Search

Purpose: The Farmer Field School (FFS) has been used to enable farmers to adapt their farming decisions according to the field situation. This paper explores the methodological state, challenges and lessons learned, of the FFS around the World. Design/methodology/approach: We used a 52-item questionnaire to capture issues of design, implementation and evaluation of the FFS. Completed questionnaires were received from 57 ongoing or recent FFS programmes. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Findings: FFS programmes have diversified, including multiple crops and livestock. Farmer involvement in the design and planning of interventions was found to be critical. FFS programmes increasingly relied on farmers as FFS facilitators. Short training duration for FFS facilitators raised concern about FFS quality. Even though mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation were mostly in place, capacity for data analysis and data utilization were a concern. Practical implications: Results highlight strengths and shortcomings in design, implementation and evaluation of the FFS. The information acquired can be used to support the quality of ongoing and future programmes. Theoretical implications: This research contributed to understanding that the educational foundations of the FFS should be reflected in programme design and evaluation. Originality/value: Many studies of the FFS exist, but this is the first global overview on how farmer field school programmes are carried out, with various lessons learned.

The capacity of farmers to adapt to changing environments is critical for sustainable, economically viable and resilient rural development. The Farmer Field School (FFS) was developed by FAO in the late 1980s to build farmers’ knowledge and skills for adaptive management. The FFS was subsequently implemented in over 90 countries by a multitude of stakeholders. We conducted case studies in Malawi and Indonesia to answer contemporary questions about the FFS, regarding its relevance at field level, its position in the institutional environment, and its contribution to rural development. We show that the FFS remains relevant at field level, helping farmers to adapt their agricultural practices and livelihood situation to changing circumstances. Differences in institutional arrangements between the two countries highlight the importance of a coordinated support for the FFS. Long-term impacts were found at farmer and institutional level. This study provides insight into the FFS, regarding the causal factors of change, institutional factors, and the role in continued development. As an approach that empowers rural people, the FFS thus contributes to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Farmer Field School (FFS) is a widely used method seeking to educate farmers to adapt agricultural decisions to diverse and variable field conditions. Out of 218 screened studies, 65 were selected to review the impact of the FFS. An analytical framework was developed with effects (outputs, outcomes and impacts) arranged according to the human, social, natural and financial domains. Impacts on non-participants of the FFS were addressed as peripheral effects. The FFS demonstrated its potential to enhance human, social, natural and financial capital of rural communities. Human capital was built in the form of critical thinking, innovation, confidence, and quality of life. Effects on social capital included mutual trust, bonding, collective action, networking, and emancipation. Natural capital was enhanced through improvements in field practices, food production, agricultural diversification, and food security. Financial capital was enhanced through increased income and profits, savings and loans schemes, with a potential to reduce poverty. The available body of evidence was unbalanced across the capital domains, providing high coverage of the natural domain but low coverage of the human, social and financial domains. In-depth case studies are needed to elucidate the interactions between livelihood assets, and the influences of the policy, institutional and external environment, in order to adjust FFS interventions aiming to optimize their impacts. Considering the positive effects the FFS can have on rural livelihoods, the FFS has potential to contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. However, quality assurance of the FFS and a balanced evaluation across the capital domains require attention.