Evaluating Cotton Integrated Pest Management (Ipm) Farmer Field School Outcomes Using the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach in India

Abstract

SUMMARYFarmer field schools (FFSs) were conducted in southern India to reduce pesticide input and enhance sustainability of cotton production systems. This study was carried out to determine the additional benefits of FFSs in the social and economic arena, using the sustainable livelihoods (SL) concept to frame the evaluation. Farmers who had participated in the integrated pest management (IPM) FFSs perceived a range of impacts much beyond the adoption of IPM practices. The reduced cost of cultivation allowed for financial recovery from debt and the building of physical assets. IPMFFS households and production systems were perceived by the participants to have become more economically resilient than Non-IPMFFS control groups when faced with adversity. In the participants' view, IPMFFSs also led to enhanced individual and community social well-being, a benefit valued in particular by the women participants. The study tested a new application of the SL conceptual framework as a tool for evaluation. I N T RO D U C T I O NFarmer field schools (FFSs) provide people-centred learning experiences that promote the empowerment of farmers through education. Weekly training sessions are conducted in the villages for a group of 25-30 farmers by expert facilitators during the cropping season. Unlike most previous integrated pest management (IPM) training held in the country, in FFSs the curriculum is developed in collaboration with farmers to address their most relevant agro-ecological problems with locale-specific solutions. FFSs were first applied on a wide scale in 1989 in Indonesia in order to reduce reliance on pesticides in rice by enhancing farmers' understanding of crop ecology (Kenmore, 1996). In India, FFSs have been organized for a number of crops, and especially with the aim of reducing the massive use of pesticides in cotton production. The training curriculum has engaged researchers, extension agents and farmers in on-site participatory research to compare IPM options with the farmer practices currently in use. IPM management decisions are based on the results of an agro-ecosystem analysis of field observations and measurements carried out by the farmers. The critical

The interaction between social protection and agriculture: A review of evidence

“…Very few studies have assessed the impact of agricultural interventions on social networks. Studies find that farmer field schools in India improved social ties and collaboration within the community while microcredit increased the sending of remittances and gifts in Uganda (Mancini et al, 2007;Stewart et al, 2010).…”

Exploring the potential of intersectoral partnerships to improve the position of farmers in global agrifood chains: findings from the coffee sector in Peru

“…In a study on the impact of Fairtrade coffee in northern Nicaragua, Utting (2009, p. 145) found the distinction between different asset categories to be useful to assess the benefits for small producers on a variety of aspects, and to show the ''clear symbiotic relationship between development of capital assets and organizational capacity building.'' Similarly, other studies highlighted the ability of the SL approach to offer conceptual clarity (Mancini et al 2007) and to ''order complexity'' by including multidimensional factors that constrain or expand opportunities (Parrish et al 2005). In this perspective, we hypothesize that partnerships can potentially support producer organizations by strengthening, developing, accumulating, protecting or investing in additional assets.…”

Farmer field school and banana xanthomonas wilt management: A study of banana farmers in four villages in Siaya County, Kenya

“…In general, by emphasizing a participant-led, multi-faceted, and iterative learning action methodology, FFS exposes farmers to diverse knowledge, experience, and skills, which enhances their decision-making capacity to solve field problems (Nederlof and Odonkor, 2006;Waddington et al, 2014). This is consistent with qualitative evidence generated by studies in Asia (Winarto, 1995;Mancini et al, 2007), Africa (Machacha, 2008;Van Der Wiele, 2004;Friis-Hansen et al, 2012), and Latin America and the Caribbean (Van Rijn, 2008;Dolly, 2009).…”