The main challenge when defining impact of the FFS approach is to decide whether it results in higher knowledge about complex issues, and/or whether the knowledge outcomes in turn translate into greater productivity and yields. Most available impact studies refer to IPM-related outcomes in terms of changes in pesticide use and yields. Broadly speaking, based on qualitative evidence coming from small scale pilots, participation in FFS has shown improvement in farmers’ knowledge of farming technology, confidence with problem solving, and better decision-making skills. Some other studies support the view that participation in FFS empowered farmers and improved collaboration towards collective action.
Anandajayasekeram , P., et.al. 2007. Farmer field schools: an alternative to existing extension systems? Experience from Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of Int’nl Agri. and Ext. Edu. V 14(1).
Braun, A. R. 2000. Farmer field schools and local agricultural research committees: Complementary platforms for integrated decision making in sustainable agriculture Vol. No.105. London: ODI-Agriculture Research & Extension Network.
Davis, K. 2006. Farmer Field Schools: A Boon or Bust for Extension in Africa? Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 13(1): 91-97.
Groeneweg, K. et.al. (2006). Livestock farmer field schools: guidelines for facilitation and technical manual. International Livestock Research Centre: Nairobi, Kenya.
SUSTAINET EA. 2010. Technical manual for farmers and field extension service providers: Farmer field school approach. Nairobi: Sustainable Agriculture Information Initiative.
This paper was produced by the Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), with financial support from GIZ (Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit).