Hugh Waddington|Birte Snilstveit|Jorge García Hombrados|Martina Vojtkova|Daniel R. Phillips|Philip Davies|Howard White
Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes: A Systematic Review
International Initiative for Impact Evaluation|London International Development Centre|International Initiative for Impact Evaluation|London International Development Centre
campbell systematic review examines effectiveness farmer field schools improving intermediate outcomes knowledge pesticide use final outcomes agricultural yields incomes empowerment low middleincome countries lmics well implementation factors associated programme success failure review sythesises evidence 92 impact evaluations 15 sufficient quality policyoriented findings 20 qualitative studies farmer field schools improve farmers knowledge adoption beneficial practices reduce overuse pesticides leads positive outcomes farmers average 13 increase agricultural yields 20 increase income farmer field schools also reduce pesticide use environmental degradation however evidence outcomes comes shortterm evaluations pilot programmes studies low risk bias available programmes delivered national scale studies conducted two years implementation show positive outcomes programme largescale programmes recruiting training appropriate facilitators problematic authors conclusions farmer field schools ffs common approach used transfer specialist knowledge promote skills empower farmers around world least 10 million farmers 90 countries attended schools ffs implemented facilitators using participatory discoverybased learning based adult education principles many different implementing bodies involved field schools range objectives including tackling overuse pesticides harmful practices improving agricultural environmental outcomes empowering disadvantaged farmers women conducted systematic review evidence ffs implementation investigate whether ffs make difference farmers synthesised quantitative evidence intervention effects using statistical metaanalysis qualitative evidence barriers enablers effectiveness using theory change framework results statistical metaanalysis provide evidence ffs beneficial improving intermediate outcomes relating knowledge learned adoption beneficial practices well final outcomes relating agricultural production farmers incomes findings suggest case ffs promoting integrated pest management ipm technology well techniques however rigorous impact evaluation evidence base small studies able identify low risk bias evidence neighbouring nonparticipant farmers benefit diffusion ipm knowledge ffs participants therefore experience improvements ipm adoption agriculture outcomes evidence positive effects agricultural outcomes largely limited shortterm evaluations pilot programmes examples ffs scaled evidence suggest effective improving agricultural outcomes among participating farmers neighbouring nonparticipants although empowerment major objective many ffs studies collected information outcome rigorous manner studies suggest farmers feel greater selfconfidence explains lack scalable effects among ffs participants diffusion ipm practices among community ffs differ standard agricultural extension interventions tend focus disseminating knowledge simple practices application fertiliser pesticides adoption improved seeds experiential nature training need benefits ffs technology observed barriers spontaneous diffusion furthermore effectiveness scaledup interventions hampered problems recruiting training appropriate facilitators scale review provides implications policy practice research executive summary background almost three decades decline public support agriculture back development agenda since late 1980s support agriculture shifted topdown approaches identifying technologies methods communicating technologies suitable support farmers livelihoods sustainable manner including participatory approaches based notion creating spaces farmer selflearning one approach farmer field school ffs adult education intervention uses intensive discoverybased learning methods objectives providing skills areas integrated pest management ipm empowering farmers communities ffs implemented 90 countries worldwide reaching estimated 1015 million farmers farmer field schools may appear latest tool evidence say regarding effectiveness objectives systematic review synthesises evidence interventions identified farmer field schools conducted low middleincome countries review aims provide answers following research questions review question 1 effects farmer field schools final outcomes yields net revenues farmer empowerment effects farmer field schools intermediate outcomes knowledge adoption improved practices eg reduced use pesticides effects outcomes nonparticipating neighbouring farmers living communities ffs farmers review question 2 enablers barriers ffs effectiveness diffusion sustainability study selection criteria studies included review satisfied following criteria eligible participants included farmers growing arable crops living low middleincome countries time intervention review included participating directly field school also nonparticipant neighbour farmers may benefit spillover effects formal dissemination methods eligible interventions identified farmer field schools regardless design implementation including ffs programmes providing training ipm techniques studies combining ffs intervention components input marketing support also included comparisons eligible effectiveness review farmers received intervention access agricultural extension services another source including ipm equivalent training outcomes reported eligible reviewprimary primary outcomes agricultural outcomes including yields profits net revenues secondary outcomes included final outcomes environmental outcomes health status empowerment intermediate outcomes including farmer knowledge adoption practices qualitative evidence barriers enablers effectiveness sustainability also included including process implementation information measures beneficiaries attitudes experiences ffs eligible study designs effectiveness synthesis review question 1 measurable using counterfactual impact evaluations including experimental quasiexperimental study designs methods analysis studies eligible synthesis barriers enablers review question 2 based primary data collected ffs participants extension agents experts analysed using qualitative methods descriptive statistics qualitative studies needed report least information research question procedures collecting data sampling recruitment least two sample characteristics search strategy search included electronic academic databases internet search engines websites theses well handsearches key journals literature snowballing searches included general social science sources well agriculture subjectspecific sources published unpublished literature searches updated october 2012 farmer field schools evaluation community generated large number evaluations screened titles abstracts 28000 papers majority irrelevant topic fourhundredsixty 460 relevant papers ffs assessed inclusion based full text final screen two authors 134 quasiexperimental studies comprising 92 distinct evaluations meeting inclusion criteria eligible review impact evaluations provide quantitative estimates effects outcomes 71 ffs projects however 15 impact evaluations meeting inclusion criteria judged sufficient internal validity make predictions policy review also includes 20 qualitative evaluations meeting inclusion criteria discuss barriers enablers change 20 ffs projects portfolio review 337 project documents also conducted data collection analysis two independent reviewers assessed full text papers inclusion criteria discrepancies resolved consensus third author needed two reviewers extracted data included studies quantitative impact evaluation studies critically appraised according likely risk bias according threats internal validity causal identification external validity generalisability filedrawer effects publication bias qualitative evaluations assessed according adequacy reporting data collection presentation analysis conclusions drawn used hypothesised programme theory change white 2009 framework integrating evidence collected data programme design implementation targeting contextual factors linked individual studies programme order assess whether heterogeneous programme effects correlated study design implementation context quantitative synthesis review question 1 extracted effect size estimates included studies calculating standard errors 95 per cent confidence intervals using data provided studies possible used random effects metaanalysis estimating average effects farmer field schools different outcomes examining heterogeneity results publication bias analysis suggested underreporting small sample studies negative insignificant findings studies reporting evidence agricultural yields evidence possible publication bias synthesis qualitative evidence review question 2 used thematic approach thomas amp harden 2008 combining predetermined themes based links assumptions theory change model well themes emerging detailed coding included studies final stage analysis used iterated approach effect moderators identified qualitative synthesis tested metaanalysis metaregression results review question 1 studies low risk bias identified review effects 15 92 quasiexperimental studies assessed medium risk bias therefore policyactionable results mediumriskofbias studies reported summary findings table 1 suggest farmer field schools impact positively intermediate final outcomes participating farmers short medium term findings intermediate outcomes follows significant increase 021 standard deviations knowledge beneficial practices among farmer field school participants comparison farmers smd021 95 confidence interval ci007 035 q5 tausq0008 isq55 evidence 3 studies significant reduction pesticide use 23 per cent ipm ippm ffs participants comparison farmers rr077 95 ci061 097 q40 tausq007 isq83 8 studies effects pesticide use particularly large consistent cotton ipm projects asia significant increase indices adoption beneficial practices 022 standard deviations comparison farmers smd022 95 ci006 038 q10 tausq002 isq80 3 studies final outcomes findings follows significant increase agricultural yields estimated among ffs participants 13 per cent comparison farmers rr113 95 ci104 122 q53 tausq0008 isq81 11 studies significant increase profits net revenues estimated 19 per cent among ffs participants comparison farmers rr119 95 ci111 127 q1 tausq0 isq0 2 studies increase profits higher ffs projects also included complementary interventions involving input marketing support rr251 95 ci151 416 q1 tausq0 isq0 2 studies 39 per cent reduction estimated environmental impact quotient eiq score result reduced pesticide use among ffs farmers comparison farmers rr061 95 ci048 078 q3 tausq001 isq33 3 studies could identify studies provided valid estimates impacts farmer health outcomes studies assessed empowerment using quantitative counterfactual methods one provided estimates statistical precision however evidence effects outcomes longer term followup surveys greater two years implementation programmes scaled nationwide ipm farmer field schools evidence diffusion ffs participants nonparticipating neighbour farmers usually happens overall studies found significant change knowledge among ffs neighbours comparison farmers also evidence improvements among neighbours pesticide use yields environmental impact quotient relatively bettereducated farmers targeted participate ipm field schools diffusion may occur simple practices reduced pesticide use yields however even cases diffusion appeared occur evidence suggest diffusion nonparticipants sustained time review question 2 qualitative evaluations reported summary findings table 2 review helped us understand different types farmer field schools implemented around world reasons heterogeneous impacts among ffs participants limited diffusion nonparticipating neighbour farmers ffs use discoverybased learning methods differ agricultural extension interventions tend focus disseminating knowledge simple practices instance application fertiliser pesticides adoption improved seeds however several barriers spontaneous diffusion knowledge practices ffs curriculum complex training experiencebased farmers able observe ffs practices relative advantage conventional farmer practices existing levels social capital reach social networks approaches targeting ffs participants found potentially important factors influencing diffusion generally studies identify common problems implementation notably topdown transfer technology approach implemented intervention intended based bottomup participatory approach qualitative evaluations presented evidence use triangulation verify findings although studies weaknesses reporting sampling analysis presentation data making quality appraisal evidence base challenging implications policy programmes farmer field schools beneficial effects participating farmers pilot programmes short term impacts agricultural outcomes may substantial importance farmers region 10 per cent increase yields 20 per cent increase profits net revenues effects particularly large ffs implemented alongside complementary upstream downstream interventions access seeds inputs assistance marketing produce cash crops however studies scaledup programmes measuring outcomes longer term two years posttraining find evidence effects ffs farmers may also feel confident studies assessed empowerment outcomes rigorously little evidence diffusion improved practices outcomes ffs participants nonparticipating neighbour farmers field schools targeting educated farmers may better able diffuse simple practices reduced pesticide use field schools target less educated farmers however evidence diffusion practices sustained time evidence adoption complex ipm practices via diffusion method rural adult education ffs appear suited gradual scaleup provided clear focus ensuring local institutionalisation ie favouring intensiveness coverage community geographical breadth coverage hand ffs seem unsuited solve problems largescale extension approach may costeffective compared agricultural extension many contexts except existing farming practices particularly damaging example due overuse pesticides highly intensive therefore relatively costly nature training programme relative successes targeting educated farmers compared disadvantaged groups failures promoting diffusion ipm practices targeting ffs participants proponents ffs recommended targeting highly educated farmers greater land endowments younger farmers women favouring relatively low opportunity costs labour farmers relatively high pesticide costs problems highlighted targeting women lived household decisionmaking position youth unable dedicate sufficient time ffs plot fields aim include women disadvantaged members community implementers may need tailor intervention enable participation programme curriculum needs relevant consistent needs opportunities women poor obviously contexts women primarily responsible growing subsistence crops curriculum covers commercial crops unlikely attract women participants generally curriculum crops covered ffs also adapted according local agricultural system needs farmers targeted programme curricula need deal major challenges facing farmers cases challenges multifaceted highlighting need balance comprehensiveness able cover issues sufficient depth ensure appropriate learning cumulative approach several seasons including exchanges field schools may preferable ffs facilitators evidence also suggests appropriate targeting training ffs facilitators important theory change suggests ffs delivered according participatory discoverybased approach learning including opportunities farmers experiment observe new practices particularly farmers empowered lifelong skills capacity development attempts target facilitators based education literacy levels may less effective targeting based ability communicate appropriate training enables facilitators use bottomup approach obviously barrier scaledup programmes ffs facilitators recruited extension staff previously used topdown agricultural extension methods recruitment facilitators take account personal attitude maturity literacy leadership skills knowledge local language experience farming many contexts gender facilitator carefully considered facilitators access ongoing support backstopping supervisors technical experts connected local research centres regular monitoring facilitators may help identify schools additional support required complementary policies institutional actors involved ffs consider farmers needs interests design implementation ffs programme contexts stronger policies regulatory measures may necessary counteract activities pesticide industry including promotion sale pesticides extension workers promoting ffs new policies facilitating participatory agricultural extension approaches replacing earlier extension policies aimed promoting offtheshelf technologies input packages may also necessary local institutionalisation formal support encouragement ffs alumni including technical assistance backstopping may important sustainability ffs practices related activities given skillsbased nature practices promoted ffs formal communitybuilding activities support successful attempts institutionalise approach encourage ffs graduates train farmers likely needed broader diffusion nonparticipating neighbour farmers although evidence base indicate attempts successful past implications research majority ffs impact evaluations 68 92 use designs questionable internal validity therefore limited value determining whether farmer field schools made difference outcomes able locate completed evaluations used randomised assignment approach feasible ffs threequarters evaluations serious attempts made control confounding statistical matching statistical analysis onethird cases statistical significance tests reported likely consequence indicated metaanalysis systematic overestimation effects outcomes extent resources devoted farmer field schools evaluations might therefore usefully reallocated conducting fewer rigorous impact evaluations particularly based solid counterfactual prospective clusterlevel assignment randomised otherwise allow measurement communitywide diffusion assess effects agriculture empowerment outcomes medium longer term three years evaluations report information intervention design implementation processes possible assess whether programme causal chains break intervention design simply appropriate context poor implementation many qualitative evaluations need report aspects research process greater detail allow users assess credibility applicability particular clear reporting objectives methods sampling data collection analysis provided greater use structured abstracts facilitate easier access quantitative especially qualitative research future studies include data views experiences ffs facilitators agricultural extension workers summary findings tables summary findings table 1 effectiveness studies review question 1 outcomes summary findings studies participants relative effect size 95 ci percentage change compared control group quality assessment 3 statement final outcomes farmer field school participants review question 1a yields primary outcome 11 3198 113 rr 1 104 122 13 increase yields ffs participants average relative comparison group 4 22 oo low moderate risk bias publication bias strongly suspected ffs may increase yields ffs participants average 13 relative comparison group though notable variation across populations contexts net revenues primary outcome 2 488 119 rr 111 127 19 increase net revenue ffs participants average relative comparison group 11 27 oo low moderate risk bias small number studies ffs may increase net revenues profits ffs participants average 19 relative comparison group empowerment 1 200 213 rr 146 312 ffs participants 113 likely report positive empowerment outcomes relative comparison group 046 212 ooo low moderate risk bias serious indirectness serious imprecision evidence impact ffs empowerment ffs participants inconclusive environmental outcomes environmental impact quotient 3 1149 061 rr 048 077 39 reduction environmental impact quotient ffs participants average relative comparison group 52 23 oo low moderate risk bias small number studies ffs may reduce environmental impact quotient 39 average relative comparison group intermediate outcomes farmer field school participants review question 1b knowledge test scores 3 426 021 smd 2 007 035 knowledge test scores achieved ffs participants average 021 standard deviations greater comparison group 007 035 oo low moderate risk bias small number studies ffs may increase knowledge ffs participants 021 standard deviations average relative comparison group pesticide use ipmippm ffs 9 2335 083 rr066 104 17 decrease pesticide use ffs participants average relative comparison group 34 4 oo low moderate risk bias serious imprecision ffs may decrease pesticide use ipmippm ffs participants 17 average relative comparison group though notable variation across populations contexts adoption beneficial practices 3 794 022 smd 006 038 number practices adopted ffs participants average 022 standard deviations greater comparison group ooo low moderate risk bias serious inconsistency small number studies evidence effect ffs adoption beneficial practices inconclusive diffusion neighbour farmers review question 1c pesticide demand neighbours pesticide use pesticide costs 5 1115 095 rr 064 139 statistically significant effect pesticide use ffs neighbours relative comparison group oo low moderate risk bias serious imprecision ffs may diffusion effect pesticide use yields 4 986 102 rr 097 108 statistically significant effect yields ffs neighbours relative comparison group oo low moderate risk bias serious inconsistency ffs may diffusion effect yields notes 1 rr response ratio 2 smd standardised mean difference 3 rating guide used assessment quality evidence adapted grade available authors source authors based grade summary findings table 2 barriers enablers effects review question 2 outcomes studies statement barriers enablers knowledge acquisition 17 studies barriers ffs facilitators receive sufficient training ongoing support 6 studies facilitators enough farming experience andor appropriate characteristics 2 studies lack adequate timely resources ffs schools 3 studies farmers excluded due restrictive targeting criteria procedures 4 studies farmers unable participate due gender cultural norms poverty 7 studies high levels dropout due incorrect expectations lack interest access time 7 studies training delivered topdown manner using transfer technology approach 4 studies curriculum appropriate relevant local context 7 studies imbalance relationship farmers facilitators 3 studies facilitators use national language farmers fluent many foreign scientific terms 2 studies enablers ffs facilitators experience farming literate mature positive personal attitude leadership skills 3 studies gender facilitator acceptable participants families 2 studies farmers motivated learn improve livelihoods 5 studies training delivered participatory bottomup manner 9 curriculum appropriate relevant local context 7 studies facilitators use local language concepts metaphors common farmers 2 studies barriers enablers adoption 18 studies barriers training delivered topdown manner using transfer technology approach 4 studies curriculum appropriate relevant local context 7 studies farmers observe benefits ffs practices 2 studies practices complex farmers implement 3 studies farmers lack access inputs capital andor markets 5 studies low levels social capital among participants 1 study enablers training delivered participatory bottomup manner 9 studies curriculum appropriate relevant local context 7 studies farmers observe benefits ffs practices 5 studies high levels social capital among participants tradition collective action 3 studies barriers enablers effectiveness sustainability 14 studies barriers diverging institutional incentives objectives 3 studies conflicting agricultural policies 2 studies institutional legacy topdown extension approaches 4 studies power pesticide industry continued links extension service 2 studies lack technical assistance backstopping researchers extensionists 4 studies enablers active followup continued support implementing agency 11 studies ffs groups consistent membership good leadership collective goals supportive group environment 4 studies barriers enablers diffusion knowledge practices 11 studies barriers complexity experiential nature ffs learning 5 studies farmers unable observe ffs practices 2 studies farmers convinced relative advantage ffs practices 2 studies socioeconomic differences ffs participants nonparticipants 1 study low levels social capital cohesion limiting communication 2 studies enablers concrete relatively easy practices 2 studies farmers observe ffs practices 5 studies farmers perceive ffs practices relative advantage existing practices 2 studies high levels social capital social networks extending beyond ffs group 3 studies active promotion ffs practices postgraduation 1 study source authors