facilitator:

• organizes the field school;

• facilitates the activities associated with the 12 to 16 meetings of the field school;

• takes care of basic administrative issues; and

• maintains constructive communications with local government officials, NGOs and other agencies in the area where the FFS is located.

Organizing an FFS requires a facilitator to:

• determine the site for the FFS and identify study fields (see the section below, "Implementation issues");

• identify potential participants, usually via a local agriculture group;

• determine local endemic problems to be treated by the FFS; and

• conduct preparation meetings.

Leading an FFS appears easy in the hands of an experienced facilitator. The key is confidence and this only comes with experience. The above matrices detail what the role of a facilitator is in the various FFS activities. In general, the facilitator introduces an activity, clarifies the process, sets participants to work, asks open-ended and "what if" questions as groups make their presentations, and summarizes presentations underlining the important points that were learned during the exercise. This summary can also be done via questioning. An additional role that is important is the procurement of materials. Facilitators can best do this at the local level.

Administrative activities vary from country to country; they depend in many cases upon the needs of the organization taking responsibility for the implementation of the FFS. A few basic administrative activities would greatly help a "system" to know about how well FFS implementation is going as well as help the facilitator to improve his or her skills. These activities could include:

• Collect and report basic bio data such as name age, gender, education, access to land (form of ownership or rental contract);

• Report results of pre- and post-tests;

• Save weekly results of agro-ecosystem analyses;

• Prepare activity plans for each FFS meeting with ensuing reports per meeting containing comments about implementation (a useful analysis would be to have the facilitator describe positive aspects of each activity or what went well, then the facilitator could identify needed improvements and how those improvements could be made), data on attendance, and relevant notes on field conditions; and

• Interview a number of participants before the start-up or the FFS about their pre-FFS farming practices; this data could be used as baseline data to determine changed practices.

Bio data helps the facilitator to keep track of who has participated in FFSs in a particular village. Preand post-test data can help docment increased knowledge on the part of participants and provide a record for reference. Activity plans and reports help the facilitator and his or her supervisor to prepare for and review FFS meetings. Baseline data are useful if a programme wants to determine whether farmers changed their practices because of attending an FFS. Those participants who provided baseline data can be re-interviewed to determine what changes they have made based on their FFS experience.

Constructive communications with local leaders and supporting agency staff essentially means that the facilitator needs to keep these persons informed about what is happening in the FFS. Simple steps to good communications with local leaders include inviting them to FFSs, visiting their offices and perhaps taking them to see the FFS study fields. The field day, an activity late in the FFS schedule, is meant, in part, to let these leaders see the results of an FFS.

3.2 Implementation issues

This section examines some of the problems related to FFS implementation. Problems can arise concerning the conduct of FFSs regardless of the scale of FFS implementation. In general, the problems fall into two categories, facilitation and logistics.

3.2.1 Facilitation

Facilitation problems arise because of a few simple issues. Sometimes facilitators feel they lack technical knowledge (this may really be the case). This condition often leads to a lack of self-confidence which may lead in turn to an erosion of the participatory nature envisioned for FFS activities. For example, the facilitator may decide to lecture and/or limit discussion regarding topics that he or she is unsure of.

A second possible cause of facilitation problems arises when a training-of-trainer (TOT) session does not provide enough opportunities for participants to master the FFS process. This can occur when participants are conducting FFSs in parallel with their own training. Usually a group of TOT participants jointly conduct an FFS. The planned FFS activities may not be practised enough prior to the FFS meeting, or the shyer TOT participants may allow others to take charge of activities and "hide" in the group. In either case the result is that TOT participants complete their training lacking enough experience to confidently facilitate an FFS.

A third reason for poor facilitation skills results from inadequate support and supervision by TOT trainers of the FFSs conducted as part of the TOT. FFS activities conducted as part of a TOT need to be processed by trainers and participants to determine what went well, what needs to be improved and how to make those improvements. Supervising trainers need to spend time working on the facilitation skills of FFS facilitators.

A fourth reason why participants may complete their TOT without having achieved mastery of the facilitation skills needed to conduct an FFS is that those skills simply were not stressed. A common tendency is to focus on technical issues in a TOT and allow facilitation skills to take care of themselves. The point is that all activities in a TOT, as in an FFS, should follow an experiential learning process.

The steps to correct facilitation problems are obvious. First, the TOT needs to provide both practice in conducting FFS activities and time for participants to analyse these processes. Second, the TOT needs to include adult non-formal education topics in its curriculum. Third, trainers in TOTs need to be more than just technically sound from the IPM perspective. The best TOT trainers have experience in conducting FFSs.

Fourth, currently in most countries, participants conduct FFSs in parallel with their TOT. Participants need to master ecological principles or facilitation skills before beginning an FFS. When the TOT and laboratory season are conducted together, several measures can be taken to improve the quality of both the TOT and the FFS that are being conducted.

• The first FFS meeting should start about a month after the TOT so that participants have been introduced to the IPM principles, have experienced the first steps in learning about IPM and have begun to master activities such as the agro-ecosystem exercise.

• TOT participants should be involved in the preparation of the FFS.

• The FFS should not be distant from the TOT.

• Schedule the FFS meetings for the end of the training week. Use a significant part of the day before the meeting preparing participants to conduct the meeting. The day following the meeting should include time to analyse what took place during the FFS meeting.

There is no real dilemma between technical skills and facilitation skills training. TOT processes for learning technical knowledge are much the same as those activities in an FFS. They are based on discovery learning via structured participatory exercises. If these exercises are well analysed as part of the TOT, participants will master the facilitation skills needed to conduct an FFS. We learn how to help others learn by observing how we learn. Facilitators set an example at the FFS; TOT participants will follow that example in the field.

3.2.2 Logistics

Logistic issues greatly affect the quality of an FFS. They include:

• Location of the FFS;

• Synchronization of the FFS with the planting season;

• Maintenance of a full schedule for each FFS meeting;

• Location of study fields relative to the FFS meeting place;

• Control over study fields;

• Relationship of the FFS to local needs;

• Inadequate materials and/or late arrival of funds.

Location of the FFS: Often the decision criteria for distribution of FFSs are based on administrative boundaries. The more a farmer is dependent on farming, the more likely he or she will be interested in an FFS and the more he or she will participate in it. Conversely, part-time farmers may well turn out to be part-time participants in an FFS. Thus, it makes sense to locate FFSs in areas where farmers are more likely to be full-time farmers and full-time participants.

Synchronisation of the FFS with the planting season: There is often pressure to get field schools implemented. The FFS is designed to run parallel with the growing season so that farmers can observe field ecology issues through all stages of plant growth. If start-up of the FFS does not mesh with the planting season, two things happen. First, as the season wears on it becomes more difficult to establish field study plots for the FFS, since the farmers owning the fields may have already applied pesticides. Second, starting late in the season means that participants are not given an opportunity to study the rice agro-ecosystem at all of the important stages of plant growth. Therefore, many of the important lessons to be learned about early-season ecosystem balance, plant compensation and the emergence and development of herbivore and predator populations are missed. A rice IPM FFS should begin between the first and third week after transplanting. Figure 1 shows a timeline for a 12-week FFS that is synchronized with a planting season to start a week after transplanting.

Figure 1 FFS meetings and the rice planting season

Maintenance of a full meeting schedule: An FFS meeting should consist of the agro-ecosystem analysis activity, a special topic and a group dynamics activity. Not doing so has been shown to lead to low attendance and low interest by participants. Farmers demand quality as they make continual costbenefit evaluations of their time investment in an FFS. If they feel the activity is not worth their while they will choose not to participate. If five or six participants make this decision the FFS will be on a downward spin. The issue is not one of cutting off discussion or short-changing an activity so that a daily schedule is maintained. Farmers will willingly allow an FFS meeting to overrun its closing time if they feel that they are getting something out of it.

The causes of activities dropping off the agenda or meetings being shortened include:

• an unbending approach to scheduling meetings that places the FFS in conflict with village events;

• poor meeting logistics;

• poor logistic support that causes materials not to be on hand when needed.

The first issue can be negotiated with participants and another day in the same week be found for the meeting. Both facilitators and farmers should learn how to negotiate these issues. Poor meeting logistics refers to time wasted because of poor planning, poor facilitation and/or poor preparation. Too much time taken in walking between study fields and meeting place can seriously eat into a daily schedule. Keeping the learning fields close to the meeting place is very important. Lack of clarity in providing instruction regarding the process of an activity can lead to false starts and poor implementation and take time away from other activities. Materials needed for FFS activities may be on hand, but they have to be used effectively. This means that the facilitator needs to know what he or she wants to do, how materials can be used, and to have them available when they are needed.

Control over study fields: Study fields are the heart of the FFS. Besides the need for synchronicity and propinquity, there must be an agreement with the owner of the fields to abide by FFS decisions regarding management of the plots used by the FFS. This means that insecticides should not be used in the IPM treatment fields unless the FFS takes that decision. FFS participants need to feel at liberty to walk in the study fields. If they or the owner feel that doing so would cause a loss to the owner of the field, they are less likely to go into the field during certain stages of plant growth. Some form of compensation or "rent" may be needed for the owner to be agreeable to the above two conditions. The facilitator will have to negotiate with field owners in preparation for the FFS and the FFS budget should include compensation for owners.

Relationship of FFS to local needs: The push to get an FFS organized and under way may lead to overlooking the locally important farming problems that need to be addressed by the FFS, especially if they concern pests, diseases or growing a healthy crop. Good preparation meetings should turn up these problems. There are many ways to do needs assessments. The Indonesian programme has used a variety of mapping techniques allowing farmers to identify hot spots and hot issues. If farmers feel that they are getting a national curriculum they may avoid the FFS.

Inadequate materials and/or late arrival of funds: Taking for granted that materials and budget will flow on time can be a mistake. Financial systems have their own schedules that often do not mesh with planting schedules. This problem influences the synchronization of FFS meetings with planting time, the quality of activities, the number of activities conducted at a particular meeting, the compensation of study field owners, preparation meetings and the number of FFS meetings. If funds are inadequate to begin with or erode before they arrive in the field, all FFS activities will suffer. While mass-produced learning materials are not an issue for FFS implementation, materials that participants use for their own learning are an issue (see the section on materials under "Activities", above). They must be on hand when needed and their quality must guarantee that they can be used as planned.

These issues should be addressed from the beginning. Project design documents can ensure that there is sufficient budget available for FFS activities. The design can also detail a process for delivering funds to the field that will guarantee that adequate funds arrive in the field on time (i.e. so that the FFS is synchronized with the planting season). Purchasing materials is most effective when done locally. There are often mistakes when materials are purchased at the national level. Also the delivery of materials on time to trainers across the many scattered locations where FFSs are conducted can be difficult. IPM field trainers know the materials that they need and they can get them locally avoiding cross-country transport.

A final note on logistics: In successful programmes, the locus of decision making has been moved as close to the field as possible. This means that FFS facilitators have a chance to contribute to decision making and controlling logistical support. They are the people in a given system who are most involved with FFSs and the needs of farmers. They have an active interest in guaranteeing that what they do is useful to farmers. FFS facilitators care; they should have a voice in decisions regarding what they are doing.