Farmer Water Schools FWS

1
Farmer Water Schools (FWS)
2
FWS conceptualization

• APFAMGS adopted FFS approach
• Discovery and experiential learning process
• Farmers master concepts of groundwater management
• Empower to effectively manage collective
  resource.

3
FFS Approach Origin Objectives

• FFS brown plant hopper infestation in paddy
• Main objectives
• Improve farmers analytical and decision-making
  skills,
• Develop an understanding of ecological principles
  pest population dynamics
• End dependency on pesticides
• Principles of Nonformal education Discovery
  Learning
• Farmers select/transform technologies
• to fit the specific ecological and economic
  conditions, and
• contribute to overall food production.
• Farmers understand
• issues affecting their livelihood
• Need for debate and concerted action to protect
  their interests

4
AESA Heart of FFS

• Observation
• Analysis
• Decision-making

5
Adaptation of FFS to CWB

• FFS facilitators subject knowledge and
  facilitation skills
• FFS-TOT May 2005, build skills of the project
  staff master facilitators.
• By mid 2005, Farmers
• familiar with the PHM activities and
• able to record PHM data into HMR books.
• GMCs formed
• capacities strengthened to monitor the PHM
  activities at habitation and HUN level.
• Experiment adaptation of FFS to CWB Exercise.

6
FFS-CWB Impact

• Farmer participants showed increased initiative
  to
• understand and discuss groundwater dynamics
• analyze the PHM data
• calculate water balance estimation
• share the learning of each session in GMCs
• present water balance estimation results in CWB
  workshops and
• disseminate key messages.

7
Farmer Water Schools FWS

• Participants discuss
• groundwater concepts availability,
• impact on crop growth,
• role of institutions in sustainability, and
• gender equity.

8
Hydro-ecosystem Analysis

• Observe
• Recharge factors, like amount of rainfall,
  surface water, and rock soil formation.
• Discharge factors no. of borewells, pumping
  hours/days, average discharge
• Analyze data Discussion / Sharing
• Reach decisions on crop plans management of
  groundwater

9
FWS objectives

• Empower farmers with knowledge and skills to
  measure recharge draft
• Sensitize farmers on the need for collective
  action
• Sharpen the farmers ability to make critical and
  informed decisions on crop plans
• Sensitize farmers on new ways of thinking and
  resolving issues

10
FWS Multi-cycle approach

• Reach large number of farmers
• Simultaneous learning-teaching process
• Farmer participants of first cycle facilitate 2nd
  cycle.
• FWS cycles one and two run simultaneously with
  gap of two to four days
• First cycle FWS 34
• Second cycle FWS 272

11
PNGO Teams

• identified content appropriate to local needs
• involved farmers in development of session
  guides, identifying methods and dev. Models
• made efforts to make farmer training sessions an
  exercise in discovery-learning
• organized sessions where farmers could observe
  geological formations and structures
• encouraged farmers to recap learnings at the
  start of each session.

12
Typical FWS

• Lasts a full hydrological year JuneMay
• Between 25 and 30 farmers participate in an FWS
• Farmers meet once every 15/20 days
• Primary learning material HU farmer field
• Field school close to the farming plots
• Participants learn together in small groups of
  five to maximize participation
• FFS educational methods are experiential,
  participatory and learner-centered

13
Typical FWS contd.

• Each FWS meeting includes at least three
  activities hydro-ecosystem analysis, a special
  topic, and group dynamics activity
• FWS participants conduct a study comparing farmer
  and experimental plots
• FWS often includes several additional field
  studies depending on local field problems
• Ballot Box Exercise Pre- and post-test are
  conducted
• Field Day share learning and results of their
  studies

14
FWS GMC/HUN

• GMCs involved in FWS preparation meetings to
  determine needs, recruit participants and discuss
  logistics
• Farmer participants share their learning from
  each FWS session at GMC meetings
• HUNs take lead in the organization and conduct of
  Field Day

15
Intermediate results

• PNGO Staff
• Acknowledge and value the use of nonformal
  education methods and experiential learning
  process in engaging farmers
• Focus on sharing the Must Know and Useful to
  Know information with farmers
• Actively involved lead farmers in making
  decisions on FWS sessions
• Encouraged farmers to participate in design of
  sessions, development of visuals and models.

16
Intermediate results

• Farmer Outcomes
• Farmers are lead facilitators
• HUN members are taking lead
• Women emerged as facilitators and decision makers
• Farmer participation improved the quality of FWS
• Discuss sensitive issues like migration and
  vulnerability to HIV AIDS
• Farmers aware of the need to collectively assess
  and make decisions

17
Goal of FWS

• Farmers as experts
• Farmers as PHM trainers
• Farmers as researchers/scientists
• Farmers as organizers, planners, advocates,
  activists
• Farmers as policymakers

18
Thank You