Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

5. Farmers field school (impact of ffs) A Series of Lectures By Mr Allah Dad Khan Provincial Director IPM KPK MINFAL Pakistan

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Wird geladen in …3
×

Hier ansehen

1 von 15 Anzeige

5. Farmers field school (impact of ffs) A Series of Lectures By Mr Allah Dad Khan Provincial Director IPM KPK MINFAL Pakistan

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

A Series of Lectures By Mr Allah Dad Khan Provincial Director IPM KPK MINFAL Pakistan

A Series of Lectures By Mr Allah Dad Khan Provincial Director IPM KPK MINFAL Pakistan

Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Ähnlich wie 5. Farmers field school (impact of ffs) A Series of Lectures By Mr Allah Dad Khan Provincial Director IPM KPK MINFAL Pakistan (20)

Anzeige

Weitere von Mr.Allah Dad Khan (20)

Aktuellste (20)

Anzeige

5. Farmers field school (impact of ffs) A Series of Lectures By Mr Allah Dad Khan Provincial Director IPM KPK MINFAL Pakistan

  1. 1. Farmer Field Schools (Impact of FFS) A Series of Lectures By Mr. Allah Dad Khan Provincial Director IPM KPK MINFAL Pakistan
  2. 2. Defining impact  What is seen as impact of IPM depends on a project’s objective. What do IPM initiatives attempt to achieve? Is the purpose to reduce insecticide use, to enhance sustainable pest management, or to enhance adaptive crop management? Is it to increase yields, to increase profits, or to improve livelihoods?  Although initially, pest resurgence was the problem that triggered the emergence of the IPM Farmer Field School, the objective has been to enable farmers to become better managers of their fields. Crop health – not pest control – was the central theme in most training. Later still, an objective was added to help farmers become better trainers, organizers and experimenters within their own locally developed programs.  The training often went further than increasing farmers’ technical capabilities and also helped enhance their educational, social and political capabilities.  This raises the question of what should be considered impact: the immediate impacts such as farmer knowledge, decision capabilities, pesticide use or yield, or the indirect developmental impacts such as reduced poisoning, improved biodiversity, community agenda setting or policy change
  3. 3. Table -Examples of immediate and developmental impacts of the IPM Farmer Field School, arranged according to the technical, social and political domain.Domain Immediate impact Developmental impact Technical Knowledge about ecology More sustainable production Experimentation skills Improved livelihoods Improved crop management Ability to deal with risks, opportunities Pesticide reduction Innovation Yield increase More cost-effective production Profit increase Reduced water contamination Risk reduction Reduced frequency of farmer poisoning Reduced public health risks Improved biodiversity Improved marketability of produce Poverty reduction
  4. 4. Table Examples of immediate and developmental impacts of the IPM Farmer Field School, arranged according to the technical, social and political domain. Domain Immediate impact Developmental impact Social Group building Collaboration between farmers Communication skills Farmer associations Problem solving skills Community agenda setting Farmer study groups Formation of networks Farmer-to-farmer extension Area-wide action Political Farmer-extension linkage Stronger access to service providers Negotiating skills Improved leverage position Educational skills Awareness campaigns Protests Policy change
  5. 5. PROGRAMME IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL/HEALTH IMPACTS 1. Focus on IPPM has led to farmers 2. appreciating the importance of 3. Agroecosystem & hence having the attitude 4. to conserve the environment 5. FFS has also provided a study forum for 6. topics such as HIV/AIDS awareness, malaria 7. control, immunization, nutrition, clean 8. drinking water, pesticide exposure etc
  6. 6. PROGRAMME IMPACTS PROGRAMME REPLICABILITY AND SCALING UP IMPACTS  Farmers taking the initiative to start up FFS  themselves: about 30 self funded FFS have  emerged  A number of other donors and NGOs have  adopted the approach as a basis for the  implementation of their projects: UNDP,  USAID,EU, DFID, Rockfeller Foundation,  ILRI, KARI, a wide range of NGOs and local  institutions and the Ministry of agriculture
  7. 7. LESSONS LEARNED A. The FFS is an effective and comparatively cheap B. tool to encourage communities to validate and C. adapt improved technologies to local conditions, D. improve rural food security and income generation, and empower farmers to find solutions to their problems E. FFS approach can be successfully used and adapted to improve skills and knowledge of farmers for a wide range of crops/livestock/natural resource management enterprises.
  8. 8. Financing  Farmer groups managing directly the funds of the  FFS, in particular the payment for the provision of extension services, substantially improved the performance of extension delivery and accountability of extension providers  The strategy used by the programme to promote farmer led FFS has allowed a large number of farmers to benefit. Investing in skill development & networking of farmer facilitators allows extension workers to reach many more farmers compared to most other extension approaches.
  9. 9. Empowerment FFS empowered communities and raised their profile at district level, as has been demonstrated by the creation of strong and cohesive FFS networks. This FFS networks emerged without external support. They have big potential in acting as a platform for community based extension activities, and for addressing marketing and policy issues
  10. 10. Experience in FFS Experiences suggest that approach is highly appreciated by both sexes but females seem to value the approach more due to the practical, field-based learning focus and the social value of FFS groups
  11. 11. Impact of FFS in Sind  Participant have 38 percent more cotton yield compared to non FFS farmers. The major contribution to cotton’s yield was of input labor man days as compared to other cotton crop inputs, which indicates that cotton crop is more  labor intensive. However, the irrational use of chewing and sucking pesticides has a negative impact on cotton’s yield.  The mean efficiency of all the farmers were estimated as 78 percent, which shows that 22 percent improvement is still possible in technical efficiency of cotton growers. The FFS farmers were found more technically efficient as compared to non-  FFS farmers. The inefficiency variables such as age and education shows that these two factors have a negative impact on technical inefficiency however, contact of farmers with agriculture extension department is increasing inefficiency, which shows that there are weak linkages between Agriculture extension department and farming community of the study area.
  12. 12. Impact of FFS in Sind  The high yield of FFS farmers urged the need that FFS approach should be the part of non-development programme in all the four provinces of Pakistan.  The FFS approach should be executed under the umbrella of a single institution which will provide a paved way for proper implementation of this approach.  The focus of FFS approach on rational use of crop inputs and environmental benign practices can also help to meet World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. These obligations under sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures of WTO emphasis on reasonable use of pesticide spray on crops.

×