1. Introduction
Background of the Study
Sustainable Soil Management Programme (SSMP) in Nepal
IPNS, as one of the component of SSM, with an approach "to farming involving management strategies for the maintenance and often increase of soil fertility for sustaining increased crop productivity through optimizing all possible sources (organic and inorganic) of plant nutrients required for crop growth in an integrated manner appropriate to each farming situation in its ecological, social and economic possibilities"1 was started in 2002 along with FFS conducted as its approach. The SSMP initiated first FFS on IPNS in 2001 in co-operation with SMD (then STSS) and some non-governmental organization. This was first field tested in Sindhupalchok district in maize/fingermillet cropping system in collaboration with CDECF. It was a year of learning and testing. In 2002, a total of 33 FFS were conducted in 13 districts (Appendix Table – 6.a ) and now it has reached to 14 districts. The FFS on IPNS is conducted in cropping system.
Mid Term Review of SSMP suggested review of this programme to decide the future course of action. The study has been undertaken by a group of specialist consisting of a Senior Consultant, a Gender Expert and few Research Assistants (Appendix – 1).
1.2 Objectives
The main objective of the study was to "assess the Impact of the FFS under SSMP command area." Besides its objective this report was also to prepare a comprehensive report on the IPNS FFS activities run by the collaborating institutions (CI) of SSMP
To attain this objective following activities were carried out:
(i) Review and finalization of the draft survey questionnaire/checklist for the study.
(ii) Review of policy and other documents (developed by SSMP, SMD/DoA, SSD of NARC, Plant Protection Directorate of DoA on IPM and others)
(iii) Conduct of field survey work in the specified area of IPNS FFS activity implemented by CIs.
(iv) Compilation of data/information and analysis.
(v) Preparation of comprehensive report on the findings of IPNS FFS activities.
(iv) Recommendations based on the field study.
1.3 Methodology
Towards attaining the above objectives the study adopted the following approach:
(a) Questionnaires for CIs, facilitators, groups, group farmers and non-group farmers were finalized with PMU/SSMP (Appendix - 50).
(b) Review of literature: Available literatures were reviewed on IPNS FFS, FFS on potato and IPM FFS developed by SSD of NARC, SMD of DoA, PPD of DOA, PDS/DoA and SSMP. Fertilizer policy, 2002 was also reviewed. During review the objectives of the programme, similarities and dissimilarities, implementation strategies, output and recommendations were considered.
(c) Central Level Consultations: Central level consultations were carried out with the agencies directly or indirectly engaged and involved in FFS such as Plant Protection Directorate of DoA, Soil Management Directorate of DoA, Soil Science Division of NARC and Potato Development Section of DoA (Appendix Table –2).
(d) Information were collected from collaborating institutions and facilitators conducting FFS and IPNS activities, groups and groups farmers affiliated to FFS and non-group farmers.
(i) District level consultation (CIs, and Facilitators): Senior consultant and gender expert visited 5 districts (Dolkha, Sindhupalchok, Kavre, Baglung and Syangja) to interact with collaborative Institutions (GOs and NGOs), and facilitators of the CIs who were directly given responsibility to conduct FFS.
(ii) FFS level consultations: Senior Consultant, Gender Expert and Research Assistants visited above mentioned 5 districts to fill up the questionnaire and interact with FFS group farmers and non-group farmers.
The interview was carried out with the help of structured questionnaire, checklist and group discussion with the participant farmers and observation during field visit to ensure adequate coverage of relevant issues. The questionnaire was open ended to ensure that groups, group farmers, non-group farmers, facilitators and CI's views were not barred. Altogether 13 groups (Appendix Table – 3.a), 83 group farmers (Appendix Table – 3.b), 43 non-group farmers (Appendix Table – 3.c), 17 facilitators (Appendix Table – 3.d) and 13 CIs (Appendix Table – 3.e) from 5 districts (Dolkha, Sindhupalchok, Kavre, Baglung and Syangja) were interviewed for this purpose. The field survey of group farmers comprised mostly of men (53 %) while in the group discussion, majorities of the participants were women
Because of an open-ended questionnaire and discussion with respondents, exclusively only one answer as well as inclusively many answers from the same respondents were received. It has been tabulated under abbreviation such as Excl. for exclusively only one answer and Incl. for inclusively more than one answer from the same respondent. In the AppendixTable the figure in parenthesis represents percent figure of the respondents.
(a) Collected informations were compiled, tabulated, interpreted and based on the findings draft report was prepared and submitted to PMU for comments.
(b) Received comments were incorporated. Findings, conclusions and recommendations was presented to a small gathering (participants from SMD/DoA, SSD/NARC and SSMP) organized by SSMP
© With relevant comments, final report was submitted to PMU/SSMP.
Farmers' Field School in Nepal
Chapter - II
2.1 Review of the literature and work done on IPNS/IPM FFS
2.1.1 Soil Science Division (NARC)
On farm demonstrations of integrated use of organic and mineral fertilizer alone or on their combination were conducted in the two selected sites of hill and terai districts with some treatments. Its objectives were to:
(i) Demonstrate the balanced use of mineral and organic fertilizer for improved crop production,
(ii) Encourage maximum utilization of locally available plant nutrient resources and supplementing them with mineral fertilizer for higher production and to maintain the soil fertility,
(iii) Generate environmental friendly technology for sustainable agriculture by minimizing the pollution created by organic and mineral fertilizer, and to
(iv) Provide training on the integrated use of plant nutrients for farmers.
To fulfill those objectives two sites were selected: (a) Sarada Batase VDC, Kavre district (b) Belwa VDC, Parsa district. From the demonstration it was observed that (a) compost prepared by improved method have high nutrient value than locally prepared compost and the nutrient are easily available to plant as they are well decomposed in nature (b) compost making is a continuous phenomenon. So, continuous production of high nutrient contents and well-decomposed compost preparation with better management and additives can supply required nutrient to meet the nutrient demand of various crops (c) the nutrient supplied by the use of compost produced better yield than mineral fertilizer alone. So, compost can be combined with mineral fertilizer to meet the nutrient requirement of vegetables without depleting the soil biophysical properties (d) residual effect of compost having higher concentration of nutrient is more persistence than mineral fertilizer alone (e) nutrient content of compost gets lost in long term preservation. So, immediate application of well-decomposed compost is recommended.
In conclusion, (a) the decomposed compost having high nutrient content is a good source of nutrient for crop production specially for high value vegetables but, in case of less amount of compost produced in farm level it can be combined with mineral fertilizer for higher production and productivity (b) locally available plant nutrients supplemented with mineral fertilizer in integrated way can be a good option for higher production in a sustainable way (c) awareness should be created to the farmer on the beneficial effect and role of manures and fertilizer through training. It is also necessary to educate farmers on the possibility of pollution in the environment created by the manures and fertilizers.
2.1.2 IPM and FFS: Plant Protection Directorate of DoA
The Plant Protection Directorate introduced Integrated Pest Management Programme in Nepal in 1997 in collaboration with the FAO Programme for Community IPM in Asia . Its aim is to (a) enhance farmers knowledge and skills in utilizing IPM in crop production through field based experimental learning activities (b) test IPM method in other crops in rice based farming systems (c) insure conservation of environment through group decision and analysis of Agro eco-system (d) emphasize gender perspective in the training activities of FFS, and (e) try to establish a policy and legislative frame work that will facilitate the sustainability of the programme.
The programme is centered on farmer's participation and empowerment. Through empowerment "farmers learn to stand on their own and think for themselves, farmers learn through their own field observations, make their own discoveries, make their own decisions and take action on their own. It is based on the principle of "farmers as expert". It allows farmers to examine their own problems and make their own decisions. IPM is a learning process. In this, farmers examine what is happening in their own fields, organize themselves, apply different practices, make weekly observations, keep records, discuss the results, and make their own conclusions.
This learning process becomes reality through FFS. In this school 20 to 30 farmers (women and men) meet once a week, starting at the time of planting and continuing for 3 or 4 months until harvest. At each session the members divide into small groups to make detail observations of the crop and field conditions called "Agro Eco-system Analysis" (AESA). These observations are recorded, discussed and interpreted by the group with assistance from facilitator.
In the beginning of the programme, TOT was organised for Assistant Plant Protection Officers who worked as facilitator but later it was organised for NGOs staff and Extension workers like JT/JTAs. TOT is a full time study lasting for 3-4 months. In this, the facilitators learn all the aspects of crop production.
After FFS is completed group of farmers decide to continue meeting for further improvement of their knowledge and skills, and involvement of other members of the community in IPM activities. For this, the follow up activities has been introduced after FFS which are as follows: (a) Farmers as IPM Trainers: Farmers are further trained as trainer (b) Farmers as Planners: Alumni farmers are involved in planning and implementing in their communities (c) Farmers as Researchers: To deal with their local problems and situations farmers gets the knowledge of basic scientific principles and learn to design studies and organize local research (d) Farmer as organizer: Graduates from FFS create forums and local organizations for the exchange of information, and for the discussion of study results and work plan.
2.1.3 IDM/ICM in Potato
Potato is one of the most important crops of Nepal
With an objectives "to upgrade the growers' ability in managing disease(s) in seed and ware potato crop at the community level and enhance transfer of technology from farmers to farmers and to improve decision making skill of farmers and empower them in practicing appropriate process of potato crop production" CIP/SDC Potato Project, UPWARD, PDS/DoA and PRP/NARC had jointly initiated first time in 1999/2000 a project on "Integrated Disease Management of Potato through the Farmers' Field School Approach in Nepal".
In the beginning, the FFS/Potato IDM approach in Nepal
Within a short period of time of project implementation, there was an abrupt and scaling up demand of IDM/FFS. So, to further dissemination of the technology and to know its potential contribution in the potato production system, an impact study of IDM/FFS approach was done with an objective to evaluate the "impact of Farmers' Field School approach for integrated Disease Management (IDM) in Potato at farming household level" in 2002. The study was being conducted jointly by PDS/DoA, UPWARD and NAGI. Four case sites were selected for the impact evaluation, representing the different agro-ecological regions (Sindhupalchok, Kavrepalanchok, Sunsari and Sarlahi).
Overall findings of the study was that management of potato disease at community level through FFS/IDM approach was proven as a suitable extension tools to disseminate technology, which met the criteria like environmental sustainability, economic competitivity and social equity. Besides acceptability, technical feasibility and continuity were other features of the approach. Impacts related to economical, social, technical and environmental were found as follows:
(i) Economical impacts: (a) Increased area and production of potato and to some extent in other major crops (b) reduced cost of potato production (c) reduced crop losses (d) improved living standard of farmers, and (e) more income generated for necessary daily expenses (ii) Social impacts: (a) reduced food shortage period particularly in high hills (b) improved participation leading to a greater degree of decision making and the capacity to implement own choices (c) farmers were more aware of the importance of community approach (d) women farmers were more aware and empowered in decision making process at their household and community level, and (e) improved social status of the farmers who participated in the FFS/IDM. (iii) Technological and environmental impacts: (a) acceptance rate of approach as such was very high at farmers' community lead to more participation in self learning process (b) changes occurred in farmers knowledge and practices in potato ICM (c) adopted recommended disease, seed and crop management practices of potato and reduced crop loss and increased yield (d) increased farmers' awareness on judicious use of agro-chemicals to reduce encironmental pollution, and (e) increased farmers' participation as actors in the farmer to farmers technology diffusion process.
2.1.4 IPNS and FFS
(a) IPNS
For the cultivation of high yielding varieties of crops for higher production, it was difficult to meet the nutrient requirements only through local sources. The mineral fertilizer was the only dependable source but its availability, price and quality were always in question. Even though it was available normally the continuous use of the chemical fertilizer without or little use of organic manure affected the quality of soil.
Populations increase and demand for more and more food, which in turn created more and more pressure on soil resources. This resulted decline in the fertility of the soil and chronic nutrient deficit situation arose and it formed the background to the IPNS in the field of sustainable soil management.
IPNS as defined "is a process of using all the possible combination of manure, locally available, mineral fertilizers and biological sources of plant nutrients in a judicious amount along with scientific soil and crop management that can provide the balanced dose of plant nutrients as much as the plant needs with least effect on the environment".
Its concept is "to integrate all available means of soil, nutrients and crop management so as to achieve optimum land productivity". These include organic, mineral fertilizers and biological sources of plant nutrients. By this, it seeks to increase agricultural production and safeguard the environment for the future.
Its appropriate design depends on local conditions and farmers' knowledge. It is a location and cropping system specific rather than individual crops. Since IPNS is location specific, in order to develop locally appropriate IPNS, discussion among farmers, extension workers and researchers on soil, crop and management should be done. FFS is the most appropriate approach for this interactive process of learning, testing and design.
(b) FFS
FFS is a non-formal educational approach and is a participatory platform for improving decision-making capacity of farmers. It has grown as an effective extension tools in different parts of the world. In Nepal
IPNS FFS aim is to build each farmers' capacity to analyze their soil and other related crop management practices, to identify the main constraints, and to test possible solution on their field, eventually identifying and adopting the practices most suitable to their farming system.
The purpose is to assist farmers in developing their ability of making critical and informed decisions that render their farming systems more productive and sustainable.
FFS training helps farmers to make their own decisions, to organize themselves and their communities and to create a strong linkage among other farmers, extension workers and researchers. Farmers becomes expert in their own field through participation in FFS activities.
The school is not meant to teach farmers new technologies developed outside their environment but to provide them with tools which will enable them to analyze their own production practices and identify possible solutions.
Elements of FFS
Followings are the most important elements of FFS that determines the success and failure of the FFS:
(a) Facilitator: The facilitator facilitates the school and he/she could be a technical person or any other person such as leader farmer or knowledgeable farmer trained to facilitate group learning. He/she should have a practical knowledge of IPNS, group mobilization and must have training on concept and procedure for field implementation of IPNS. His/her role and attitude become determining factors for the success and failure of a FFS.
(b) FFS group: A group of 20–25 farmers from a community cluster with relatively homogenous system and a common goal with commitment to participate fully in the FFS.
(c) Farmer's trial: Each participant must maintain in his/her own farm a split plot to compare the result of IPNS management and Farmers own management.
(d) Common Demonstration Plot: FFS group should maintain a common demonstration plot to introduce some new components.
(e) Field Day with Community: Particularly during crop yield or performance assessment non-FFS group farmers are invited to observe IPNS plots and demonstration for wider diffusion.
(f) Regular session for monitoring: The FFS group has regular sessions for training and discussion among group farmers over one cropping cycle. Over the season, crops are monitored in different farmer's field, problems are observed, analyzed and solved.
(c) IPNS and FFS in Nepal
Research has shown that the application of integrated plant nutrient management (IPNM) system is useful for sustainable agriculture production while maintaining the productive capacity of the soil.
Therefore, the need was felt to use IPNS for sustainable soil fertility and plant nutrient management. Research and extension organization has recognized this and HMG has incorporated IPNS into the National Fertilizer Policy (revised), released on 28 February 2002. In this policy, IPNS has been recognized as the focus for the future promotion of efficient and effective soil fertility management. This policy is mainly based on certain principles under which two of them are related to IPNS such as, (a) IPNS should be adopted in order to prevent the degradation of soil fertility and minimize the other likely negative impacts of chemical fertilizers use on environment and to promote appropriate and balanced use of fertilizer (b) necessary infrastructure, management and favorable environment should be created for the appropriate and balanced use of chemical fertilizer.
To prevent the degradation of soil fertility, minimize any other likely negative impact of chemical fertilizers on the environment, and to promote the appropriate and balanced use of fertilizers HMG has planned some of the activities to manage Integrated Plant Nutrients System such as:
(a) Farmers shall be encouraged to use balanced chemical fertilizers on the basis of required nutrients established by soil testing.
(b) Organic fertilizers and microbial fertilizers shall be encouraged in the IPNS.
(c) Regular interactions among farmers, researchers, agricultural extension workers, NGO, Cooperatives and Private Sector shall be organized for the dissemination and evaluation of IPNS.
In IPNS no straightforward recommendations are there because of its location specific nature. It is a location and cropping system specific rather than individual crops. So, it was decided to promote the IPNS activities through FFS.
FFS approach was considered the appropriate approach to disseminate IPNS technologies among farmers of Nepal
For this, SSMP working in sustainable soil management since a long time joined hands with DoA, NARC and CIs to develop and test this approach of soil fertility management in the mid-hills of Nepal
The SSMP initiated first FFS on IPNS in 2001 in cooperation with SMD (then STSS) and some non-governmental organization. This was first field tested in Sindhupalchok district in maize/fingermillet cropping system in collaboration with CDECF.
2.2 Actors involved in IPNS FFS activities
(a) Soil Management Directorate (SMD): SMD at central level under DoA working as a partner institution of SSMP as HMG representative. It works as a focal section on behalf of MoAC on the programme and for coordinating collaboration with SSMP. SMD besides providing technical support to RSTL and DADO has strategies to improve the environment through IPNS. Under general services available at SMD are sustainable soil management practices through IPNS. Various level of soil scientist and technicians are involved to complete these activities. It provides secretarial support to FMC and develops working relationship with various central and district level offices of DoA. It also provides technical support to CIs in collaboration with 5 RSTL and Soil Testing Laboratory, Jhapa. It supported the preparation of IPNS module. SMD also provides training support on manure management and on IPNS to other CIs of SSMP.
Its main functions related to SSMP activities are:
(i) to provide coordination and support to activities of SSMP with actors under the DoA and MoAC,
(ii) to provide technical advice and support to CIs and SSMP on technical issues of soil management,
(iii) to join in monitoring and evaluation of projects in particular for projects implemented by actors under DoA and MoAC.
For this SMD gets additional funds from SSMP. It has launched FFS on IPNS through RSTL.
(b) Programme Management Unit (PMU) of SSMP: The PMU of SSMP is launching the SSM Programme since 1993. Its objectives are to promote improved practices on SSM, which are taken up by male and female farmers. The focus of SSMP is on the extension and diffusion of improved practices. It supports national, district level or local organization from the governmental or non-governmental sector in the promotion of SSM. The PMU facilitates the proposal preparation and assessment. It also monitors the implementation of activities at the field level and coordinates training and technical support to CIs and monitors overall program implementation.
(c) Collaborative Institutions (CI): CIs, locally base GOs, NGOs and CBOs, are responsible for the orderly implementation of approved projects, in compliance with the agreements signed and the guidelines of SSMP. These are by far the most important implementers in the field level. These institutions after approval of projects and activity proposal form a part of the forum of Collaborative Institutions of SSMP. The status of CI remains valid for the duration of the approved project proposal.
Work done on IPNS FFS in Nepal
2001
(i) The first FFS on IPNS was implemented in 2001. It was a year of learning and testing.
(ii) Norms (Appendix Table - 4) and guidelines for IPNS was approved (secretary level) by MoAC
(iii) On the chairmanship of DG/DoA a Central level Working Group Committee was formed.
(iv) Technical books related to IPNS (Appendix Table - 5) were developed and distributed.
(v) IPNS training were conducted.
(vi) Technical working group was formed and FFS approach was approved for IPNS promotion.
2002
(i) A total of 33 FFS were conducted in 13 districts (Appendix Table –6.a )
(ii) A workshop on IPNS was organized in ARS, Lumle on April 2002. Workshop approved the guidelines for the implementation of IPNS FFS. Total 22 participants participated in the workshop
(iii) A training workshop for facilitators was organized in the beginning of 2002.
(iv) A wider testing of FFS for IPNS was initiated in 2002.
(v) STSS and SSMP organized an officer level training on IPNS on 23 – 29 February, 2002 in Kathmandu .
(vi) HMG released a revised fertilizer policy in February 2002. The policy recognized IPNS as the focus for the future promotion of efficient and effective soil fertility management.
2003
(i) A total of 54 FFS were conducted in 12 districts in 2003 (Appendix Table – 6.b)
2004
(Appendix Table – 6.c)
2005
(Appendix Table – 6.d)
2.3 FFS on IPM, ICM and IPNS
Comparison: IPM, ICM and IPNS
Components | IPM | ICM | IPNS |
FFS Session | Weekly | Weekly | Weekly - monthly |
Based | Crop | Crop | Cropping System |
Follow up activities | Scheduled | Scheduled | Not scheduled |
Focussed on | Crop | Nutrient management | |
Norms for farmers field day | Rs. 8500 | Rs. 8500 | Rs. 3500 |
Groups | Community based | Community based | Community based |
Facilitators | Trained farmers and plant protection personnel | Trained (initially plant protection personnel but later on horticulturist) | Inadequate training & from various fields |
Implemented through | GOs | GOs | GOs, NGOs and CBOs |
Organized | More organized | Organized | Less organized |
Refresher training | Regular | Irregular | |
Learning process aimed at building | Farmers capabilities | Farmers capabilities | Farmers capabilities |
Learning is based on | AESA | AESA | AESA |
Trains farmers to make them | Expert in their own field | Expert in their own field | Expert in their own field |
2.5 Two days observation of an IPNS training
A training on Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS) for JT/JTA was organized by Soil Management Directorate from 2062.09.24 to 2062.09.29 at Harihar Bhawan, Pulchok, Lalitpur. Altogether 17 JT/JTA (5 JT and 12 JTA) from District Agriculture Development Offices (Kavre, Dhading, Sindhuli, Myagdi, Baglung, Sindhupalchowk, Syangja and Dolkha), Regional Soil Testing Labs (Khajura, Dhangadhi, Jhumka, Hetauda and Kaski) and Soil Management Directorate participated in this training. The topics for the training were as follows:
(1) Government policy on IPNS FFS
(2) Concept of IPNS approach in nutrient management
(3) Planning of IPNS FFS and how to conduct FFS?
(4) Tools used in IPNS FFS
(5) Experiences sharing from IPM FFS
(6) Basic concept of soil and nutrient management
(7) Soil and crop cycle points to be consider for soil management
(8) Group dynamics/Ballot box test
(9) Organic matter management in IPNS
(10) How to use IPNS calculator
(11) Concept of nutrient balance calculation
(12) Group exercise on nutrient balance calculation
(13) Individual exercise on nutrient balance calculation
(14) Individual presentation of nutrient balance calculation
(15) Record sheets used in FFS
(16) Soil fertility map and its use in IPNS FFS
(17) Diamond trial on IPNS FFS
Besides above topics, a session on planning and budget formulation process was also included.
Observation
(1) Though the training was of one week the consultant observed only last two days (2062.09.28 – 29) sessions.
(2) All the above topics were found related to the IPNS FFS. But, after the field visit done for impact study, it was felt that the facilitator involved in IPNS FFS programme have little knowledge on extension methods. Some sessions on extension methods by an Extension expert were felt necessary.
(3) In the training also, the participants were not found fully confident on use of Nutrient Calculation Sheet. It could be because of the short duration provided for the topics. Some more time was to be allocated for this topic. IPNS activities are mainly based on this calculation sheet and lack of skill will have affect on the activities.
(4) Planning and budget session in such technical training was found irrelevant.
(5) Some important and relevant sessions were found missed by some participants.
(6) Some of the participants were seen taking this training lightly.
(7) Classroom was not conducive for the training purpose.
Recommendations
(1) Careful selection of topics, trainers and trainees are very important.
(2) Irrelevant session should be avoided.
(3) Longer duration of training is necessary to provide detail orientation on the whole process of IPNS and FFS activities. More time should be allocated for practical sessions.
(4) Inclusion of few sessions on extension techniques by extension expert will help increase in facilitators skill and knowledge.
(5) Trainers should give more time for discussion after theory.
(6) Seriousness on the part of trainees and creation of conduceive environment by organizer is a must for an effective training.
Chapter - III
Findings of the Study
3.1 Groups and Group Members
Group is the essential element of a FFS. It is comprised of 20 - 25 farmers from a community cluster with relatively homogenous system and a common goal. Criteria for selection of farmers' have been set for the effective and smooth running of a FFS such as: selected farmers' should have similar cropping system and problems, interested to participate actively and work in a group, and geographically from accessible location. Group should be formed following those criteria. A group, besides those criteria, also must have equal representation and participation of male and female farmers with group commitment and active participation.
A total number of 13 groups (Appendix Table – 3.a) and 83 group farmers (Appendix Table – 3.b) were interviewed to collect their understanding of FFS, its process, IPNS components, its effect and changes on their lifestyle and social status, usefulness of IPNS technologies and FFS in farming and their learnings from FFS, its strength, weaknesses and suggestive measures.
3.1.1 Motivation force for affiliation with FFS
In the FFS, a group of 25 farmers has to be formed with homogenous interest. For this, farmers must be motivated to be in a group and there must be a motivating force. When asked how they were motivated to be the member of FFS out of 13 groups, only 77 % responded. Among them, 70 % said by CIs, 20 % by facilitator and 10 % said self-motivated.
Out of 83 group farmers, 66 % were motivated by CIs, 16 % by facilitator, 10 % were self motivated, 4 % were by neighbour and relatives and 1 % by chairperson.
Collaborating institutions that get to implement this programme were the major motivating forces in both cases. After the approval of the programme CIs went to the sites where FFS was to be conducted and discussed with farmers. It was found that the first hand information was received through CIs (70 % in group and 66 % in group farmers) on the programme. Facilitator ranked second (20 % in group and 16 % in group farmers). After a facilitator gets responsibility to implement the school they becomes the major motivating force for the farmers to be attached with school for a longer duration. Other sources mentioned were neighbour and relatives (4 % in group farmers), chairperson (non-significant) and self motivated (10 % both in group and group farmers) to join the FFS and IPNS programme.
(i) FFS sessions
None of the group and group farmers could answer this exactly. Most of them indicated that weekly in vegetable and in cereal as per schedule.
In the guidebook published and distributed by SSMP to all CIs and facilitators have some fixed sessions on various crops. It was not followed as per schedule and it indicated that most of the groups and group farmers did not have clear orientation on FFS sessions. The number of sessions was fixed considering many factors but it was misunderstood by most of them. So, everyone indicated the need of more session in vegetable than other crops.
(ii) Responsible body to decide number of sessions
Out of 13 groups, 92 % answered this question. Out of 92 %, group farmers were mentioned by 42 %, group farmers and facilitator (jointly) by 25 %, facilitator by 25 % and CIs by 8 %.
Out of 83 group farmers, 90 % responded. Out of 90 %, group farmers were said by 28 %, group farmers and facilitator jointly by 33 %, facilitators by 37 % and chairperson of the group by 3 %.
CIs and facilitators individually were not the appropriate body or institutions to decide on number of sessions. Group farmers with the help of facilitator should have jointly decided it. Though, many of the respondent categorized: (a) group farmers and (b) group farmers and facilitator jointly in two parts, when asked to elaborate some more to respondents (42 % of the group and 28 % of the group farmers) they gave us sense that facilitators were involved in this whole process. The results could be interpreted as group farmers and facilitator jointly (67 % in group and 61 % in group farmers) as the main source, followed by facilitators as second category (25 % in groups and 37 % in group farmers), 8 % and 3 % of the group mentioned CIs and chairperson of the group respectively. So, the result indicated that group farmers and facilitator jointly, with mutual discussion, mainly decided the frequency of FFS.
(iii) Adequacy of session
Number of the sessions to be conducted during each FFS was clearly mentioned in the manual. Views on its adequacy were asked with yes or no answer to both, group and group farmers. 31 % of the 13 groups mentioned adequate enough and the same number responded inadequate. None of them could mention the reason for feeling inadequate.
Out of 83 group farmers, 55 % responded adequate enough and 28 % said not enough. 3 of the respondents indicated that it should have been bi-monthly. Rest did not answer this question.
Views on adequacy and inadequacy depend mostly on number of session conducted. When the sessions were conducted as per need in vegetable and other crops (inspite of given number of schedule) it was felt adequate and in other case when a limited number of sessions was conducted as per schedule it was thought inadequate. From the result it was found that 31 % of the group and 55 % of the group farmers felt adequate, where as, 31 % of the group and 28 % of the group farmers felt inadequate.
(iv) Appropriateness of schedule and time
Appropriateness of schedule and session time is very crucial to its effectiveness. Any programme if not conducted on appropriate time suitable to its clientele, the expected objectives will not be achieved. Out of 13 groups, 38 % said it was appropriate and rest did not answer. Out of 83 group farmers, 95 % respondent said appropriate and 3 % said inappropriate. Rest did not answer. Schedule and time was decided with group consensus in both the cases. Most of the respondent in group found the time and schedule appropriate and suitable to them. Because, decisions were taken in consensus with the help of the facilitator. But, how so ever, some of the group farmers were not satisfied. The reason could be that group consisted of diversified individuals and to everyone it was not to their expectation.
3.1.3 IPNS and FFS
IPNS and FFS are two different things. IPNS is a concept to integrate all available means of soil, nutrients and crop management so as to achieve optimum land productivity and FFS is an approach to disseminate it. Until now, number of FFS has been conducted on IPNS. Many of the respondents were seen confused between IPNS and FFS and sometimes they mixed it with IPM concept. To understand the differences between these two factors (IPNS and FFS), its process, and its components from group and group farmers' point of view, they were asked to make clear on their understanding on IPNS and FFS.
(i) Differences between IPNS and FFS.
Out of 13 groups, only 31 % were found aware, 15 % were not aware, 31 % were clear on FFS but not clear on IPNS and 8% were clear on IPNS but no idea on FFS. Out of 83 group farmers, 60 % were found aware, 13 % were not aware, 20 % were clear on FFS but no idea on IPNS and 5 % were clear on IPNS but no idea on FFS.
The result indicated that, 31 % of groups and 60 % of group farmers were aware, 15 % of groups and 13 % of the group farmers were unaware, 31 % of the groups and 20 % of the group farmers were clear on the FFS but no idea on IPNS and 8 % of the group and 5 % of the group farmers were clear on IPNS and no idea on FFS.
Mixed responses were found on the understanding of IPNS and FFS. Among farmers more men (58%) than women were found aware of the concept and procedures. Until the affiliated farmers don't get the clear understanding of the differences between IPNS and FFS it will be difficult for them to understand the system and process of this and then its expected output will not be achieved.
(ii) Process of IPNS FFS.
Some process of FFS, stepwise, to be followed are given in the IPNS manual. Process followed will result an expected output and if not it will be difficult to fulfill the intended objectives. For this group farmers were asked their understanding of process to be followed. Out of 13 groups, 31 % responded but, they were not clear on process and others did not answer. Whereas, out of 83 group farmers, 4 % were found clear, 7 % were not clear and as in group others did not answer.
The result indicated that, groups as a whole and farmers as an individual were not clearly oriented on the process to be followed during FFS. Reasons could be that facilitators themselves were not clear on the process and conducted school in a haphazard manner.
3.1.4 Components
(i) Components identification body
Since IPNS is a location specific, identification of its components is the responsibility of group farmers based on their situation and experiences. If its identification is done by outsider it may not work and the whole concept of IPNS will be of no use. On this, out of 13 groups, 54 % said identification of components was done by group, 38 % said by facilitator and 8 % said by CIs. On who dominated the decision on components, 15 % said group farmers, 8 % said chairperson and 8 % said leader farmer.
Out of 83 group farmers, about 58 % said identification of components were done by group, facilitator by 39 % and only 1 % said by CIs. On the dominating person group farmers did not answer.
The result indicated that, mostly groups with the help of facilitator did component identification. Women farmers expressed that they equally took part in deciding components. It was a positive indication. But still, facilitator alone was mentioned by some of them. It indicated, a large number of group farmers were still not clear of their responsibilities and it demanded intensive orientation on their responsibilities.
(ii) Identified components
On components identified, out of 13 groups, 85 % responded various components. Among those, urine collection and use was mentioned by 82 %, FYM/compost management and use by 91 %, leguminous crops by 55 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 18 %, green manure by 27 % and Liquid fertilizer by 27 %. (Appendix Table – 7)
Out of 83 group farmers, only 95 % responded. Out of 95 %, urine collection and use by 81 %, FYM/compost management and use by 87 %, leguminous crop by 58 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 28 %, bio-pesticide use by 8 %, agri. lime use by 3 %, bio-fertilizer by 1 %, liquid fertilizer by 24 % and green manure by 32 %. (Appendix Table – 8)
(iii) Useful components
Although, groups identified 6 components only a few were found useful to them. Some components were useful to some one and some to others and it depended on factors such as working situation of an individual. Out of 13 groups, 85 % mentioned the useful components. Out of 85 %, urine collection and use was mentioned by 73 % and FYM/compost management and use by 73 %. (Appendix Table – 9)
Out of 79 group farmers, only 90 % could name the useful components. Out of 90 %, 54 % mentioned urine collection and use, FYM/compost management and use by 59 %, legume cultivation by 10 %, liquid fertilizer by 7 %, IPNS by 4 %, insect pest control by 1 %, use of agri. lime by 1 %, and judicious use of fertilizer by 1 %. (Appendix Table – 10)
Urine collection and use, FYM/compost management and use followed by liquid fertilizer were found most useful to group and group farmers. However, men found management of compost as the most useful technology while women farmers highlighted on the use of urine.
3.1.5 Common/Individual plots and its purpose
(i) Common plot
In FFS, a common demonstration plot, approachable to all is established in which IPNM is demonstrated. This plot is very crucial in the sense that in this plot observation are done and discussed. Based on the observation and discussion farmers' follow the activities in their individual experimental plot. Out of 13 groups, 100 % said their group had a common plot. But, out of 13, 54 % said they were clear of its purpose and 46 % said they were not clear. Out of 83 group farmers, only 96 % said that they had a common plot and 2 % said there was no common plot. Out of 96 %, who said yes having common plot, 69 % said the purpose was clear to them and 31 % said the purpose was not clear.
(ii) Individual experimental plots
Every farmers should have their own IPNM experimental plot measuring approx. 1 ropani area. Half of the plot is supposed to be used for recommended IPNS technology and other half is used for farmers' own method. In each FFS session farmers bring the soil sample from this plot, test it and manage nutrients based on the test. They take notes of the activities conducted in this plot during experimentation and their experiences for future record. Farmers learn through this experimentation in their own field. Other farmers of the group along with the facilitator visit the sites regularly and monitor the progress and problems if any. Corrective measures are taken with group consensus. A whole season participating makes farmers knowledgeable on IPNS.
Out of 13 groups, 23 % said they all had individual plot and its purpose was clear to them.
Out of 83 group farmers, only 88 % responded. Out of 88 %, 71 % said they were having the plot and 29 % said they did not have. Out of 71 %, who said yes, 42 % said the purpose was clear to them and 58 % said purpose was not clear to them. Out of 29 %, who said No, 95 % were not clear on its purpose and only 1 % was clear on its purpose.
Nearly one-third of the respondents was not having any plot and the purpose was also not clear to many of them who had the plot. Without having any individual experimental plot by most of them and unclear purposes of having the plot, it was very hard to even imagine the usefulness of FFS. These plots were very essential part of a FFS. Facilitators were not found justifying their responsibility honestly or the selection of participating members' was faulty.
(iii) Taking notes on experimental plot
Farmers who were having individual experimental plot were supposed to take notes of everything observed in their plot during experimentation and of their experiences and present and discuss in FFS. After discussion corrective measures of a problem are identified and work as decided. If notes are not taken there is a great chance to forget the observation and farmers would not be able to discuss it in FFS.
Out of 83 group farmers, 57 % responded this question. Out of 57 %, 91 % said they took note of everything and 9 % said they did not. Out of 4 who responded "No", one told that (a) he did not see any significance of this and others did not answer and one of the reason could be they were illiterate. But most of them told that even though they did not take note but they remembered the observations and used to discuss in the FFS.
From the result, it was found that those who responded, among them also only 91 % took note of observed things and some did not. Taking note and discussion in the FFS was very important in FFS and it has been emphasized in the manual too. Some of the farmers who responded no to this question mentioned that though they did not take note, they remembered the observation and discussed in FFS. Those who did not take note could be illiterate. It indicated that the criteria to be followed during farmers' selection were not fully followed. It could be also that, in that vicinity, most of the farmers were illiterate. To educate illiterate farmers needs some special techniques and methods, which they do not get during training organized for literate one.
3.1.6 Benefits from IPNS plot and FFS
(i) Production from IPNS plot
IPNS is management of plant needed nutrients in a systematic way and after adopting this system there should be increase in production over the farmers' practice. If not, farmers might not have practiced this system in an appropriate way. To know these 13 groups and 83 group farmers were interviewed. Out of 13 groups, only 1 group responded Yes. Other did not answer. Out of 83 group farmers, 54 % responded. Out of 54 %, only 89 % said they got production, where as, 5 % flatly said No and 7 % said it was not significant.
The result indicated that, out of 45, most of the farmers got higher production. But, still out of 83 only 45 responded this question, which indicated that there was something wrong. The reasons could be: (a) facilitator was technically not skilled enough to make farmers' convinced of this system (b) farmers' were reluctant to practice technology (c) farmers' selection process was faulty (d) their land was not suitable to this system.
(ii) Benefits from FFS experience
Out of 13 groups, only 23 % said Yes and other did not answer. On benefits, they mentioned (a) increased knowledge on soil improvement (b) Increased production (c) judicious use of chemical fertilizer, and (d) urine management and use.
On this point out of 83 group farmers, 34 % said Yes and other did not answer. Out of 34 %, only 66 % person responded. Out of 66 %, increased income was mentioned by 43 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 37 %, improved method of manure preparation by 21 %, vegetable farming by 16 %, proper use of urine by 11 %, knowledge of soil improvement by 11 %, could express without hesitation by 5 %, increased creativity by 5 %, use of local resources by 5 %, agri. commercialization by 5 % and improvement in vegetable nursery preparation by 5 %. (Appendix Table – 11)
The IPNS technology and its approach FFS benefited FFS members. The beneficial components mentioned by groups such as, knowledge on soil improvement, increase in production/income, judicious use of chemical fertilizer, and urine management and use were also been mentioned by group farmers. Besides those components, improved method of manure preparation and use of local resources were also mentioned by group farmers. In addition to those they became capable to express without hesitation and their creativity also increased.
3.1.7 Practical application of technologies in the field
Out of 13 groups, only 2 responded. Out of 2, one said that he did practically and other one said he did not because it was costly.
Out of 83 group farmers, 10 % responded that they applied it in the field.
3.1.8 Women Farmers
(i) Feeling (useful/not-useful) of women farmers' on IPNS FFS
Out of 13, only 92 % responded Yes. Out of 92 %, 58 % (7) said very useful and 42 % (5) said moderately useful. On useful components, out of 12 groups, 75 % mentioned list on which women were found benefited. Out of 75 %, skill development was mentioned by 33 %, got opportunity to know new things by 22 %, income increased by 22 %, capable to express themselves without any hesitation by 44 %, increased capability by 22 %, more time devoted in agricultural work by women farmers so it was useful for them by 11 % and increased capability of growing vegetable by 11 % . (Appendix Table – 12)
Out of 83 group farmers, only 93 % responded. Out of 93 %, 70 % said it was very useful and 30 % (23) said moderately useful. Out of 93 %, 83 % mentioned the list on which they were benefited. Out of 83 %, increased income was mentioned by 45 %, got opportunity to know new technology by 41 %, increased capability to express without hesitation by 16 %, increased awareness and knowledge by 15 %, skill developed by 11 %, increased production by 7 %, proper use of urine by 5 %, respected by family, neighbour and relatives by 5 %, knew about vegetable farming by 5 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 5 %, FYM/compost improvement and use by 4 %, improvement in child health and education by 3 %, access in income by 3 %, can participate in social program by 3 %, increase in capabilities by 3 %, use of local resources by 4 %, self confidence developed by 3 %, yet not fully understood by 2 %, most of the agricultural activities were done by women, 2 %, beneficial but could not do in the field by 2 %. (Appendix Table – 13)
Groups' point of view on benefited matters were that (a) they learned to express themselves without any hesitation, (b) developed skill (c) got opportunity to learn new things and (d) increased income. Group farmers' expression were almost the same such as (a) increased income (b) got opportunity to know new technology (c) could express themselves without any hesitation (d) increased awareness and knowledge of new things and (e) skill developed.
So, in conclusion, as expressed by groups and group farmers, FFS was found beneficial to women farmers. They were benefited from varied components of IPNS. Other respondents (facilitator and CI's) also expressed that increased participation of women farmers made FFS active and lively.
(ii) Program addressed to the need of women farmers
None of the group answered.
(iii) Access to and control over income
Over the access to the income from farming, the farmers group opined that 60 % of women have access to and control over the income. Most farmers indicated the pettty cash from vegetable selling. Most of the farmers (57 %) in the group farmers' survey, however, opined that 71 % of the women had access to the income but only 58 % had control over it. Similarly, 23 % of the farmers said 79 % of the women have access to farm income but only 58 % had control over the income. Those who had control over the income were either mostly female-headed household or the one who had their males working in service sector. About one third of both male and female (36 % of and 32 % respectively) also expressed that male and female have equal access to and control over the farm income but almost 27 % of men admitted that men controls over the income.
(iv) Farming activities
39 % of the women farmers and 34 % of the male farmers said that they participate equally in the farming activities. However, group farmers said that 70 % of the IPNS activities are carried out by women hence it is more useful for women. Hence the course curriculum should be designed to suit the need of women farmers as most of them are not literate. Women were found more engaged in urine collection, its management and compost management and application while men were found more involved in shade management, chemical fertilizer management and also in compost making.
3.1.9 Changes occurred
(i) Empowerment of farmers
Out of 13 groups, only 77 % answered Yes. Out of 77 %, 70 % mentioned the elements on which they considered farmers were empowered. Out of 70 %, increased income was mentioned by 57 %, capable to make decision by 43 %, increased capabilities by 43 %, skill developed by 29 %, could express without hesitation by 29 %, development as a leader farmer by 14 % and could develop relationship with external institutions by 14 %. (Appendix Table – 14)
Out of 83 group farmers, 90 % said Yes and 1 % said No. Out of 90 % respondents, who said Yes to this question, only 83 % could give the answer. Out of 83 %, skill developed was mentioned by 40 %, increase in income by 60 %, respected in society and family by 2 %, increase in technical knowledge by 10 %, could express without hesitation and take part in group discussion by 39 %, organized by 18 %, capable to visit the related institutions by 8 %, developed as leader farmer by 2 %, capable to make decisions by 5 %, did not have to look for others help by 2 %, increase in capabilities by 13 %, change in the negative attitude by 2 %, increase in awareness by 5 %, capable to teach others by 6 %, capable to do it practically by 3 %, developed self-confident in problem solving by 3 % and capable to participate in social activities by 2 %. (Appendix Table – 15)
Groups viewed empowerment in terms of (a) increase in income (b) increase in decision making capacity (c) increase in capability of doing practically (d) skill development (e) expression without hesitation and others. Where as, group farmers expressed empowerment in terms of (a) increase in income (b) skill development (c) expression without hesitation and capability to participate in group discussion (d) increase in capability of doing practically (e) organized (f) increase of technical knowledge (f) decision making capacity increased and others. From the results conclusion could be drawn that FFS empowered the farmers in many ways such as decision making, analysis of their problem and finding its solution, organized, express themselves and etc which indicated the positive points of FFS and its impact on farming community.
(ii) Changes in lifestyle
Out of 13 groups, 77 % responded this question Out of 77 %, 90 % said Yes and 10 % said No. Out of 90 %, who said Yes, 67 % said vegetable consumption improved their health, 67 % said increase in production and income, 56 % said easy for daily expenses and 11 % said easy to bear school expenses. (Appendix Table – 16)
Out of 83 group farmers, 89 % answered this question. Out of 89 %, 99 % said yes and 1 % said No. Out of 99 % who said Yes, 95 % described the changed lifestyle in their own terms. Out of 95 %, improvement in health because of vegetable consumption was mentioned by 61 %, increase in production and income by 61 %, education of kids was easy by 40 %, easy for daily expenses by 38 %, self-employment by 4 %, did not have to look for loan 1 %, capable to interact with related institutions by 1 % and easy to get loan when needed by 1 %. (Appendix Table – 17)
The results indicated that, prior to IPNS FFS vegetable production was rare and IPNS and FFS encouraged them to grow vegetable by managing soil nutrients. Grown vegetables were sold for income as well as it is used for self-consumption. Other changes they mentioned were easy for daily and kids' school expenses, it generated self-employment and didn't have to look for loan and got easily when needed.
(iii) Changes in social status
Out of 13 groups, only 54 % answered this question. Out of 54 %, 86 % mentioned the changes in social status have been noted and 14 % said the changes were non-significant. Out of 86 %, 67 % said their family, neighbour and society respected them and 33 % said most of the non-group members visit them to enquire about IPNS technologies.
Out of 83 group farmers, 89 % responded this question. Out of 89 %, 97 % said Yes they did notice the changes in social status and 2 % said they did not notice any changes. Out of 97 %, 97 % mentioned the changes. Out of 97 %, 15 % said everyone was positive towards them after they learnt new technology, 20 % said most of the non-group farmers visited them to enquire technology, 1 % said untouchability was not a problem when in a group, 38 % said easy to get loan when needed, 23 % said respected by family, neighbour and relatives, 1 % said society requested participation in social activities, 1 % said told matters were accepted and followed. (Appendix Table – 18)
After participation in FFS and applying IPNS technology, the social status of the farmers were changed a lot. Previously they were unknown of this technology and could not do better. After FFS they might have learned various factors related to farming, their skill developed and they applied in the field getting more production. By this their income as well as skill and knowledge increased. With the increased knowledge, skill and income those respected them whom did not care before. Other social changes mentioned by group and group farmers were (a) visits of non-group farmers to them (b) problem of untouchability was removed (c) easy to get loan (d) request for active participation in social activities and (e) their voices were heard and followed. Those changes were the results of IPNS and FFS. They became the examples for others.
(iii) Changes in the production and income
Over the impact of IPNS on production, both men and women farmers (71 % of the respondants) said that there has been higher production per unit area. 33 % of the women and 35 % of the male farmers found that there has been increased income from the increased production. However, almost 25 % of the respondents said there have not been significant increase either in production or in income. Since they harvested either only first crop since the termination of the school or were part of the on going FFS, the difference was not obvious to them.
3.1.10 Facilitators' skill
Out of 13 groups, 100 % answered Yes to this question. But, 1 group mentioned that the facilitator should speak simple language understandable to farmers.
Out of 83 group farmers, 98 % responded this question. Out of 98 %, 99 % said that facilitator was skilled enough for their job and 1 % told not skilled enough. But however some suggestions were given by 4 respondents such as (a) facilitators were needed to be trained themselves by 2 respondent, (b) facilitators were needed to have refresher training by 1 respondent and (c) facilitators should speak the words understandable to farmers.
Most of the groups and group farmers mentioned that facilitators were skilled enough in their responsibility. In interviewed sites facilitators were found of having varied background. Some were of agricultural and some were non-agricultural background. For an effective implementation of FFS and disseminate IPNS technology in an effective way facilitators plays vital role. Success and failure of this programme depends upon them.
3.1.11 Curriculum
Out of 13 groups, only 23 % answered this question. Out of 23 %, 33 % said Yes and 67 % said no. When asked to make detail to those who responded No could not make it.
Out of 83 group farmers, 25 % responded this question. Out of 25 %, 52 % said the curriculum was complete, 24 % said No and 25 % said they did not have any idea on that.
For the FFS, curriculum for some of the crops in a cropping system has been developed and distributed along with other publications related to IPNS FFS to CIs and facilitators. They were supposed to go through and clearly make understanding to participating members. They were also supposed to review it and if any changes were to be made, after mutual discussion with farmers they could have done it and inform the related agencies for the necessary modification. From the result it was seen that farmers were not aware of the curriculum. What ever facilitator said they learned it. They did not have gone through in detail and discussed with facilitator. The reasons of this problem could be that (a) inadequate number of copies made available (b) facilitator did not care to discuss with farmers and (c) farmers were not literate.
3.1.12 Cost sharing
Out of 13 groups, only 92 % answered this question. Out of 92 %, 50 % said yes, 33 % said No and 17 % said they were not sure. Among them, who said Yes, 50 % (3) said that group fund and saving could be used and 50 % said that it depends upon technical persons availability. Out of 33 %, who said No, 50 % said the reason was lack of fund.
On chances of sharing cost to run FFS, Out of 83 group farmers, only 65 % responded. Among them, 39 % said possible to share the cost, 19 % said not possible and 43 % said they were not sure of this. Out of 21 respondent who said possible, 6 of them said that group funds could be used, 2 said if facilitator could be made available and 1 said that fund could be raised from members. Among "not possible response", the reason they gave, lack of fund was mentioned by 2, lack of fund and group coordination by 1 and lack of fund and not capable enough by 1.
50 % (6) of the respondent from group and 39 % (21) from group farmers mentioned possibility of sharing the cost of FFS. On other cost, besides facilitator and technician, they were sure of this. To hire technician is beyond their capacity.
If such practices are not initiated right from the beginning they will not feel ownership of the programme and always look forward for assistance. Later on it will create a problem. The day assistance is phased out or dropped the whole concept of educating them and its continuity will be in question.
3.1.13 Body for final valuation
(i) IPNS and FFS
Out of 13 groups, 54 % responded this question. Out of 54 %, 64 % groups' response was "group farmers" and 36 % said "group farmers and facilitator".
(ii) CP and IP
Out of 13, 54 % responded. Out of 54 %, 57 % said group farmers and facilitators, 29 % said group farmers and only 14 % said common plot by group farmers and facilitators jointly and individual plot by individuals.
Out of 83 group farmers, 90 % responded. Among them, group farmers was mentioned by 57 %, group farmers and facilitator by 25 %, group farmers and CIs by 8 %, facilitator by 3 %, CIs by 3 %, group farmers and SMD by 1 %, group farmers + CIs + SSMP by 1 % and group farmers +CIs+ASC by 1 %.
Group farmers and facilitators were ranked first by group and second by group farmers. Where as group farmers was ranked first by group farmers and second by groups. Group farmers also named other institutions, which were non-significant. But one of the group said that common plot was evaluated by group farmers and facilitators jointly and individual plot by individuals.
Evaluation is a major part in IPNS and FFS. Participating farmers, facilitators and other farmers does final evaluation of common and individual plots. During evaluation following factors are observed: (a) crop situation (b) production capacity (c) factors liked by farmers (d) disliked factors and reasons (e) any reform to be made for next year. Most of the farmers and groups were aware of the responsible institutions for final evaluation. But still, some of the farmers and group were still found to be confused on this. It indicated that these things were not made clear by the facilitator during FFS.
3.1.14 Workload
(i) Added/reduced
Out of 13 groups, 62 % responded this question. Out of them, 50 % said added, 38 % said reduced and 13 % said both. Out of 50 %, who said added, 50 % said more time was needed for urine management, 25 % said more time was needed for FYM/compost management, and 25 % said preparation of compost by covering demanded lot of time. Out of 38 %, who said reduced, all of them said easy to carry manure. 1 group, who said added and reduced both, did mention that (a) more time was needed for FYM/compost management and (b) good production even after less fertilizer was used.
On added or reduced the workload, Out of 83 group farmers, 77 % responded this question. Out of them, added workload was mentioned by 73 %, reduced by 13 % and 14 % said both. Out of 73 %, 51 % said more time needed for urine collection, more time for FYM/compost management by 53%, covering of FYM/compost by 14 %, had to carry the manure immediately by 6 %. Out of 13 %, who said reduced, mainly 88 % said less use of chemical fertilizer and 38 % easy to carry the manure and fertilizer. (Appendix Table – 19)
Groups and group farmers, both, mentioned the workload added and reduced with IPNS technology. Management of urine and FYM/compost was the main components, which mainly added to their workload. Where as, compost prepared with IPNS technology added to its quality and use of less quantity of quality compost reduced their expenses as well as labour cost. With the use of quality compost, dose of fertilizers was reduced saving scarce money.
(ii) Sustainability with added workload
Out of 13 groups, only 23 % responded this question and said that inspite of the added workload, increase in production with good income will make this programme sustainable.
Out of 83 group farmers, 30 % answered this question. Out of them, production increase alongwith improvement in fertility was said by 8 % and good income inspite of added workload by 88 %. But, one farmer mentioned that lack of labour and tiresome work would affect its sustainability.
Answers from both the groups had a common view on this. By adopting IPNS technology and applying this in the field will certainly increase the production and thus by increasing income. Therefore, even though the workload is added with IPNS technology it will be fruitful in the long run.
3.1.15 Dissemination effect
(i) Contact by non-group farmers
Out of 13 groups, one group mentioned that they shared with their relatives where as other one group indicated that on "urine collection and its use and FYM/compost management" they shared with non-group farmers.
Out of 83 group farmers, 86 % answered this question. Out of them, 68 % said Yes, and 32 % said No. Out of 68 %, those who said Yes, FYM/compost management and improvement was mentioned by 80 %, urine collection and use by 56 %, vegetable farming by 21 %, leguminous crop by 15 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 15 %, green manure by 15 %, bio-pesticide use by 6 %, weeding by 6 %, on plant protection by 4 %, liquid fertilizer by 4 %, vermiculture by 2 %, shared with relatives by 2 %. (Appendix Table – 20)
Out of 23 group farmers, who said No, 74 % responded this question. Out of them, non-group farmers were not interested by 76 %, non-group farmers hesitated to contact because of none affiliation with group by 4 %, these methods were very tiresome by 4 %, most of them were in group by 4 %, did not have suitable land for vegetable farming by 4 %.
1 out of 13 groups and 48 out of 71 group farmers indicated that non-group farmers contacted them on IPNS and FFS. Only 23 group members out of 71 said no, none of the other farmers contacted them. Those who were in contact with group farmers mostly enquired on FYM/compost management and improvement, urine collection and use, vegetable farming, leguminous crop, judicious use of fertilizer, green manure, bio-pesticide use and weeding activities. Others components were also mentioned by them. Those farmers who said they were not contacted said the reasons could be non-group farmers were not interested, hesitated to contact because of their none affiliation with FFS, the IPNS methods were very tiresome and, did not have suitable land for farming.
(ii) Sharing experiences with non-group farmers
Out of 13 groups, only 38 % responded Yes to this question. Out of them, 40 % mentioned that the NGF contacted us, 40 % groups said the group members visited them individually and 20 % said that the NGF visited GF experimental plot.
Out of 83 group farmers, 73 % answered this question. Out of them, 75 % said Yes and 25 % said No. Out of 75 %, who said yes, 92 % mentioned the mode of sharing. Out of 92 %, on mode of contact, 70 % told that non-group farmers contacted them, 2 % told non-group farmers visited their experimental plot, 43 % said group farmers visited them individually, 6 % told group farmers discussed non-group farmers in a group and, 8 % said group farmers told them whenever they met. 6 % said that they shared but NGFs were not interested to learn. (Appendix Table – 21)
(iii) Farmers with followed suggestions (components)
Out of 13 groups, only 23 % answered Yes and other did not answer. The followed components were (a) FYM/compost management (b) proper method of fertilizer use, and (c) urine collection and its use.
Out of 83 group farmers, 67 % answered this question. Out of them, 85 % said yes and 15 % said No. Out of 85 %, who said yes, 83 % mentioned components on which NGF has followed. Out of 83 %, FYM/compost management and improvement was mentioned by 77 %, urine management and use by 46 %, vegetable farming by 29 %, green manure by 13 %, proper method of fertilizer use by 10 %, liquid fertilizer by 8 %, leguminous crop by 8 %, vermiculture by 3%, weeding by 3 % and, bio-pesticide use by 3 %. (Appendix Table – 22)
3.1.16 Learning, Strength, Weaknesses and Suggestive measures
(i) Learning
Out of 13 groups, only 38 % answered this question. Out of them, FYM/compost improvement and management mentioned by 48 %, importance of legume crop by 8 %, soil testing by 8 %, bio-pesticide by 8 %, urine collection and use by 8 %, easy to learn and work in the group by 8 %, importance of OM over fertilizer by 48 %, use of local resources by 8 %. (Appendix Table – 23)
Out of 83 group farmers, 42 % said they learned the following components. Out of them, importance of urine by 43 %, increased awareness by 37 %, soil testing by 29 %, compost/FYM improvement and management by 26 %, importance of OM over fertilizer by 23 %, application and effects of fertilizer in soil by 23 %, vegetable production in a improved way by 14 %, bio-pesticide preparation and use by 11 %, production increased by 9 %, leadership development by 9 %, awareness on local resources by 6 %, easy to learn and work in a group was mentioned by 3 %, soil improvement by 3 %, importance of leguminous crop by 3 %, information on appropriate technology by 3 %, capable to express in the group by 3 %, problem solving with discussion by 3 %. (Appendix Table – 24)
(ii) Strength
Out of 13 groups, only 23 % responded this question. Out of them, development of group help was mentioned by 66 %, opportunity to learn in a group by 33 % and, can express without hesitation and increase in awareness by 33 %. (Appendix Table – 25)
Out of 83 group farmers, 37 % answered this question. Out of 37 %, proper use of urine by 22 %, involvement of women and disadvantaged group was a great opportunity by 16 %, place for learning by 13 %, increase in knowledge by 12 %, farmers were organized in a group and attitude developed towards group help by 12 %, farmers could express themselves by 12 %, increased participation of women by 9 %, local resources management by 9 %, increased production and income was mentioned by 6 %, farmers capabilities and awareness increased by 6 %, soil improvement by 6 % and good relationship between farmers and technicians by 6 %. more care to farming by 3 %, practical use by 3 %. (Appendix Table – 26)
(iii) Weakness
Out of 13 groups, only 31 % answered this question. Out of them, 50 % said lack of punctuality, 33 % said lack of educational materials, 33 % said lack of monitoring and 33 % said lack of punctuality of facilitator. (Appendix Table – 27)
Out of 83 group farmers, 28 % answered this question. Out of them, lack of monitoring mentioned by 43 %, punctuality problem by 21 %, added workload 13 %, short duration by 13 %, lack of educational materials by 13 %, discontinuation of FFS by 9 %, sometimes poor attendance by 8 %, difficult for illiterate by 4 %, lack of transparency by 4 %, difficult in practical application by 4 % and absence of technical person by 4 %. (Appendix Table – 28)
(iv) Suggestion
Out of 13 groups, 15 % responded this question. Out of them, 50 % said FFS should be conducted for more years, refresher training for farmers was mentioned by 50 %, visit programme by 50 % and 50 % said strong monitoring. (Appendix Table – 29)
Out of 83 group farmers, 64 % answered this question. Out of 64 %, long duration FFS was mentioned by 68 %, strong monitoring system by 15 %, FFS in other crops too by 14 %, inclusion of more crops by 8 %, refresher training for farmers by 6 %, availability of additional information on fertilizer by 4 %, follow up activities by 4 %, visit program by 4 %, educational materials for illiterate farmers by 4 %, provision of local facilitator known of local situation by 2 %, trainers should be amicable by 2 %, availability of soil testing kits for each group by 2 %, farmers' need based FFS by 2 %, use of simple media by 2 %, simplified teaching methods by 2 %, FFS for other farmers by 2 %, budget should be transparent by 2 %, resource persons help to local facilitators by 2 %, availability of publication groups by 2 %. (Appendix Table – 30)
Strength, Weakness and Suggestions of FFS from Female and Male farmers Perspective
Female farmers | Male farmers | |
Strength | · Easy to learn and work in a group · Awareness on local resources · Problem solving in group · Involvement of women and disadvantaged group · Development of group attitude | · Development of group attitude · Leadership development |
Weakness | · Difficult to understand for illiterates · Punctuality | · Short term · Lack of refresher training for the trained farmers |
Suggestion | · Educational materials · More frequent monitoring · Use of simple media | · Alternate to fertilizer calculate technique |
3.1.17 IPNS FFS: Perception
As high as 70 % of the farmers found it very useful while 30 % felt it was moderately useful to them. Among those who found it very useful were mostly women (52 %). The reasons they found it useful were attributed to their increased knowledge on technology, empowerment, and changes in lifestyle and social status. The perception towards the programme differs between men and women and is more projected in the case study presented in the box below.
Case 1: IPNS from Male perspective
Prahlad Sharma, a partially literate farmer, aged 44 of Kavre district has been the chairman of the FFS twice, sees FFS as an effective tool for soil fertility management and increased income. He was chairman in the first field school and when the women chairman for the second school went for oversees work, by the group consent, he was made chairman for the second time and he feels that it is more effective when there is a male chairman as people would listen more to men than to women and there is more work than gossip. His two sons live and study in After being involved in IPNS FFS, he has gained more knowledge on technological aspect of farming including compost management, balanced use of fertilizers, vegetable farming technology. There has been change in the cropping pattern and increase in the production as well as expansion of vegetable growing area. With an increase in annual income from NRs. 4,000 to 40,000 they have been able to construct a cemented house, which he was proud to boast about. There have been significant changes in their vegetable consumption pattern from "gundruk", a fermented dried Nepali product to fresh vegetable during winter. |
Case 1: IPNS FFS from Female perspective
Ms. Kamala Basnet, a female farmer from Dolakha district aged 34, has been involved with FFS for the last three years. She seemed to have good knowledge on principles and procedures of IPNS and FFS and also worked as leader farmer. As her husband works abroad, it is her, who takes all the decisions regarding farming and has control over the income from the farm. The structure of soil has improved noticeably and there has been change in the cropping pattern and increase in the production of the cereal crops as well as vegetable crops. Earlier she was able to get an annual income of NRs. 1000 from the sale of cereals and after her involvement in IPNS FFS, she is able to earn an annual income of NRs. 5,000 from the sale of vegetables. There has been drastic change in consumption pattern of her household. She has found lots of transformation in herself after her involvement in FFS. She feels now more confident and able to express her feelings, has learnt technology and able to practice them, is not shy, can travel all by her if needed and she is now socially recognized and accepted as leader farmer. This has certainly changed people's especially male's attitude towards her. She is more respected than was in the past. They have separate savings for men and women of the same household. She admits that there has been added work load and they have no leisure to go to her parents home but feels that the idle time they used to spare for gossiping has been utilized for the production purpose and was found enjoying the benefits and income. But, she still feels that the technology and the procedure should be repeated at least twice for the same group since only then they can understand the principles and the techniques and it should be more frequent since most women farmers are not educated and there will be information gap when field school is conducted in a month. |
3.2 Non-group Farmers
Non-group farmers were mostly neighbours of group farmers. These groups were not affiliated with any of the FFS. They watched their neighbours going to FFS and adopting IPNS technologies very cautiously. They also observed many of their neighbours benefited with IPNS technologies and their lifestyle and social status changed. They were also interested to know about these technologies and FFS and their neighbours helped them to know all about them with exchanged visits and developing a helping environment. These non-group farmers, with their changed attitude and adoption of IPNS technologies were considered a measurable parameter to judge the impact of FFS and IPNS technologies. Discussion, observation and adaptation have a great impact on their day to day farming activities and from this, if not exactly, but to some extent the success and failure of the programme can be measured. This impact comes from demo effect. It multiplies from one to many. It also helps sustain and develop an ownership of a programme.
Altogether 43 non-group farmers (Appendix Table – 3.c) from various districts (Baglung = 13, Sindhupalchok = 21 and Syangja = 9) were interviewed to find out the dissemination effect of IPNS and FFS activities and impact on them through group farmers.
They were interviewed mainly on the following topics:
(a) Their knowledge on IPNS and FFS and its sources.
(b) Visit of group farmers to non-group farmers and vice versa.
(c) Components they learned from group farmers, most beneficial components and tried one.
(d) Their learning from IPNS, its strength, weaknesses and suggestive measures, if any.
(e) Differences in practices before and after IPNS experiences.
3.2.1 Information on IPNS and FFS programme and its sources
Out of 43, 88 % farmers knew about the IPNS and FFS and 12 % farmers did not know. Out of 88 % farmers, who were aware of this programme, 87 % farmers mentioned its sources. Out of 87 % farmers, 94 % told that their neighbour were the source of information, 9 % mentioned facilitator as its sources and 3 % mentioned signboard. (Appendix Table – 31)
3.2.2 Visit of Group farmers to NGF and vice-versa
Dissemination and impact of any programme depends upon the skilled farmers' visit to the non-skilled farmers and vice-versa and communication with the non-skilled ones about the technology they have learned.
(i) NGFs' visits to group farmers
Out of 43, 86 % farmers answered this question. Out of them, 70 % mentioned that they have visited the GF themselves and 30 % said they did not and others did not answer. The reasons for their not visiting were (a) not much interested and (b) lack of information.
(ii) Group farmers' visit to NGF
Out of 43, 77 % answered this question. Out of 77 %, 40 % farmers said yes, 37 % said no and 23 % did not respond. When asked about frequency of their visit out of 40 %, 71 % responded. Out of them, 50 % mentioned every 1-3 days, 33 % said every 7-10 days interval, 17 % said every 4-6 days and others did not answer.
3.2.3 Components learned and beneficial one
(i) Components learned
Out of 43, 93 % answered this question. Out of them, 75 % farmers said that they learned various components of IPNS, 25 % said they did not learn anything and others did not answer. Out of 75 %, who said they learnt, only 80 % could mention the components. Out of 80 %, FYM/compost improvement and management were mentioned by 96 %, urine collection and use by 79 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 21 %, vegetable farming by 13 %, leguminous crops by 8 %, liquid fertilizer by 4 %, green manure by 4 %.
Out of 10, only 2 mentioned the reasons for not learning, such as: lack of free time by 1, not so much interested by 2. (Appendix Table – 32)
(ii) Beneficial components
On beneficial components, out of 25 respondents, 60 % said yes, 4 % said no and others did not answer. Out of 60 %, use of more compost were mentioned by 13 %, production increased by 73 %, benefit yet to be realized by 7 %, soil improvement by 14 %, use of local resources by 14 %, management and improvement of OM by 7 %, use of urine by 14 %. (Appendix Table – 33)
3.2.4 Learning, strength, weaknesses and suggestive measures
(i) Learning
Out of 43, 30 % responded on learning and were as follows:
Out of 30 %, more organic manure over fertilizer should be used by 46 %, management and improvement of FYM/compost by 46 %, urine collection and use by 46 %, leguminous crops by 8 %, liquid fertilizer by 8 % and judicious use of fertilizer by 16 %. (Appendix Table – 34)
(ii) Strength
Strength mentioned by only 2 was not actually the strength and other did not answer.
(iii) Weakness
Only 9 % mentioned that FFS could not cover all and other did not respond.
(iv) Suggestive measure
Out of 43, only 30 % provided some suggestions and out of them, 77 % said FFS for other farmers should also be organized, 15 % said FFS should be conducted for a longer period of time and 8 % said training should be conducted in more areas.
3.2.5 Differences between before and after adoption of IPNS technologies
Their findings on differences before and after IPNS activities, out of 43 only 28 % responded. 100 % of the respondent said that before IPNS they were using more chemical fertilizer but now less fertilizers are used and getting more production.
3.3 Facilitators
A facilitator usually initiates the field school. He/she is either an extension worker or hired to conduct FFS. He/she must have certain skills on facilitation, group dynamics, and group building methods and technical knowledge on relevant matters and should be confident enough to organize FFS. An uncertain trainer is a poor trainer. When an inevitable unknown situation is encountered in the field he/she should be able to deal within an appropriate manner. Total of 17 facilitators (Appendix Table – 3.d) from Baglung, Syangja, Sindhupalchok and Dolakha were interviewed to find out their background, understanding, working style, learnings and other aspects of IPNS FFS.
3.3.1 Experiences
(i) Working period as an IPNS FFS facilitator
A facilitator must be an experienced one, as well as, knowledgeable on group dynamics, group mobilization and related fields. 6 % of interviewed facilitator worked since 2058, 18 % since 2059, 24 % since 2060, 24 % since 2061 and 29 % since 2062. Though they were working since 2058, most of them conducted FFS only for one year. Only a few conducted for more than one year. Working more than one year as a facilitator depended upon CIs getting this programme from SSMP for a subsequent year.
(ii) Working areas prior to this assignment
Out of 65 % respondents, 64 % were found working in agriculture, 9 % in social mobilization, 9 % in health related job, 18 % in miscllaneous job prior to this assignment, and others were freshly hired as per need. Majority of them was found to be working in agricultural field, which was a good aspect. But it was found that many of the facilitators were still non-agriculturist. Though the facilitators were only to facilitate the FFS and not to deal with technical matter, unless they were trained for that, the message delivered would have negative impact on the farmers. Simply with few days training on IPNS it was found that they dealt with technical matter, too, which were beyond their understanding and capability. With this the FFS was found affected. Facilitation is a one aspect and dealing with technical matter is another aspects.
(iii) Training received
Out of 17 facilitators, 94 % had received training on different areas and 6 % did not have any training and out of 94 %, 100 % mentioned that the training was useful.
Categorically, when asked about training topics, social mobilization were mentioned by 13 %, vegetable farming by 38 %, FYM management and improvement by 38 %, leguminous crops by 19 %, soil management by 6 %, IPNS by 94 %, ginger cultivation by 6 %, gender equity by 6 %, TOT by 6 %, communication skill by 6 %, IPNS refresher by 13 %, agro-forestry by 6 %, apiculture by 6 %, soil ecology by 6 %, soil testing by 13 %, PPME by 6 %, insect pests management by 19 %.
From the result, it was found that, out of 17 facilitators, only 15 had IPNS training, 2 had refresher training on IPNS and very few of them were trained on agricultural related subjects. FYM management training was received by 6 of them, leguminous crops only by 3 and others. IPNS training and refresher training on IPNS should have been must to all who were supposed to run FFS. Other aspects of agriculture were also necessary for a facilitator to get acquainted with. If the facilitators are an agriculturist, he/she could use his/her knowledge in these activities. But for a non-agriculturist to conduct FFS on IPNS and expecting a productive outcome is unimaginable. So, training/refresher training on IPNS, group mobilization, as well as in other topics of agriculture were found inadequate. (Appendix Table – 35)
(iv) Skill to conduct FFS
Out of 17, 94 % answered this question. Out of them, 63 % said Yes and 38 % said No. Out of 63 %, who were confident, 30 % told that they were in need of some additional training, 10 % in need of training on insect pest and 10 % in need of more training on NCS. Out of 38%, who were not confident enough, 50 % mentioned needs of refresher training, 17 % said need of training on IPNS and 17 % said need of some more training.
To organize FFS effectively, facilitators' role is vital. Their role and attitudes are key factors that determine the success and failure of FFS. He/she should be knowledgeable, trained to facilitate group learning and should have practical knowledge of IPNS and should have training, before hand, on the concept and procedure for field implementation of IPNS. There were two categories of answer received to this question: Primarily out of 17, only 16 answered. Among 16 also, only 10 said skilled enough and 6 said not skilled enough. Those who said skilled enough also indicated that they were still in need of training in one way or other. So, conclusion could be drawn that facilitators were actually not skilled enough to organize FFS and IPNS activities. Those who were confident were mostly from agricultural background. But, it was also found that they mixed IPM concept with IPNS. This indicated lack of understanding on IPNS in the facilitators' part and seriousness towards trainers' part.
(v) Responsibilities other than IPNS FFS
Out of 17, 88 % mentioned that they had other responsibilities besides FFS and some did not answer. When asked about sufficiency of time for FFS, almost all said it was enough.
Mostly the facilitators were staffs of GOs and CIs. They were assigned for other activities too. FFS were suppose to be conducted fortnightly or monthly as schedule. Hiring especially for this would have been created financial burden on the institutions. So, they were also assigned to take care of other activities of the institutions and were provided sufficient time for FFS. So, this was not a big problem.
(vi) Sharing of FFS experience with peers
Sharing of anything is the exchange of experiences among others. If shared with peers involved in the same nature of job it becomes useful and fruitful sharing. An individual can discuss programme, its ins and outs, problems and its solutions and many other related matters. Experience sharing is also a part of learning, which is not gained in school education. For a programme like FFS, sharing with peer means a lot. But, it should be regular and lively.
Out of 17, 94 % said yes they shared FFS experiences with peers. Out of them, 88 % mentioned the mode of sharing. Among which, meeting was mentioned by 79 %, discussion by 21 %, exchange visit by 14 %, get together by 43 %, training by 7 %, during they met by 7 %, and TOT by 7 %. (Appendix Table – 36)
Most of the respondents adopted this process of learning and it's a good sign. The modes they used were various. Among them meeting, get together and training counted most and besides those some other modes were also mentioned. These methods should be continued in future too.
3.3.2 Knowledge on IPNS and FFS
(i) Difference between IPNS and FFS
Out of 17, only 94 % answered this question. Out of them, 81 % were aware, 13 % aware but needed some more orientation, 6 % not aware.
IPNS is a management of all available nutrients (natural or man made) to get higher production without disturbing the nature and environment. Where as FFS is an approach to learn these. If a facilitator is not clear enough of the differences between these two, effectiveness of FFS and a good outcome from IPNS activities could not be expected. 13 out of 16 were found clear on this, 1 did not know the difference and 2 were found unclear. These findings were from 17 only who were interviewed. It should be kept in mind that there were many more facilitators who had already organized FFS and are organizing at present, too and they were not covered in this study.
(ii) FFS Session
The response was of varied type. FFS was not conducted as per schedule. Most of them conducted FFS weekly in vegetable where as in other crops as per schedule.
(iii) Components
(a) Responsible body for components identification
Out of 17, 53 % said facilitator, 71 % said group members and 18 % exclusively said SSMP (1), DADO (1) and CI (1).
There are many components of IPNS already identified. Since, IPNS is a location and cropping system specific and so, identified components are also location and cropping system specific. During FFS, discussion is done among group farmers' with the help of facilitator on components to be tried based on observation of individual experimentation. Thus, based on the discussion it is decided with the help of facilitator. 12 out of 17 said that groups decided, 9 said facilitator and some said SSMP, DADO and CIs. It indicated that facilitator, themselves were not clear on the process. (Appendix Table – 37)
(b) Components identified
Out of 17, 94 % responded this question. Out of them, 63 % were aware about components, 38 % not aware. Out of 63 %, who were aware on components, only 60 % could name the components. Out of 38 %, FYM/compost management was said by 83 %, urine collection and use by 50 %, leguminous crops by 33 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 17 % and soil management by 17 %. (Appendix Table – 38)
A facilitator should have knowledge of IPNS and its components. But from the result it was found that only 10 out of 16 were aware of the components and also, out of 10 only 6 could mention the name of components. It indicated that most of the facilitator themselves did not have clear idea on components. First, they could not say clear meaning of components and those, who did it, could not name the identified components. These things are very important for the IPNS programme. Facilitator must be equipped enough so that he could guide the group farmers in a right direction. If not, and were confused with such tiny matters the farmers would have been confused and ultimately they will loose faith on FFS and IPNS activities.
(iv) Process of FFS
(a) Planning and implementation phase
82 % responded this question. Out of them, only 29 % were found aware and 71 % were not aware of this.
Process to be followed during FFS conduction has been clearly mentioned in a publication named Integrated Plant Nutrients Management: an Introduction prepared by SSMP and SMD/DoA. These publications were distributed to CIs and facilitators during their training on IPNS. During training they might have been briefed on this. But the study indicated that out of 14 only 4 were aware of this and 10 were not aware of the process. This is a matter of concern. Programme, activities and process are of no use if they are not followed, as it should be. Lack of knowledge of these things will lead to another direction.
(b) Farmers selection criteria
Out of 17, 94 % responded this question. Out of them, only 38 % were aware of and 63 % were not aware of. Majority of the facilitator were either not aware of these criteria or they did not follow it sincerely. Criteria for selection has been clearly mentioned in the publication named Integrated Plant Nutrients Management: an Introduction prepared by SSMP and SMD/DoA. Farmers' selection, not based on criteria will lead to formation of a diversified group. In FFS, group formed without following criteria will have a more varied problem and will be heterogeneous in nature. It will be very difficult to solve these in a given period of time and schedule. So, cautiously it should be followed. The reasons of not following could be either facilitator was not aware of this or their negligence or local situation did not permit for this.
(c) FFS base: crop or cropping system?
In IPM, FFS is conducted on crop where as IPNS is based on cropping system. This cropping system could be of one or two or three crops and it may last up to one or more year. Out of 17, 88 % responded this question. Out of them, 33 % mentioned crop and 67 % mentioned cropping system.
From the study result, most of the facilitators were found aware of this i.e. IPNS was conducted on cropping system where as still some was confused with this. It was lack of seriousness or could be negligence not to understand this basic thing on facilitators' part. Without knowing the basic thing like this it is hard to imagine how a facilitator would have conducted FFS.
(d) Common field plots and its purpose
The purpose of establishing a common plot is to demonstrate IPNS. In each session, with an observation of this plot discussion is initiated and based on this farmers follow activity in their experimental plot.
94 % responded this question. All of them responded that there was common plot. But only 56 % were aware of its purpose, 31 % not clear and 13 % not fully clear.
16 facilitators mentioned that during FFS there was a common plot established. But only 9 out of 16 were clear on its purpose, 5 were not clear at all and 2 were confused. Conclusion of this was that without clear understanding of its purpose common plot was established and FFS was being conducted.
(e) Individual experimental plot and its purpose
Each farmer was supposed to have an experimental plot of one ropani area divided into two parts. In one, IPNS technology and in other farmer's own practices were to be tested. Observations are noted down and discussed in the FFS session. From this plot, soils samples are taken to FFS, tested and nutrients are managed accordingly. On having these plots and clarity on its purposes out of 17, 88 % responded that there were individual plots. But only 67 % were found aware of its purpose, 27 % were not clear and 7 % were not fully clear.
Almost all said there were individual experimental plots. But two third of them were found clear on its purpose and one third were not. Without clear understanding of its purpose individual experimental plots were established and FFS was being conducted.
(f) Use of Nutrient Calculation Sheet (NCS)
Use of Nutrient Calculation Sheet is an integral part of IPNS. In this, the required amounts of nutrients along with its sources are calculated considering the available nutrients in the soil and crop's requirements to produce an expected output. Out of 17, 88 % responded this question. Out of 88 %, 87 % said they used it and 13 % said they did not use it. Some of the facilitators who said yes mentioned that it should be simplified and one of them told that he was not confident and was using with the help of peers.
Most of them said that they used this sheet, it was useful but still they were not confident enough. Some of the respondent did mention that it was complicated and should have been made simple. During training the use of this sheet was also taught. But, lack of adequate practice made them imperfect.
(g) Final evaluation session and its purpose
In a FFS, after harvest of the crop, there is a final evaluation session to be conducted. In this session, the topics to be conducted are farmers' experiences and sharing with others. It has some purposes mentioned in the manual such as: to design of local IPNM and plans for the next season under farmers' experiences and cultural and educational programme under sharing with others. To know the understanding level of these topics and its purposes, facilitators were interviewed. Out of 17, 59 % responded this question. On farmers' experiences and sharing with others topics, which are in one of the session, when asked about its purpose out of 59 %, 60 % were found aware of its purpose, 10 % not aware and 30 % not fully aware.
Before the session, facilitator should have gone thoroughly on the topic and should have decided methods to conduct the session. Out of 17, 7 did not answer. Those who answered among them also only 6 were found aware of this and 4 were not. It is a matter of concern. As mentioned before success and failure of FFS depends on facilitator capability but they were not seen serious on this aspect.
(h) Final evaluation of FFS
Final evaluation of FFS is the responsibility of group farmers with the help of facilitator and group farmers, facilitators and neighbour farmers evaluate IPNS. An effective monitoring and evaluation leads any programme to a right direction. But right body should do it. Out of 17, only 82 % responded. Out of them, FFS group was said by 79 %, Facilitator by 29 %, DADO by 28 %, CIs by 21 %, SSMP by 7 %, SMD by 7 %, Individual by 7 %, Respected person of the village 7 %. (Appendix Table – 39)
From above responses, conclusion could be drawn as the right body did the evaluation. 4 out of 14 mentioned that facilitator did the evaluation and 11 mentioned group. Facilitators were always involved during evaluation by groups. Since, some of the respondents did mention CIs, SSMP, DADO and individuals as an evaluator it's a matter of concern. Could be those facilitators were not having clear understanding on the whole process.
3.3.3 Institutional
(i) Technical backstopping
There is a provision of technical backstopping to facilitators, responsible for conducting FFS, by SMD, RSTL and agricultural related other institutions. Provision for regular backstopping has been made. Once a facilitator completed training, during FFS they were supposed to be supported by technical institutions regularly on newly developed technology. Then only they could have dealt with the problems identified by farmers and made some suggestions. So, on this aspect when asked, out of 17, 82 % responded this question. Among them, 86 % mentioned that they did get technical backstopping from responsible institutions and 17 % said they did not get any technical backstopping. Out of 86 %, 75 % said that technical backstopping was effective and 25 % said that the frequency was quite less.
Technical backstopping is one of the must activities that should be provided regularly. After a short training if facilitators are left on their own they may not face with farmers' problem. It is also very important for those who are not from technical background. But, the responsible institutions rarely provided this service. Though, 12 of the respondent said positively but, they also mentioned that their visit were irregular.
On technical backstop providing Institutions, out of 12, 58 % responded this question and among them, 57 % mentioned SSMP, 57 % mentioned CIs, 14 % mentioned SMD, 57 % mentioned RSTL, 14 % mentioned Kabre Farm, and Tuki Association was mentioned by 14 %. Among those institutions, some of them (ex. SSMP, CIs and Tuki Association) were not equipped with technical specialist and were not supposed to provide technical support. They were only meant for monitoring purpose. So, lack of technical backstopping by appropriate institutions also affected the FFS and IPNS activities. (Appendix Table – 40)
On interval and quality of backstopping, out of 17, 47 % responded this question. Out of 47 %, 50 % said interval and quality of technical backstopping was adequate and 50 % said it was quite inadequate. The result indicated that out of 17 only 4 were of the opinion that the quality and interval was adequate. The number of respondent was very small to draw any conclusion.
(ii) FFS monitoring institutions
Monitoring is an integral part of any programme. It should be embedded in the programme itself. It guides the programme in the right direction. The monitoring of IPNS and FFS were done by many institutions related to this programme. Facilitators' understanding of this were asked. Out of 17, 88 % said yes monitoring were done and 6 % said No, it was not done. On monitoring institutions, out of 88 %, CIs was mentioned by 87 %, SSMP by 60 %, Other CIs by 33 %, DADO by 27 %, RSTL by 13 %, Kabre farm by 7 %, and others by 13 %. (Appendix Table – 41)
CIs mentioned by most of them followed by SSMP and some other institutions were also mentioned by some of the respondents. It indicated that monitoring part was effective. But still the monitoring by technical institutions were felt inadequate. Besides other matters monitoring should include technical monitoring also which is an important part of a programme. It provides technical backstopping indirectly.
3.3.4 Extension activities
(i) Farmers' visit
Out of 17, 53 % said that they organized farmers visit in IPNS plot. Among them one respondent mentioned that his farmers' group visited other CI's FFS and other one said that his group went to other district to observe FFS and in this group mostly were women farmers.
(ii) Other extension activities
Out of 17, 47 % responded this question. Among them, 63 % said Yes and 38 % said No. Types of extension activities they organized were: (i) Poster competition (ii) IPNS related debate (question set by facilitator) and poetry competition.
In IPNS programme and FFS, other extension activities could play vital role. It disseminates among the farmers other than participating farmers. The principle is when they hear they forget after some time, when they see they remember for a long time and it gives a very good impact and when they discover they owe it for life. It is very effective tool to make believe to those who are prejudice to the new/appropriate technology. In FFS, other extension activities were found initiated as mentioned above. It was a good sign of improvement and should be continued in other FFS too.
(iii) Publications
SSMP has published various guidelines and manuals related to IPNS and FFS and distributed to CIs and facilitators. Facilitators are supposed to be acquainted through all of this and conduct FFS and IPNS activities in an effective manner. Adequate number of publications and timely availability is essential for this to happen. So, when asked on this out of 17, 76 % responded this question. Out of them, 77 % said it was available on time and relevant but copies of the publications were inadequate and 23 % said No. Some of the remarks made by facilitators were (a) only one copy of each material were given to facilitator during training (b) was given only 3 months after the conduction of FFS to some of the respondents (c) self developed (d) some CIs made photo copy and distributed to farmers.
Out of 13 respondents, only 10 said that they got the publication on time but number of copies were inadequate. Publications were usually given during training to each facilitator and CIs also got one copy of each. Some of the respondents mentioned that they got only after 3 months of training. Publication is very important as an educational material in this type of programme. Timely availability and adequate number also counts. But only one copies of publication to facilitators do not solve the problem and effective school and activities can not be expected with this. IPNS and FFS related simple publications for farmers who can read and write were felt lacking. Most of the respondent said publications were relevant.
(iv) Other educational materials
In extension education, which is a non-formal education, various types of educational materials are used to make it effective. Use of many tools makes it more effective. In a FFS, which is an approach to IPNS, is also an effective extension tool to disseminate fastly to a large number of clientele. For this, use of various tools such as publications and audio-visual aids etc. is utmost necessary. Besides the published materials, facilitators might have felt other materials necessary for FFS. On this out of 17, only 71 % said Yes they needed but when asked to list them out of 71 %, only 67 % mentioned the requirements. They were as follows: (a) simple understandable NCS for farmers by 38 %, (b) NCS for potato by 13 % (c) NCS for 3 crops cropping system by 13 % (d) adequate educational materials by 25 % (e) soil quality related booklets and other materials by 13 % (f) colour pictures of diseases by 13 % and (g) poster by 13 %. (Appendix Table – 42)
Most of the facilitators indicated that materials other than available ones were also felt necessary. But due to ignorance in this part they could not name it. Simplified nutrients calculation sheet was the demand of many. Besides that, other materials were also named. So, materials on other crops and its various aspects, social mobilization and group dynamics etc. were felt lacking.
(v) Multiplication of FFS programme in other area
Multiplication of a programme in an area other than sponsered one in a self-motivated way indicates the influences of a programme. If not, its sustainability will always be in question and will last till the financial assistance is available. After that it will be of no bodies' responsibility
Out of 17, 59 % said no and others did not answer to this question and reasons were also not given.
It indicated that the programme depended solely on financial assistance.
3.3.5 Farmers perspectives
(i) Changes in farmers' lifestyle
Farmers are doing farming since a long time. They have developed many of the technology on their own. Researchers have also developed many new and appropriate technologies. Some of the farming community have adopted new appropriate technology in their farming system and been benefited with this. Some has not. IPNS is also one of the system (technology) related to management of soil nutrients for maximum production. With the adoption of IPNS technologies, the expectations were farmers' life style might have changed with an increase in production and thereby increase in income.
Out of 17 facilitators, 88 % said yes that they noticed the changes. But when asked to mention, out of 88 %, only 73 % could name it. Out of 73 %, 54 % said income increased, 27 % said proper use of time, change in thinking by 9 %, food sufficient by 9 %, capable to express without hesitation by 18 %, capable to send kids to school by 9 % and vegetable production by 27 %. (Appendix Table – 43)
Most of the respondent mentioned that there was an increase in income with an increase in production and it changed the lifestyle of farmers. The responses such as increase in income, changes in thinking, food sufficiency, capable to express without hesitation and expenses for kids' school were the indication of changes in lifestyle.
(ii) Changes in social status
With an adoption of IPNS technologies and participating in FFS, changes in social status, were expected. With the changes seen on social status of an individual before and after the adoption of technologies and participating in FFS, conclusion could be drawn of its usefulness.
Out of 17, only 76 % said Yes. Among them, who said yes, only 62 % could mention the changes. Out of 62 %, expression without hesitation was mentioned by 13 %, respected by 63 %, recognition by others by 25 %, developed as a facilitator by 13 %, developed as leader farmers 13 %, confident enough to visit the related institutions by 13 %, ELF capable of conducting school by 13 %, skill developed by 13 %, followed by others by 13 %. (Appendix Table – 44)
Changes in social status were expressed in terms of, respected by family and society, capacity developed as a leader farmers and facilitator, skill development and confident enough to face the reality of the life and development of self-confidence etc. those were not a big changes, but, at least, initiation took place.
(iii) Farmers' empowerment
Farmers' empowerment, with the initiation of FFS, was an expected output. After participating in FFS, with an increase in capacity and capability, a farmer slowly develops self-confidence that leads them to increase decision-making capacity and outcome of these developments is considered an empowerment.
Out of 17, 71 % said yes. Out of them, only 75 % mentioned the way they were empowered. Out of 75 %, capable to express without hesitation by 78 %, capable to visit market by 33 %, capable of doing practically the learned things was told by 11 %, working as a facilitator after training by 11 %, self-confident on doing things by 11 %, capable of making decisions by 11 %, can spend the days away from home by 11 %, technical knowledge increased by 11 %, confident enough to visit the related institutions by 11 %, capable to share experiences by 11 %, capable to make plan by 11 %, capable to solve problems by 11 %, bargaining capacity increased by 11 %, and capable to make demand by 11 %. (Appendix Table – 45)
The responses mentioned were positive signal towards empowerment. Though many of the responses do not directly link with empowerment process but indirectly the results of those will ultimately lead to empowerment process.
(iv) Benefit to women farmers
Programme and activities conducted are to benefit its users. If not, ultimately it will be of no use. Some trials are done in the field level to test its validity and usefulness. It may not work always. But a programme like IPNS and FFS is the outcome of the long-term experiences from inside and outside of the country.
Fruitful results have been found. If the technology are adopted and applied sincerely in the field it will be beneficial otherwise not. So, on FFS benefits when asked, out of 17, 76 % (13) said yes and others did not answer. Out of 13, who said yes, only 85 % (11) could mention the benefits. Among them, increased income by 36 %, increased capability to express without hesitation by 18 %, decreased dependency over spouse by 18 %, saving habit developed by 18 %, increased awareness on crops related factors by 9 %, increased capability to manage fertilizer and its use by 9 %, increased capability to apply the new technology by 9 %, active participation of women farmers in FFS by 9 %, skill developed by 9 %, increased capability of doing related job effectively by 9 %, increased technical knowledge by 9 %, women were more interested because they get less opportunity by 9 %, increased capability to compete with other business man by 9 %, increased capability to market the products by 9 %, increased capability to make decision by 9 % and proper use of time by 9 %. (Appendix Table – 46)
Most of them told that women were benefited with IPNS technology and FFS. Their income was increased, could express without any hesitation, decrease in dependency to others, developed saving habits and improvement in other aspects too. In a FFS women farmers were found more active than men because they used to get less opportunity in other activities. So, the respondents felt that women farmers were more benefited with IPNS technologies and FFS.
(iv) Sharing of cost by group farmers
Sharing of cost in any programme develops the feeling of ownership and ownership felt programme is always sustainable. Out of 17, 65 % answered this question. Among them, 64 % said yes, 27 % said no and 9 % were not sure. Lack of fund and technicians were the main constraints shown.
Less than 50 % (7 out of 17) said it's possible, others were not sure and some of the respondent flatly said No. But most of them gave sense that if the group could get technical assistance they can manage. Imuneration of a facilitator or a technician was mentioned as a big problem for organizing FFS on their own. FFS to be managed by a group will depend upon the availability of a facilitator and technician as assistance till the farmer trainers are not developed. Serious thinking should be done to run some FFS on trial basis.
(v) Drop out problem
This was not a big problem indicated by almost all of them.
3.3.6 Learning, Strength, Weaknesses and Suggestive measures
(i) Learning
Out of 17, only 88 % mentioned the learning they had from FFS. Among them, new technology learned was mentioned by 60 %, knowledge about IPN by 14 %, income increased after management of soil by 14 %, management of local resources 13 %, working in the group by 7 %, Nutrients and water should be provided as per need of the plant by 7 %, monitoring process learned by 7 %, increased knowledge and skill by 7 %, facilitators should be a technical person by 7 %, effectiveness of FFS increased with more women participation by 7 % and knew to use NCS by 7 %. (Appendix Table – 47)
It was found that some lessons were learned by most of them. Percentage of them indicated that they did learn new technology, their knowledge on IPN increased and got higher production from properly managed soil there by increasing income and etc.
(ii) Strength
Out of 17, only 76 % answered and all of them mentioned the components. Among them, FYM/compost management was mentioed by 23 %, judicious use of fertilizer by 16 %, soil management by 16 %, vegetable farming with improved practices by 15 %, awareness increased by 15 %, crop observation through participation by 8 %, gender balance by 8 %, new things are learned by 8 %, sharing experiences effectively with others by 8 %, farmers become positive to CIs other activities by 8 %, capable of making decisions by 8 %, farmers are organized by 8 %, it's practical by 8 %, based on farmers problem by 8 % and follow each other when taught in a group by 8 %. (Appendix Table – 48)
Every programme has some strength and weaknesses. Some of the strength felt in this programme was also mentioned above. Strengths, most of the respondents mentioned, were, FYM/compost management, judicious use of fertilizer, soil management and others. It indicated that FFS had good impact on facilitators, too.
(iii) Weakness
Out of 17 only 24 % responded. Major responses ware (a) practically not possible to do all by 25 % (b) budget through Red Book by 25 % (c) soil test reports were late by 25 %, and (d) could not cover more interested farmers by 25 %.
Respondents indicated the major weaknesses such as all the technologies of IPNS were not possible to do practically, DADOs got budget through Red Book and was late, soil test reports were received late and all the interested farmers were not covered in FFS. Some of the weaknesses were genuine and some were not. So far on getting budget by DADOs it is true, but how so ever, they have to adjust crop to be started with and there won't be any problem. Some of the District Agriculture Development Offices are practicing this method and it worked.
(iv) Suggestion
Out of 17 only 47 % responded. Some of the suggestions were as follows: continuity of FFS for some more years was mentioned by 50 %, FFS in other crops by 25 %, more participants should be included by 13 %, FFS should be conducted in each VDC by 13 %, refresher training should be conducted by 13 %, NCS should be in a simple form for farmers use by 13 %, subject matter should be understandable to farmers by 13 %, soil testing process should be simple by 13 %, poster and other publications should be used for effective conduction of school by 13 %. (Appendix Table – 49)
Most of the respondents' suggestions were FFS for one cropping season was not adequate. Their logic was for the first year the farmers' just start understanding it. So, to understand more clearly, to do it practically and to get benefit from IPNS technology they needed one more year. Otherwise, FFS was completed and they were in the middle of the course. After that when they try to do they were confused and it was very difficult to practice. FFS in other crops were also suggested.
3.4 Collaborative Institutions
A number of collaborative institutions are involved on implementation of IPNS FFS activities. With submission of proposal and after its approval, CIs conduct FFS in the various locations of a district. Government offices conduct FFS through their regular staff and CIs either uses their regular staff or they hire people for this on mandays basis.
14 responsible persons (Appendix Table – 3.e) from various collaborative institutions were interviewed to know their understanding of IPNS and FFS programme and activities. Those persons played key role on implementation and decision making process of the programme. They were the people who were in link with the donors. Their decisions were important for the effective implementation of the programme. Success and failure of the programme depended on the feeling of accountability and their understanding besides those who executed.
For the purpose, out of 14, 4 GOs (3 DADOs and 1 RSTL) and 10 NGOs were interviewed from Baglung, Syangja, Dolkha and Sindhuplachok districts. The finding were:
3.4.1 FFS
(i) Farmers participation
Out of 14, 10 were satisfied with the participation of farmers in FFS. 4 did not respond, may be because they were not aware of the activity. Most of the CIs were found satisfied with the number of participants and their participation.
(ii) FFS session
On adequacy of number of FFS session most of them mentioned that for vegetables it was inadequate. Their feeling was that the vegetable crops are very sensitive to insects, pests and other factors. So, it was necessary to increase the number of sessions. Sessions on cereal crops were adequate. But one of the respondents, who was also involved during development of FFS model, made clear that sessions for all the crops were adequate. Whatever happened and is happening, is only because of lack of understanding. The vision of the model was not to conduct FFS every week as in IPM. Since the FFS is on IPNS, besides nutrient management if other things are expected to effect during the FFS period, it should have been covered with one or two special sessions on that.
(iii) Guidelines and Norms
Very few CIs were aware of guidelines and norms they got from SSMP. Most of them were not found informed themselves. Out of 14, only 5 responded and rest of them just pointed towards facilitators. Those who responded mentioned that NCS should be made simple and understandable to farmers. Whereas on norms they indicated that cost of tea and snacks, transportation cost, remuneration for number of sessions, prize amount and cost of goods should be reviewed.
Nobody was found aware on the policy matter.
CIs should be well aware of the guidelines and norms provided for a programme. It will help them to guide the facilitators as and when needed. If all the responsibilities are left on the facilitators, there won't be any one to discuss on the matter which comes up during FFS and the result will be that facilitator will act on his own. It will have an effect on coordination and linkage mechanism between other programs and among other CIs. Most of the CIs were found unaware of the guidelines and norms. It indicated that they had never gone through those. With their limited understanding, the programme will have adverse effect in the long run.
(iv) Publications
Only 3 out of 14 were aware of the publications. As mentioned before, most of them said that facilitators knew about them. Those who responded indicated that received publications were useful but number of copies were inadequate.
Publications, related to the programme, are the effective tools to make any programme run successfully and they help to increase understanding on the technical matter as well as on the process. Their timely availability and adequacy are essential. SSMP and other related institutions are supposed to make them available to CIs. But the number of copies was very limited. Only one copy each was provided to facilitators and to CIs. It was found that either they (except few) did not have any idea on publications received by CIs or they did not care once the projects were approved. Though these publications are mostly technical in nature CIs should have at least a little knowledge of these. They would have been useful to the CIs, at the time of discussion with facilitators and other agencies.
(v) Curriculum
Only 3 out of 14 said that the curriculum was complete. But, one of them indicated that it should be reviewed and necessary reform should be made.
Only a few respondents were found aware of the contents of curriculum. It was found that they never had any interaction with facilitators. Only one of them indicated that review was needed and necessary reform should be made. But kind of reform needed could not be made clear.
3.4.2 Institutional
(i) Budget for FFS
Most of the respondents, except few, mentioned that the budget was adequate and they received it on time. But, DADO's problem was that they got the budget through Red Books and sometimes, it came too late due to some procedural reasons. Discussion with some other DADOs revealed that it was not a big problem. Adjustment between budget and crops could have been made.
On adequacy of the budget, few mentioned it as inadequate. The reasons provided were: (a) actual number of sessions conducted were more than the approved number (b) inadequate budget allocated for farmers' field day, such as no budget for (i) stage preparation, (ii) banners, (iii) sound system, (iv) photography and publication of certificates etc. (c) DSA for facilitators: they get only Rs. 200 a session. In the hilly area, most of the time they have to spend a night at the site and DSA does not cover the expenditure.
According to FFS norms approved by government, Rs. 24,250.00 has been allocated for one- crop cropping system, Rs. 32,500/- for two-crop cropping system and Rs. 38,600.00 for three-crop cropping system. During discussion it was felt that budget allocated for farmers' field day was inadequate. The cost of the goods has gone up and there is no budget for certain items, as indicated above. It has to be reviewed annually and adjustment has to be made.
(ii) Facilitator
7 out of 14 felt that the facilitators were skilled enough to conduct FFS and 3 did not. Among 10, 5 (3 skilled enough and 2 not skilled enough) said that facilitators needed some more training. Most of them felt that the assigned number of FFS to each facilitator was not a problem.
Facilitators were provided one week training on IPNS. Many of the topics were covered in that training. But, most of the respondents felt the need of refresher training during FFS to keep them updated.
(iii) IPNS FFS experiences sharing
10 out of 14 told that they shared their experiences with fellow CIs and the mode of sharing were mostly through meeting (1 exc. and 6 incl.), visit to FFS and experimental plot (4 incl.), local level workshop (2 incl.), quartermester meeting (2 exc. and 1 incl.), TOT meeting (1 incl.) and visit to fellow CIs' FFS (1 incl.). They were found satisfied with intensity of sharing.
Experience sharing is an effective tool to share experiences gained during the process among peers. It is a way to reinforce the learning process. In this tool, along with other topics, problems encountered and its possible solutions are also discussed and appropriate solutions are identified based on experience. Most of the CIs had practiced this using various modes and it was found very effective.
(iv) Coordination and Linkage
6 out of 14 responded this. On coordination mechanism, most of them mentioned that coordinating CIs' meeting was the main mechanism used and was very effective. According to SSMP guideline CIs involved in SSMP activities selects one coordinating CI in the district. It could be either for one or more year terms depending upon its performance. The meeting organized by coordinating CI in the district is very important. They discuss program, progress, monitoring mechanism and occasionally technical matter as well.
On linkage, they have formed formal and informal mechanism. Among these are regular discussion with VDCs, formation of district coordinating committees and other informal linkage with related organizations.
Coordination and linkage problem is a big issue in most of the programme. Various mechanisms on coordination and linkage were established during the FFS for the smooth running of IPNS and FFS programme. Though not all of them responded to this but during discussion it was found that they were highly impressed with these mechanisms. Various mechanisms such as coordinating CIs meeting, trimester review meeting, TOT (conducted especially in Baglung district) session and other informal linkage mechanism were named as its mode. Irregular meetings were mentioned as the biggest problems in the process.
(v) Monitoring
9 out of 14 responded on monitoring institutions, which monitored FFS and IPNS activities. All the responses were inclusive. 7 mentioned technical monitoring by DADO, 1 mentioned coordinating CI but frequency was quite less, 3 mentioned RSTL, 4 mentioned SSMP but, among them one said it was quite less, 5 mentioned their own CI, 1 mentioned member of CI and 2 mentioned other institutions.
Monitoring is a process to know the direction of the programme and it prevents any diversions. But, for this, effective monitoring process as well as institutions are a must. Monitoring institutions should be capable and skilled enough to monitor technically and processwise. Institutions related to soil programs are supposed to monitor this programme. Most of them had done this but the frequency was felt inadequate. DADO, a technical institution of the district, was named by most of them. SSMP and RSTL also fulfilled their responsibility. CIs monitored the least.
(vi) Follow up activities
On any follow up activities in the area, where FFS had been completed, only few answered. Among them 2 said Yes and 2 said No. But they could not clarify on any of the activities except Farmers Led Experiment (FLE).
Follow up activities is a signal of continuity of any programme and it depends mainly on the impact the programme had on farmers. CIs or farmers themselves, with a little financial assistance from sponsor could conduct follow up activities. Very few of them responded to this and it was found that none of them had these types of activities.
(vii) Inclusion of IPNS and FFS in regular activities
8 out of 14 said it could be done and 2 did not. Those who responded Yes were mostly NGOs and some DADOs. Some other DADOs mentioned that DoA should provide clear direction on this.
Most of them mentioned that this could be included in their regular activities. But none of them had tried to do so. DADOs response was that DoA should direct them in doing so. IPM activities have already become a part of the regular programme of DADO. Once the norms for IPNS FFS are approved by HMG it is not necessary to get direction from DoA.
3.4.3 Farmers perspective
(i) Evaluation of FFS
The CI's who conducted FFS were supposed to know the process of it. It should not always be left to facilitator. Regular monitoring is a must to prevent it from diversions. So, the CIs were tested on their knowledge of evaluation process of FFS. 7 out of 14 mentioned group farmers and 2 mentioned farmers and CIs.
Evaluation of FFS was supposed to be done by group farmers with the help of facilitators. 50 % of the respondents mentioned group farmers, which indicated that they were aware of the process.
(ii) Cost sharing
8 out of 14 said it could be possible and 2 said they were not sure of this. On sustainability of IPNS FFS, 2 out of 14 responded positively and 2 negatively. One of the respondents indicated that it is not possible at present as for the sharing of cost, farmers should be made aware and it will take some more time.
In any programme cost-sharing practice is essential to give them the feeling of ownership and sustain the programme as well. Most of them responded to its possibility. But, right from the beginning this idea has to be installed in clientele mind. It will take some time to happen.
3.4.4 Learning, Strength, Weaknesses and Suggestive measures
(i) Learning
Direct participation of farmers and group discussion makes a programme effective, FFS should be based on group needs, more profit from less investment, increase in farmers capacity as well as institutional were some of the learnings of CIs'.
Active participation of farmers and group discussion makes programme effective, FFS should be based on farmers need and increase of farmers as well as institutional capacity were the main learning of CIs from FFS.
(ii) Strength
CIs mentioned the strength of this programme as (a) Practice by farmers in a managed way, (b) quick dissemination to neighbour, (c) direct participation of farmers and field based FFS, (d) farming activities done in a managed way, (e) adoption by NGF, (f) empowerment of farmers, (g) use of local resources, (h) development of leader farmers, and (i) effective methods of coordination and linkage.
Learning to manage soil nutrients in a systematic way to get more profit, use of local resources and development of group attitudes towards cooperation were the main strengths CIs realized.
(iii) Weaknesses
No time sparing by farmers, complicated NCS, lack of technicians, lack of regular follow-up, lack of collective monitoring were the weakness of FFS mentioned.
(iv) Suggestive measures
(a) Provision of impact study (b) continuation of FFS for some more years (c) simple publications for farmers (d) review of the common and experimental plot area (e) use of various methods of dissemination such as success stories, video and publications (f) allocation of more time for reviewing IPNS FFS activities during SSMP annual review meeting were the suggestions mentioned by respondents.
Chapter - IV
Conclusion and Recommendations
4.1 Conclusion
4.1.1 Group and group farmers
(1) Selection criteria were not sincerely followed in some of the groups. It could be either due to heterogeneous community or negligence in facilitators' part.
(2) Collaborating institutions were found to be the major motivating force to farmers for affiliation with group followed by facilitators. Self-motivation to learn was also one of force in some groups.
(3) Farmers felt inadequate number of session in vegetable where as in cereals it was felt adequate. Numbers of sessions in all the crops were decided after a long discussion with experts. It was found that facilitators were not clear enough on the number of session or they were not made clear by the responsible institutions and it created some financial burden on implementing agencies. It was also found that facilitators some times mixed IPNS concept with IPM.
Group farmers and facilitators jointly decided the frequency and session time of the FFS after mutual discussion.
(4) Mixed responses have been found on the understanding of IPNS and FFS. IPNS and FFS are two different aspects. Among respondents some were found clear on IPNS and unclear on FFS and vice-versa. Until the affiliated farmers don't get clear understanding of the differences between IPNS and FFS it will be difficult for them to understand the system and process and also to achieve its expected output.
(5) Some processes, stepwise, to be followed are given in the IPNS manual. Process followed sincerely will result on achieving an expected output and if not, it will be difficult to fulfill the intended objectives.
Groups as a whole and farmers as an individual were not clearly oriented on the process to be followed during FFS. It could be that facilitators themselves were not clear on the process and they conducted school in a haphazard manner.
(6) IPNS is a location specific and identification of its components, with the help of facilitators, was the responsibility of group farmers based on their situation and experiences. The result indicated that groups, mostly, with the help of facilitator identified components. It’s a good indication. But still, a large number of group farmers were found still not clear of their responsibilities and it demanded intensive orientation on the responsibilities.
(7) The group farmers had identified some components and many of them were found useful as indicated by respondents. But it was also found that some of the components identified were not related to IPNS. The reasons could be that facilitators and group farmers were not clear enough of the soil related components or they just mixed it with everything related to crops. In such a case, with irrelevant components, it will be hard to achieve the expected outputs.
(8) Each of the field school should have a common plot for group study. This is the core of the field study. This field is essential for field school because farmers can carry out studies without personal risk allowing them to take management decisions. Most of the schools were found with a common plot. But, to many of them, its purpose was not clear.
(9) An individual experimental plot to test IPNS technologies and farmers' own methods is a basic requirement of a FFS. Based on the soil sample test of this plot various IPNS technologies and nutrient management is tested. Farmers learn effectively observing this plot.
It was found that not all the group farmers had individual plot but, among those who had, most of them were also not clear on its purpose. It indicated that the facilitator did not justify his/her responsibility honestly or the selection of participating members' was faulty.
Most of the farmers were found taking notes from his/her individual plots and discussed in the FFS. Some were not. The reasons could be they were illiterate. It shows that either the criteria were not sincerely followed during farmers' selection or most of the farmers were illiterate in that vicinity. To educate illiterate farmers needs some special techniques and methods, which the facilitator does not get during training organized for literate one.
(10) Farmers applied most of the technologies in the field.
(11) Components identified were mostly useful for women farmers such as their skill development and increase in capability to express themselves without hesitation etc. Respondents' (group farmers, facilitators and CIs) were found indicating that women farmers were more active in FFS and IPNS activities and participation of women members made FFS lively.
(12) FFS has empowered the farmers in many ways such as decision making capacity increased, capable to analyze problems and finding its solution, got organized, could express themselves without hesitation and etc. Those factors indicated the positive aspects of FFS and its impact on farming community.
(13) Changes in lifestyle were seen in terms of increased income making easy for daily expenses, sending kids' school, generation of self-employment didn't have to look for loan and in need they got easily.
Changes in social status were also noted such as with the increase in income as well as skill and knowledge they were respected by those who did not care before. Other noted social changes were (a) visits of non-group farmers and neighbours to them (b) no untouchability problem (c) easy to get loan (d) request for active participation in social activities and (e) their voices were heard and followed. Those changes were the results of IPNS and FFS by which their life, attitude, knowledge and skill were also changed. They became the examples for others.
(14) Facilitators are the key points in disseminating IPNS technology and conducting FFS. He/she should be knowledgeable on group facilitation, dynamics and mobilization along with technical skills. The success and failure of a programme depend on the capability of the facilitator. Group farmers found them skill enough but still they indicated that some of them needed to be trained more and should speak the words understandable to farmers.
(15) Farmers' were found not fully aware of the curriculum contents. FFS curriculum for some of the crops in a cropping system has been developed and distributed by SSMP. Group farmers were supposed to go thoroughly and if any thing has to be changed they should have discussed it.
(16) Respondents indicated possibility of cost sharing for FFS.
(17) Group farmers did evaluation of IPNS and FFS. But some of them were found still unclear of this process.
(18) IPNS activities had added and reduced the workload. But, though workload was added, increase in production subcceded the workload.
(19) Group farmers were regularly visited by non-group farmers and vice-versa. Most of the non-group farmers were interested on IPNS activities and FFS. They shared experiences with each other. Some of the non-group farmers did adopt IPNS components in their fields and were found benefited.
(20) Most of the respondents indicated increase in their learning from IPNS FFS such as technology, group cohesion etc. Also, they did mention its strengths (such as, ideal place for group learning and involvement of women and disadvantages groups etc.), weaknesses (lack of educational materials, punctuality, monitoring and transparency) and suggested some important measures (continuation of FFS, follow-up activities and visit programs etc) for future consideration.
4.1.2 Non-group Farmers
(1) Most of the NGFs were aware of this programme and neighbours (group farmers) were the major source of this.
(2) Visit of GFs to NGFs and vice-versa were initited and during this visit most of the NGFs learned many of the components and they also adopted the useful components.
(3) Most of them have adopted useful components such as use of quality compost, management and improvement of FYM/compost and urine collection and its use etc and been found benefitted.
(4) Inclusion of more farmers with increased number of FFS was their main suggestion.
(5) With IPNS technology adopted they are using less ferilizers.
4.1.3 Facilitator
(1) Very few facilitators were from agricultural background. Their previous assignments were also from different sectors. IPNS and FFS programme is being technical in nature the technical facilitator from similar background is a plus points to this. In some of the FFS, wrong messages were found communicated by non-technical facilitators. Facilitation of a FFS is one aspect whereas to deal with technical matter is another aspect.
(2) Most of the facilitators working in government institutions were found mixing IPNS concept with IPM and it should not happen. Though some of the factors are similar still IPM and IPNS are two different aspects. They were found not clear on this.
(3) Facilitators' understanding of the meaning of components of IPNS were found very poor. Without clear understanding of these aspects it will be very difficult to face farmers' as well as their problems. An uncertain facilitator will lead FFS to a different direction than visualized. Facilitator only cannot be blamed for that. Lack of sincere thinking on the part of responsible organization was found.
(4) Lack of training has been felt. Some of the facilitators were found untrained on IPNS. Among trained facilitators, too, many of them were found not confident enough on processes as well on use of Nutrient Calculation Sheet. They were found lack of understanding on many aspects of IPNS and FFS. It indicated that either the training contents were not designed carefully or the facilitators' selection process was faulty or the trainers were not skilled enough on contents as well on training methods or the lack of understanding among the facilitators.
(5) Changes in lifestyle and social status of group farmers and their empowerment were observed by most of the facilitators. It was a good indication of impact the programme had on its clientele. Besides group farmers, non-group farmers were also found impressed by this programme though the numbers were few. According to them farmers in general and women farmers especially, were found benefited from IPNS activities and FFS.
(6) IPNS and FFS related education materials were found lacking. They were not available on time as well in adequate numbers. Related materials on crop farming other than published one (by SSMP) were also found lacking.
(7) Monitoring of the programme and technical backstopping to facilitators were found quite less. Success and failure of any programme depends upon frequency of qualitative monitoring and regular backstopping which provides right direction, knowledge and skill to facilitators. Institutions responsible for monitoring (process and technically) and technical backstopping were not found serious on this aspect.
(8) Most of the facilitators were found not skilled enough to conduct IPNS activities and FFS. Those who felt confident were mostly from agricultural background. But, even though, they indicated that some additional training on IPNS part and other aspects of farming were felt necessary.
(9) Farmers' selection criteria were not fully followed by facilitators and they were not having clear understanding of the criteria. So, the groups were found heterogeneous in nature and literate and illiterate farmers were also mixed together. To deal with heterogeneous group is itself a difficult process and the method to educate literate and illiterate farmers also differs. So, in this case, either they ignored it or they did not have clear understanding of its importance.
(10) IPNS FFS is based on cropping system. On this some facilitators (5 out of 15) responded that IPNS is based on crop. Those facilitators were found confused with IPM. They might have been not oriented the differences between IPM and IPNS by trainer.
(11) Establishment of common and individual experimental plots is the core of the FFS. Most of them mentioned that common plot was established during FFS for learning and almost all farmers were having individual experimental plots. But, on the purpose of having those plots some of them were found unclear.
(12) Sharing of information is a way to reinforce the learning process. Before anyone share the information with another person has to process it. People are encouraged to work in a group is one of the reason for sharing. Most of the facilitators were found sharing their experiences with peers and used various modes for this purpose.
(13) Possibility of cost sharing was mentioned by most of the facilitators. Cost sharing develops responsibility and give feeling of ownership. The result of this is sustainability in the long term. But they mentioned that discussion on this should be initiated right from the beginning.
(14) Facilitators were of the opinion that FFS should be conducted for at least two years or, if possible, for 3 years at one location to give them chance to verify the learnings and gain confidence.
4.1.4 Collaborative Institutions
(1) Proposal of the programme should have been submitted only after thorough discussion with the community where the programme was to be implemented with identified problems. None of the CIs were found gone through these processes and the decision on location and discussion with community were taken only after they got the proposal approved.
(2) Facilitators for these purposes by CIs were from the various background and educational level and in government offices from various faculties. So, the understanding of the programme and its purpose differed from one to another and they were found conducting FFS as they understood.
(3) Though effective monitoring is vital component of any programme it was found quite inadequate on the CIs' part.
(4) Lack of clear understanding of FFS programme was found on the CIs' part. Most of them were found unaware of its process and heavily depended on facilitators. CIs should have at least general idea on FFS and its process just for effective and smooth conduction of FFS.
(5) None of the CIs have included FFS in their regular activities. They just mentioned its possibility. With this, sustainability of this programme will always be in question.
(6) None of the CIs were found with follow up activities.
(7) Positive impacts of FFS on farmers were mentioned as increased production and income changed life style and social status.
4.1.5 Others
Besides above conclusions (some of have to be seriously considered) from various respondents, followings are some of the positive impacts observed during study such as:
(1) Women farmers at most of the sites led farmers' field schools. Their participation is encouraging. The presence of women farmers has made FFS most active and lively. They were found keen on learning and attached than men.
(2) FFS has developed a strong farmer's institution at grass root level and has developed learning attitude in group.
(3) FFS has replicated the IPNS technology among group farmers' especially as well non-group farmers in general.
(4) Farmers were found more conscious on preparation method, quality, quantity and proper timing of applying compost and FYM than before FFS. Mass conscious on use of scarce local resources was also felt.
(5) Importance of urine and its use was felt by majority of farmers (affiliated and non-affiliated to FFS) and they were found utilizing their knowledge and skills efficiantly in the field.
(6) With the increase in production and income after IPNS and FFS, farmers (women in specific and men in general) lifestyle and social status has been found improved.
(7) Conscious on harmful effect of chemical fertilizers on soil and its judicious use was found among farmers.
(8) Development of local resource persons has been observed. But need of further intensive training before their use as Farmers Trainer should not be overlooked.
(9) Labour intensiveness, time factor, lack of source materials, lack of cooperation from spouse, lack of appropriate technologies and more workload to women farmers were some of the negative points felt by few participants.
4.2 Recommendations
4.2.1 Facilitator
A facilitator initiates FFS and they are key actors for success and failure of FFS. Provision of two facilitators has been made in a FFS. One for technical facilitation and other to facilitate the school. But from the study it has been found that, besides DADO, in most of the CI's conducted FFS either one or both non-technical facilitators were involved. Only few facilitators were from technical background and their qualification and experiences also vary. So, they conducted FFS from their own point of view and understanding. The FFS were not found up to the standard.
Recommendations are: (a) Provision of two facilitators are to be followed strictly: one a technical person and other a facilitator (b) qualification and experience of these facilitators should be clearly mentioned (c) strong technical skills and capability to respond unpredictable variety of problem on the part of technical facilitator and a clear understanding of facilitation skill, group dynamics and group building methods on the part of a facilitator should be must (d) A memorandum of understanding (MoU) could be signed between CI and DADO for a technical facilitator having soil background (e) DADO conducting FFS should assign the responsibility of technical facilitators to a person having soil background and facilitation of FFS to an extension personnel.
Provision of Farmers' trainer (facilitator) should be kept open. Because, mutual respect and confidence likely to occur when a farmers speak the same language. But care should be taken that some communities do not trust the local farmers' trainer easily. How so ever, they should be developed right from the beginning for that. But, for this he/she should must be (a) an active participant of FFS for at least one-year (b) proven to be an able and responsible trainer and (c) respected by other fellow participants. After one year only capable farmers' trainer should be given a chance to facilitate FFS with the help of the technical person. By that time he/she should have gain some experiences on technical matters too (d) untrained facilitator should not be given responsibility to conduct FFS.
4.2.2 Training
The success of any programme depends upon its qualitatively trained human resources and skill professionals. In IPNS-FFS, skill of a facilitator is one of the key factors. This is especially true in agricultural related field as new technology and innovative methods are coming up. So, qualitative training of facilitators is required to keep pace with the development of technology. During past year many training were organized to train the facilitator especially on IPNS and crops in general. But still facilitators are not comfortable enough. For a FFS, there is a provision of two facilitators (one technical facilitator and other for facilitation of FFS) for each session. Training methods and contents for them should be different. Recommendations are: (a) curriculum for training should be reviewed and revised periodically if necessary (b) longer training period is recommended for the technical facilitator (c) practical session should be given more emphasis (d) irrelevant sessions should not be included (e) every 3 months refresher training on technical matters should be planned to keep them update (f) training could be organized in one of the districts for a region (g) FFS being an extension approach and various extension methods could be applied for effective dissemination of technologies among farmers and non-group farmers. Sessions on extension methods by experienced extension personnel are recommended (g) training to deal with literate and illiterate group should be different.
4.2.3 Group and group farmers
One of the elements of FFS is a group. It comprises of 20-25 members from a community cluster with relatively homogenous system, a common goal and makes commitment to fully participate in the FFS. Factors to be considered during group formation and selection criteria from interested farmers to participate in the IPNS programme has been clearly mentioned in the guideline. Facilitators were not found following these criteria and with this expected objectives also were not found fulfilled. Recommendations are: (a) farmers should not be selected from a heterogeneous group (b) literate and illiterate farmers should not be selected as the members of the same FFS, as far as possible, because methods used for both are different (c) number of women farmers should be increased because more the number the FFS has been found active.
4.2.4 Number of FFS Session
In the guidebook published and distributed to all CIs and facilitators have some fixed number of sessions for each cropping system such as for (a) maize/millet = 12 (b) maize–cauli = 14 (c) maize–wheat = 12. It was not followed as per schedule and it indicated that most of the groups, group farmers, facilitators and CIs did not have clear orientation on number of session to be conducted. Especially in maize–cauli system the number of sessions was tremendously increased creating budgetary problem. After discussion with a resource person involved in development of IPNS FFS model it was made clear on number of session. The number of sessions was fixed considering many factors but it was misunderstood by most of the actors involved in FFS and everyone indicated the need of more sessions in vegetable. Recommendations: (a) number of session for each cropping system should be followed as mentioned in the guidebook as far as possible (b) for vegetable related cropping system there should be a provision for two special sessions on pest and diseases by specialist and budgetary provision should be made for that.
4.2.5 FFS duration
FFS on IPNS are based on cropping system of one, two or three crops. From the study it was found that duration of one FFS for two crops cropping system is not enough and effective. For the first year they just learn and are not able to apply it practically in the field. There will be a greater chance that if follow up activities is not planned they may forget the whole thing. Farmers should be allowed to repeat the FFS process for at least two more seasons (cropping system season) to verify findings or to repeat the process of the school on a new crop to learn IPNS for next crop. Recommendation are: (a) two follow up FFS full session of 2 crops cropping system (b) proposals with three duration should be given priority (c) from 2nd year, FFS should be facilitated partially by farmers' trainers with the help from trained facilitator.
Follow up sessions' intensity is to be determined by motivation of participants, time constraints of participants and facilitator and to some extent funding.
4.2.6 Production and distribution of educational materials
Spoken words are forgotten after some time. The written word can be put up for reading another time, can be referred and is regarded more authentic. If written well, it convinces and motivates people. In FFS also it is of a great importance. Few guidelines and manuals on IPNS, FFS and on various crops have been published and one copy of each was been distributed by SSMP to CIs and facilitators. Number of copies made available was inadequate. From the study it was found that none of the publications were available for farmers. Recommendations are: (a) various types of publications in a simpler form, understandable to farmers, should be made available in adequate numbers (b) uniform publication with a similar message should be prepared with the help of SMD/DoA at centre and distributed to all FFS districts (c) publications related to location specific should be prepared with the technical help from RSTL/DADO and budget provision should be made in the co-ordinating CI's office.
4.2.7 Extension activities
FFS is a non-formal education and it is an effective tool to disseminate through group effort. Farmers' field day is the only one extension activity orgainzed during FFS period. Some of the facilitators have tried to apply few other extension tools such as poster, poetry and debate competion. Many other extension tools could be included in the program. It will help this programme to be effective as well dissemination will be faster among mass. Recommendations are: (a) group and non-group farmers visit (2 times during FFS period within a district) to a successful FFS (b) selected group farmers' visit to FFS of neighbouring district (c) facilitators having an experience on agricultural extension methods could be involved during farmers visit (c) documentry on success stories of FFS should also be used.
4.2.8 Technical backstopping
Technical backstopping in this programme was found very limited. SMD and RSTL, implementing soil related activities, were the appropriate institutions for this. Besides SMD and RSTL, in each district DADO is also implementing agricultural activities. But they are not equipped with soil expert. Lack of technical backstopping will sure have effect on the quality of IPNS activities and FFS. Regular and effective backstopping is a must. Recommendations are: (a) RSTL, in coordination with SMD and other agricultural institutions in the vicinity, should be given full responsibility for technical backstopping (b) schedule on interval of backstopping is to be decided after discussion with respective CIs (c) activities like TOT conducted by DADO/Baglung should be initiated in other districts too.
4.2.9 Monitoring mechanism
Monitoring is a surveillance system, used by those responsible for a programme or a school to see that everything goes as nearly as possible according to plan, that learning objectives are achieved, IPNS activities are correctly implemented, and that changes are observed, recorded and evaluated. Generally two kinds of monitoring is done e.g. technical and process. Both the monitoring were found very less. None of the mechanism was noticed in the whole process. Monitoring done was also irregular and informal. It should have been effective and regular. Recommendations are: Establishment of a monitoring unit within PMU structure composed of soil and extension experts along with respective programme officer as a core group. This unit, besides other activities of SSMP, will be responsible for monitoring FFS and IPNS activities.
4.2.10 Feedback mechanism
In feedback, farmers' responses to the message delivered by facilitators. Delivering of the messages only is not enough but to see the effect of the new ideas transferred are important. With this facilitator and participants could know the progress of the school, from the participants' point of view and also participants' reaction about the school. It enables facilitator to stay abreast of participant's feeling as well as their learning and it also helps to adjust future plan of school in line with the responses to the participant's feedback. Recommendation is: Feedback mechanism should be created. Under this: (a) feedback after each session should be obtained either verbally or in written form (b) received feedback should be compiled and adjustment, if any, should be done based on feedback (c) compilation of feedback received and adjustment made should be reported to SSMP for further review.
4.2.11 Coordination committee
SSMP is having two committees as its relevant organs e.g. (a) Fund Management Committee (FMC) responsible for the strategic orientation of SSMP and sets the guidelines for its implementation and (b) Technical Committee (TC) responsible for technical support to FMC. Besides these committees, in the district, there is a provision for an organ named as Coordinating CI responsible for coordinating CIs and its programme. In the above set up none of the committees are seen responsible for IPNS FFS in terms of co-ordination and providing technical guidance, monitoring and follow up. Recommendations are: to form (a) Central Coordination Committee (b) Central Technical Committee and (c) District Technical Committee
(a) Formation of Central Coordination Committee
(i) DG/DoA……………………………. ……… Chairperson
(ii) DDG (Planning)/DoA……………………… Member
(iii) Programme Director, SMD/DoA…………… Member
(iv) Programme Director, AED/DoA……………. Member
(v) Director (Planning), NARC…………………..Member
(vi) Team Leader, PMU/SSMP………..………….Member
(vii) Senior Soil Scientist, SMD/DoA……………. Member-secretary
Responsibilities will be: (a) sets the policy and guidelines on IPNS and FFS (b) reviews and recommends norms forwarded by Central Technical Committee for HMG approval.
(b) Formation of Central Technical Committee
(i) Senior Soil Scientist…………………………..……… Coordinator
(ii) Soil Scientist, SSD/NARC…………………………… Member
(iii) Senior Extension Officer, AED/DoA… ……………... Member
(iv) Senior Communication Officer, AICC/MoAC……… . Member
(v) Programme Officer, PMU/SSMP…………………….. Member
(vi) Soil Scientist/RSTL (2 among 5)………………………Member
(vii) Representative from selected NGO/CBOs (1) ….…… Member
(viii) Soil Scientist, Central Soil Lab/DoA……………. Member-secretary
Responsibilities will be: (a) Review of guidelines and forward to CCC for approval (b) review of norms and forward to CCC (c) review and modification of technical matters (d) preparation of manual and other technical matters (e) technical monitoring of IPNS activities and FFS and provide technical guidance.
(c) District Technical Committee
Besides provision of Coordinating CI formation of a technical committee especially for IPNS FFS is recommended.
Formation
(a) Chief Agri. Dev. Officer/DADO…………………………………………. Coordinator
(b) Representative from Local Research Farm under NARC…………………Member
(c) Two Technical Facilitator nominated by Coordinating CI
among CIs w/FFS programme other than DADO………………………….Member
(d) Soil Scientist/RSTL… …………………………………………………….Member
(e) Technical Facilitator from DADO….. …………………………………….Member
(f) Agriculture Extension Officer………………………………………Member-secretary
Responsibilities will be (a) Review and preparation of technical material locally (b) technical monitoring of IPNS activities and FFS (facilitators will not be included) (c) technical backstopping (d) reporting to Central Technical Committee.
Formations and detailed responsibilities should be decided after further discussion.
4.2.12 Norms
Norms for FFS for one, two and three crops cropping system duration has been approved by government which are Rs. 24,250/-, 32,500/- and 38,600/- respectively inclusive of farmers field day budget of Rs. 3,500/-. But, approved budget for farmers field day for IPM and Potato crop are Rs. 8,500/- which is 5,000/- more than IPNS FFS farmers field day budget. Rs. 5,000/- has been allocated for the expenses on various items such as stage preparation, sound system, photography, stationary etc. CIs are conducting more session on vegetables (weekly) than the fixed schedule. Which also is affecting their budget limit. Recommendations are: (a) budget item for farmers field day should be reviewed and made at par to other FFS (b) provision for some extra sessions (2-3) should be made. But the number of extra session has to be reviewed and decided. All the extra session conducted by CIs are not justifiable. Its happening just due to lack of their understanding (c) budget for publications at local level should be made under coordinating CIs budget.
4.2.13 Local funding
Responses from CIs, facilitators, groups and group members have indicated the possibility of cost sharing. Local sources for fund could also be explored. These sources could be municipality, VDC, DDC and others. Cost sharing and fund raising practices is necessary for sustainability and ownership of a programme. But none of them tried. Right from the beginning this concept has to be installed in the clientele's mind. Recommendations are: (a) FFS activities should focus on future planning and fund raising (b) CIs proposal requesting full financial support for only first year and onwards with cost sharing basis should be given preference.
4.2.14 Inclusion of IPNS and FFS activities in the regular programme of DADO
HMG has approved norms for IPNS activities. Once the norms are approved by HMG, DADOs gets green signal to propose the activities in their regular programme. Discussion with DADOs and findings of the study has indicated that it could be done but none of them have yet proposed. Recommendation is that DADOs should be persuaded to include this program in their regular programme and budget.
4.2.15 Inclusion of more women farmers
Women farmers play a vital role in agricultural operation and decision making. Longer time involvement of women than men in farming makes them more enthusiastic to learn more and more. So, a conduceive environment should be created for their increased participation.
4.2.16 Formats
Various formats on IPNS and FFS for documentation and reporting have been developed and distributed to CIs such as (i) IPNS Calculation Format (ii) IPNS – FFS: Economic Analysis Format (iii) FFS Final Evaluation Format (iv) FFS Documentation Table. These formats have to be reviewed and modified because the title and the contents of the format differ. For example, FFS Final Evaluation Format: The title of the format indicates the final evaluation of FFS and not of IPNS. But the most of the contents are on IPNS activities, which is quite different than FFS.
4.2.17 Manual preparation
Various short manuals on IPNS and FFS has been prepared seperately on each component and distributed to CIs and facilitators. Most of the CIs and facilitators were found not following those manuals. A concise manuals containing technical materials, extension and group dynamics aspects in one are felt needed. Manual style such as (a) "Farmer Field School on Integrated Soil Management Facilitator's Manual" published by Farmer-centred Agricultural Resource Management (FARM) Programme and (b) "Farmer Field School for Integrated Crop Management of Potato (Field Guides and Technical Manual)" published by Potato Development Section/DoA are recommended for this purpose.
4.2.18 Continuation of FFS
FFS was conducted for only one duration of a cropping system at one location. From this study and review of various literatures it was found that one cropping system duration for a FFS is not adequate. None of the follow up activities was conducted after completion of FFS. Farmers were found in confusion on this and they did not get chance to verify their learnings under technical supervision and impact of this was also affected. Findings of the study among different actors (CIs, facilitators, group, group farmers and non-group farmers) involved in this programme have indicated positive impact on farming and production inspite of its short duration. Working in a group environment, increase in production, income and in decision making capacity, improved lifestyle, changed social status, increased capability to identify useful and detrimental components of nutrient system and NGF positive attitude towards this programme are the positive indication of impact it has shown among farming community.
Conduction of FFS for only one season at one location and expecting a great deal of impact with limitations such as diversified technicians, irregular monitoring, ineffective technical backstopping and others is controversial in itself. With this, the quality of FFS was also not satisfactory at all locations.
So, one cropping system duration for IPNS FFS is not sufficient for assessing the longer-term impact of IPNS. Pilot sites may need to be established for observations over 3 years.
Continuation and expension of this programme has been recommended with addressing the recommendations mentioned. But, how so ever, selection of group farmers, selection of facilitator, their educational background, experiences and working capabilities, an effective and meaningful training, monitoring, technical backstopping etc. are the major factors to be considered prior to expansion of this programme. Review of CIs performance, available human resources, their sincerity and follow up activities are to be reviewed seriouly and CI not performing well should not be further entertained. In absence of effective mechanism it should be kept at minimum number. Activities for scaling up of the programme should be nade compulsury in the proposal.
District with on going FFS should be strictly monitored and effective technical backstopping should be provided for improvement. CIs with FFS to be started new should have a phased out programme after 3 years. For the 1st year full financial assistance should be provided and in 2nd year with 50 % cost sharing basis and technical manpower assistance for full period and in 3rd year with 75 % cost sharing and technical manpower assistance as and when needed. Right from the 2nd year farmers' trainers should take over the partial responsibility to facilitate FFS with the help from trained facilitators. Process to develop farmers' trainers should be initiated right from the first year.
4.2.19 For Sustainability of the Programme – An Alternative Approaches
IPNS FFS has been initiated with the financial assistance from SSMP and technical cooperation from related agricultural institutions. It is implemented through various GOs, NGOs and CBOs. IPM and ICM programmes have been included in the regular activities of the agricultural related institutions and are implemented through GOs. Whereas, GOs, NGOs and CBOs are involved in implementing IPNS and FFS. These organizations are funded by SSMP for these activities. IPM and ICM activities are in the process of becoming an integral part of GOs regular activities. Where as, norms for IPNS FFS has apready been approved by government but none of the institutions has initiated to institutionalize this activities in its regular programme. Implementation through NGOs and CBOs is effective in itself but the sustanibility always remains in question. Once the fund is stopped the NGOs will not feel any responsibility and ownership towards the programme. Some alternative approaches has been proposed: (i) Inclusion of the programme in regular activities of GOs: SMD should convince MoAC, DoA and regional/district level institutions about its importance and steps should be taken for the inclusion of IPNS FFS in their regular programme. Central and Regional level institutions such as SMD and RSTL should not be given responsibility to organize FFS. They should remain as the institution for technical backstopping, training, monitoring and evaluation. Implementation should be the mandate of district level institutions. A core of trained facilitators (including Farmer Trainers) should be developed as done by IPM. (ii) NGOs and CBOs: Invitation of proposals should be for 3 years instead of one year. Proposals with no follow up activities should not get entertained. First year full financial assistance, Second year 50 % cost sharing on expenditure besides facilitators remuneration and in third year only facilitators' remunerations should be provided. The cost should be managed by involving local government and farmers group. A welfare fund right from the beginning should be established for this purpose. (iii) Farmer group: Proposals from farmers group registered with appropriate institutions should also be entertained. The mode of financial assistance should be same as in NGOs and CBOs.
