gfras good practice note for extension and advisory services

NOTE 2: Farmer Field Schools (FFS)

Compiled by: Mona Dhamankar and Mariana Wongtschowski, July 2014

There is plenty of information available in the public domain that covers various aspects of extension and
­know-how about new methodologies for implementation. However this information is often scattered and
­presented in complex academic language. Hence practitioners, who often have very limited time and/or may
only have basic formal education, find it difficult to make use of this information.

The Global Good Practices Initiative aims to bridge this gap by providing information about extension approaches
and methods in easy-to-understand formats. As part of this effort, it makes “Good Practice Notes” available to
all on a downloadable website. This Note contains one of the extension methods included in this series.

KEY FFS PRINCIPLES

Learning by doing –adults learn better through expe-

• 
rience rather than passive listening at lectures and
­demonstrations.
• Every FFS is unique, as far as content is concerned: Farm-
ers decide what is relevant and what FFS should a ­ ddress.
• Learning from mistakes - each person’s experience of
reality is unique and valid.
• Learning how to learn - farmers build their capacity to
observe, analyse, and make conscious decisions.
• Problem posing/problem solving - problems are posed
as challenges not constraints.
• Farmers’ fields are the learning ground - the field -
crop or livestock production system - is the main
learning tool.
• Extension workers are facilitators not teachers -
because their role is to guide the learning process.
• Unity is strength - farmers in a group have more
power than individual farmers.
Introduction • All FFS follow a systematic training process -
Farmer Field Schools (FFS) is a group-based adult learning key steps are observation, group discussion,
approach that teaches farmers how to experiment and analysis, decision-making, and action-planning.
solve problems independently. Sometimes called “schools Source: Groenweg, K., et.al. 2006. Livestock farmer field schools:
without walls”, in FFS groups of farmers meet regularly Guidelines for facilitation and technical manual. Nairobi: ILRI.
with a facilitator, observe, talk, ask questions, and learn
together. Farmer field schools as an approach was first
developed to teach integrated pest management (IPM) based on their ability to read and write and to participate
techniques in rice farming, but it has also been used in in discussions and analysis. Eventually, the program for
organic agriculture, animal husbandry, and also non-farm rice was carried out in 12 Asian countries and gradually
income generating activities such as handicrafts. expanded to include new commodities such as vegetables,
cotton, and other crops. This experience was further used
FFS were originally used in the late 1980s by FAO with to adapt and institutionalize FFSs in more than 90 coun-
rice growers in Indonesia. The participants were selected tries of the world.

Waddington, H. and Howard White. 2014. Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education .Systematic Review Summary 1.
1 

London, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.

Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) www.betterextension.org  1

Philosophy and principles 1. Identifying the focus of the FFS: This is the most critical
The FFS approach is based on the fact that the best ­learning step in preparing for a FFS activity. It is important to
takes place by doing, rather than telling. The facilitator does spend sufficient time on this in order to avoid involving
not lecture the farmers, but helps them to learn by asking farmers in activities that are not of interest to them. The
questions and building on their experience and observations. selection of the FFS activity depends on farmers’ needs,
Farmers are encouraged to make their own discoveries and interests, and the problems that they are currently facing.
draw conclusions. As an extension approach, FFS differs
from the traditional, top-down “transfer of technology” 2. Identifying participants and forming the learning group:
method. Farmers interact with researchers to ask for help Depending upon the focus of the FFS activity, identify
only when they cannot solve a problem by themselves. around 30-40 farmers who share a common concern or
interest in the topic3. They must be able to attend all ses-
Most FFS projects aim to provide training in skills to sions, and willing to work together as a team and share
improve agricultural production, but of late there is an ideas. Selecting more numbers of farmers initially helps
increasing trend to reorient FFS to include empowerment as the group is likely to shrink after the first few sessions.
objectives. Some projects have also included other objec- It is also okay to select already-established groups like
tives such as reducing gender inequality, targeting minor- self-help groups, youth, and/or women’s groups. The
ity groups, community development, and strengthening facilitator’s familiarity with the history of the community,
producer groups.1 Over the years, the scope of the its cultural practices, gender relations, and potential
FFS approach has expanded beyond agriculture/IPM to areas of conflict are important elements in the selection
include issues such as water management, household process. Groups may consist of only men, only women,
livelihood security, improved access to public information or mixed gender depending upon the culture and topic.
by farmers, marketing networks, water and sanitation, and The participants must be willing and capable of contribut-
rural infrastructure development. Therefore, although it ing financially or in material inputs, if required.
originates from agriculture, the FFS approach is funda-
mentally a participatory group approach for collective 3. Identifying the learning site: Any FFS requires a location
action and social mobilisation by the local community.2 to hold meetings and a study object i.e. a field or an ani-
mal. The site and/or the animal must be suitable for the
Implementation FFS activity in a given season and must be representative
A typical FFS consists of 8-12 weeks of hands-on farmer of the problems in the area. It must be easily accessible,
experimentation and non-formal training during a single- and ideally the farmer owning the plot or animal should
crop growing session. Farmers are expected to attend be present for most of the time in the FFS sessions.
weekly classes over one growing season. For arable crops
and/or tree crops, meetings may be held fortnightly. For 4. Training of facilitators: The role of a facilitator is central
livestock, FFS groups meet for a full year - one 4-hour ses- to the FFS process. Each FFS needs a facilitator who
sion per week - making implementing medium-term field takes participants through a series of hands-on exer-
experiments related to livestock issues, especially breeding cises. Because it is not a typical extension approach,
and feeding of cattle, easier. facilitators must undergo a special two to three week
training program. Facilitators can be extension staff of
There are several preparatory steps leading up to the government or non-governmental organisations, private
implementation of an FFS: companies, or graduates of a previous FFS.

TYPICAL FFS SESSION IN THE ORIGINAL INDONESIA PROGRAMME:

8.00 Opening (with a prayer where applicable); Attendance; Introduction to day’s activities.
8.30  Go to field in small teams; Make observation, take notes. Facilitator points out new developments.
9.30 Return to shade. Begin making agro-ecosystem analysis, drawing and discuss management decisions.
10.15 Each team presents results and the group arrives at a consensus on management needs for the coming week.
11.00 Tea/ Coffee break
11.15 Energiser or group-building exercise
11.30 Special study topic or second crop/ livestock study. This could include nutrition, or chicken, or parasites,
or something else of special interest to the group.
12.30 Closing (often with prayer)

Source: Gallagher, K. 2003.Fundamentals of a Farmer Field School. LEISA Magazine.

Jayashantha, D.L Chamila and Puvaneswary Ponniah. (2013). Strengthening rural governance: Farmer field schools as a strategy to build human capital
2 

in conflict affected Jaffna District of Sri Lanka. CARE International. Available: http://www.napsipag.org/pdf/D_L.pdf.
Groeneweg, K. et.al. (2006). Livestock farmer field schools: guidelines for facilitation and technical manual. International Livestock Research Centre:
3 

­Nairobi, Kenya. p.1-11

2 Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) www.betterextension.org

5. Developing the curriculum: Once the FFS group is one of the biggest costs. In 1996-97 the cost of an FFS
formed, the facilitator develops the curriculum based facilitated by a professional extension worker in Indonesia
on the main problems identified by the group. Together was US$532, which covered the facilitator’s honorarium,
with the group, the facilitator decides which activities preparation and coordination expenses, transport, materi-
to take up in order to further explore the problems, test als/inputs, stipends (of around US$0.43 per session),
the solutions, and identify what kind of help/ resources refreshments for participating farmers, compensation for
are needed. FFS follows the natural cycle of its subject, the farmer providing the experimental field, and field day
be it a crop (seed-to-seed), or livestock (egg-to-egg), expenses5. In the recent years, the cost per participant
soil, or handicrafts. Key activities include agro-ecosys- is reported to be around US$20-40 per participant. This
tem analysis, field comparative experiments, group does not include the cost to participants for attending the
discussion, and learning exercises. Sometimes field visits FFS and may vary according to the crop and country.6 In
to other FFS sites might also be included. Each activity Eastern Africa, where self-financed (revolving fund) and
is well structured, i.e. has a procedure for action, ob- semi-self-financed (with a grant) FFS are in place, farmers
servation, analysis, and decision-making. The emphasis share costs and contribute towards continuity and sustain-
is not only on “how” but also on “why”. This helps to ability by using commercial plots to repay loans to run the
cover all aspects of the subject and link up with what is schools beyond third-party funded projects7.
happening in the farmer’s own field so that the lessons
learnt can be applied directly. If the curriculum is not Strengths and weaknesses
sufficiently tailored to suit the needs and resources of Like all other extension approaches, FFS also has certain
farmers, they are likely to lose interest. advantages and problems when it comes to what it can
and cannot do8.
Capacities required • Format: The informal and participatory nature of FFS
The effectiveness of FFS depends largely upon the facilita- programmes with built-in group dynamics and team
tor’s role and attitude. S/he is expected to encourage par- building exercises makes it a good entry point for
ticipants to ask questions and reach their own conclusions. discussion on broader livelihood issues. FFS might not
It helps if the facilitator has farming experience. More than be efficient if used only for increasing yields through
technical knowledge or higher educational degrees, it is “message delivery” or for demonstrating a technology.
important for facilitators to have good leadership skills,
the ability to listen, be sensitive to group dynamics, and • Strengths: FFS activities rely more on farmers’ own dis-
be well versed with participatory techniques4. In order to covery and reflection - so there is no risk of farmers not
hone their skills, it is recommended that each facilitator trusting extension workers due to ineffectiveness of incor-
guides at least three FFS per year. rect/blanket recommendations. Moreover, the learning
capacities built in FFS can be applied in other problem-
In the longer term it is desirable to have a team of farmer solving situations in different contexts. FFS provides op-
facilitators who have the advantage of knowing the com- portunities for farmer-to-farmer extension and can reduce
munity and the area well, and are likely to be accepted farmers’ dependence on formal extension systems.
better by other farmers who speak their local language.
Moreover, being local, they require less transportation and • Participation: FFS can help strengthen social capital
financial support, and can operate independently. Farmers at the local level. FFS processes help to build self-
who are interested in becoming facilitators can be identi- confidence - e especially for women farmers - and the
fied in course of the FFS process. These “FFS graduates” schools can be a good platform for vulnerable farmers
are usually given special farmer facilitator training of 10-14 to come together for collective action. Nevertheless, the
days to improve their technical knowledge and develop intensive and demanding nature of FFS activities can
organisational and facilitation skills. make participation of vulnerable households including
women-headed households difficult.
Costs
Typically most FFS have been implemented through exter- • Sustainability: Some programs pay farmers for attending
nally-funded programmes that cover the costs of facilitator but that is likely to affect the longer term sustainability
training, curriculum development, running field schools, of FFS as an extension approach.
field days, supervision, and snacks for farmers attending.
• Impact: While FFS shows positive impact on knowledge
Costs of FFS projects vary according to setting and and productivity locally, it has been difficult to link it to
content. As in most extension programmes, transport is diffusion of improved farmer practices at a wider scale.

Waddington, H. and Howard White. 2014. Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education. Systematic Review Summary 1. London,
4 

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. p.15.

Braun, A. R. (1997) in Braun, A.R., et.al. 2000. Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: complementary platforms for integrated
5 

decision making in sustainable agriculture. AGREN Network Paper No.105. London: ODI-Agriculture Research & Extension Network.
Waddington, H. and Howard White. 2014. Farmer field schools: from agricultural extension to adult education. Systematic Review Summary 1. London,
6 

International Initiative for Impact Evaluation. p.23.

Anandajayasekeram , P., et.al. 2007. Farmer field schools: an alternative to existing extension systems? Experience from Eastern and Southern Africa.
7 

Journal of Int’nl Agri. and Ext. Edu. V 14(1), p.81-93.

Adapted from Braun, A. et.al. (2006). A global survey and review of farmer field school experiences. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Available: http://intranet.catie.
8 

ac.cr/intranet/posgrado/Met%20Cual%20Inv%20accion/MCIAP2010/Semana%203/DocumentosSem310/Review%20of%20FFS%20Braun%202006.pdf

Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) www.betterextension.org  3

 There is evidence to show that FFS graduates and FFS Further reading
groups may or may not stay together in the longer term. Anandajayasekeram , P., et.al. 2007. Farmer field schools:
an alternative to existing extension systems? Experience
• Cost effectiveness: One of the major challenges of from Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of Int’nl Agri.
justifying FFS as a form of public investment in farmer and Ext. Edu. V 14(1).
education has been determining the cost effectiveness
of FFS. FFS are criticised for being labour-intensive with Braun, A. R. 2000. Farmer field schools and local agricul-
relatively high programme and travel costs and limited tural research committees: Complementary platforms for
outreach, i.e. only a small number of interested farmers. integrated decision making in sustainable agriculture Vol.
A key outcome of FFS is farmers’ empowerment, which No.105. London: ODI-Agriculture Research & Extension
is difficult to quantify and measure. Although they mostly Network.
depend on external funding, some East African countries
have successfully tried out self-financed FFS programmes. Davis, K. 2006. Farmer Field Schools: A Boon or Bust for
Extension in Africa? Journal of International Agricultural
Governance and management and Extension Education 13(1): 91-97.
At the local level, existing organisations and self-help
groups can be a good entry point for FFS activities,
­provided the members are willing to invest time. In
most contexts, FFS graduates have showed willingness
to organise themselves into networks or associations
while some have integrated into existing organisations.
For instance, in Uganda’s national extension programme This paper was produced by the Royal Tropical Institute
(NAADS), FFS are well integrated into the District Farmer (KIT), with financial support from GIZ (Gesellschaft für
Fora. This has provided an excellent institutional frame- Internationale Zusammenarbeit).
work for taking up agriculture development.
Photo Page 1: Martìn Garcìa, LEISA Magazine 2006
Potential impact
The main challenge when defining impact of the FFS ap- Correct citation: Dhamankar, M. and M. Wongtschowski.
proach is to decide whether it results in higher knowledge 2014. Farmer Field Schools (FFS). Note 2. GFRAS Good
about complex issues, and/or whether the knowledge Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services.
outcomes in turn translate into greater productivity and GFRAS: Lindau, Switzerland.
yields. Most available impact studies refer to IPM-related
outcomes in terms of changes in pesticide use and yields.
Broadly speaking, based on qualitative evidence coming
from small scale pilots, participation in FFS has shown
improvement in farmers’ knowledge of farming technol-
ogy, confidence with problem solving, and better decision-
making skills. Some other studies support the view that
participation in FFS empowered farmers and improved
collaboration towards collective action.

Training materials
SUSTAINET EA. 2010. Technical manual for farmers and
field extension service providers: Farmer field school
approach. Nairobi: Sustainable Agriculture Information
Initiative.

Groeneweg, K. et.al. (2006). Livestock farmer field

schools: guidelines for facilitation and technical manual.
International Livestock Research Centre: Nairobi, Kenya.

All work by Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services

is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.

4 Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS) www.betterextension.org