Farmer Field Schools – science in action 

Professor Anthony Youdeowei is a Consultant IPM Specialist, and advises African governments, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the World Bank, and other development agencies. Barbara Dinham interviewed him on the value of Farmer Field Schools in Africa.

Training farmers in IPM practices to move farmers away from pesticide dependence. Anthony Youdeowei (right) assisting a farmer to make detailed observations on pests and their natural enemies in a cocoyam farm in Ghana.

Q. Many policy makers believe that pesticide use is low in Africa, and that Farmer Field Schools are aimed at farmers already using significant quantities. Is there a need for FFS/IPM training in African cropping systems?
AY: Indeed, compared with other parts of the world, pesticide use in Africa is generally believed to be low, but a major problem is that comprehensive statistics on pesticide consumption are still difficult to obtain in many African countries. This is because accurate figures on pesticides imports, production and use are not systematically recorded.
    With the removal of subsidies on agricultural inputs, pesticides have become too expensive for most smallholder farmers in Africa and they resort to using whatever products they can lay their hands on including adulterated products from illegal cross-border pesticide trade. In many instances, farmers use pesticides recommended for commercial crops such as cotton, cocoa, coffee or rice for treating vegetables because these are the products that are readily available – a practice that is highly risky for urban consumers and for the environment. This situation leads to increases in the misuse and abuse of pesticides.
    IPM training in FFS in African cropping systems therefore becomes important for two main reasons. First, it enables farmers to better understand the dynamic agro-ecological interactions in their cropping environment so that they can make informed decisions about appropriate crop protection interventions, particularly pesticide use, at different stages of the growth of their crops. Secondly, through training in FFS, farmers become knowledgeable about IPM practices for ecologically sound sustainable agricultural production, when it is necessary to use pesticides, which products are appropriate for specific cropping systems, how to use pesticides safely and effectively – and they develop greater awareness of the hazards of pesticide misuse.

Q. How does the FFS/IPM training benefit African farmers?
AY: Training in IPM practices in FFS has clearly been demonstrated to be beneficial to farmers in many ways. First, when farmers come together in field schools, the environment facilitates farmer interaction, promotes the spirit of partnership and collective decision-making amongst farmers, and thus strengthens community development efforts. Secondly, the FFS helps to develop a valuable farmer-facilitator-researcher partnership which improves self-discovery and farmer confidence as well as assuring farmers that they are vital contributors to community development.
    Thirdly, IPM/FFS training has significantly reduced farmer reliance on pesticides, increased farm revenue and promoted the development of sustainable agricultural production systems. For example, data from the IPM programmes in various African countries show that farmers are able to obtain significant increases in crop yields without reliance on pesticides. While IPM is economically more profitable for farmers, it also improves the agronomic sustainability of the cropping systems. Here are some examples of economic benefits from adoption of IPM practices:

• in Mali, irrigated rice yields were increased by 10-20%, farm revenue increased by 14-35% while pesticides use decreased by 100%
• in Senegal 58% increases in tomato yields were obtained with an 80% decrease in pesticide use. A 60% increase in the yields of cabbage was obtained with a 70% reduction in pesticide use
• in Ghana, farmers growing irrigated rice, who adopted IPM practices acquired from FFS training increased their farm revenue significantly by over US$100 from a 0.1 ha field.

Q. What sort of investment is needed for a typical FFS in Africa, and what are the long-term benefits of the investment?
AY: Investments to promote IPM in Africa are needed in the following specific areas:

• governments in Africa need to invest in developing national IPM policies and implementing IPM programmes in order to provide favourable policy and fiscal environments for promoting and implementing IPM
• building capacities in IPM research, IPM training and extension delivery
• building IPM capacities within farmer-based organisations so that farmers gradually take over the field implementation of IPM activities
• formulating national pesticides policies, strengthening regulatory and control schemes accompanied by public awareness programmes on IPM.

The long-term benefits of such investment are a guarantee of strong national IPM programmes, farmer empowerment and sustainable agricultural production.

Q. You have carried out extensive studies in cocoa production in West Africa. What are the main problems with pest management, and with pesticide use in cocoa in the region?
AY: Cocoa is a major economic crop of national and international importance and therefore its pest management commands considerable international interest as a vital aspect of cocoa production in West Africa. The main problems with pest management and pesticide use in cocoa are the following:

• pesticide use, especially with lindane (now banned in the EU) for insect pests and copper-based fungicides for black pod disease, has been adopted for several years for the successful control of cocoa pests and diseases. But pesticide use in cocoa is associated with taint and toxic residue problems which are major concerns for chocolate manufacturers. Therefore candidate pesticides for use in cocoa production have to undergo expensive laboratory and field trials which can last up to six years, before they can be officially approved for use
• because cocoa is a tall tree, the sprayers are frequently drenched with pesticide mixture when they are applying pesticides and this poses a serious health risk, especially for farmers who do not wear protective clothing while spraying
• research on alternative IPM strategies for cocoa pests tends to take a long time and progress in formulating an IPM strategy has therefore been rather slow
• progress in developing IPM strategies for cocoa pest management is further hampered by conflicting policies and contradictions. There is only limited support for research and promotion of cocoa IPM, and at the same time mass spraying of cocoa farms with pesticides is encouraged.

Q. Are alternatives available that could help farmers control these pests? What would be the ecological and economic benefits of these alternatives?
AY: First, alternatives to lindane have been approved for use in pest control in cocoa in Ghana. The pesticides now approved have been shown to be less toxic and result in minimal residue levels. Secondly, research is on-going in Ghana to find alternatives involving the use of botanicals, pheromones and natural enemies such as bacterial pathogens and mirid predators. These are being combined with crop management such as pruning and canopy management in a Cocoa IPM Strategy to minimise pest and disease damage, as well as reduce ecological disturbance while increasing farm revenues.
        Promising results have been obtained in experiments conducted by the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) on the use of neem to control mirid bugs identified in the early stages of development by regular scouting. However this strategy is yet to be tried on a large scale in cocoa fields. Neem is widely and easily available to many Ghanaian farmers who now commonly use aqueous extracts of neem seeds and leaves for successful pest management in vegetable production, especially cabbage, okra and egg plants.

Q. In what way could the FFS help to provide this information? How could it be scaled up quickly to reach a maximum number of farmers?
AY: The FFS environment provides an excellent opportunity for farmers themselves to try out the proposed Cocoa IPM strategy. Once they appreciate the economic benefits, the system will be rapidly adopted and spread to other farmers. One characteristic of FFS is the rapid rate at which farmers spread agricultural production practices that they find useful in the FFS.

Q. From your wide experience in advising governments and donors on pesticide controls and IPM, what are the main stumbling blocks to getting IPM mainstreamed in Africa?
AY: Some of the major stumbling blocks to mainstreaming IPM in Africa are:

• lack of comprehensive Plant Protection and IPM policies in many countries. Only a handful of countries including Ghana, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Madagascar have adopted IPM as the national strategy for plant protection. But this adoption has not been accompanied by adequate resource allocation for IPM research, implementation and training to effectively mainstream and promote IPM
• the presence of conflicting policies of promoting IPM and at the same time encouraging pesticide use and accepting pesticides as aid
• inadequate information flow to policy and decision makers about the impact of IPM on sustainable, and environmentally friendly agricultural production
• the belief in some quarters, that FFS is expensive and therefore not sustainable. Such beliefs, I think, are based on evaluating the concept of IPM for Farmers, and ignoring the benefits of IPM by Farmers which, in my view is the ultimate objective of mainstreaming IPM.

Q. In your view as an independent consultant to the World Bank and other donors, how can decision-makers be persuaded of the value in investing in IPM training?
AY: Our experience in Ghana is relevant to this question. Writing beautiful IPM/FFS training proposals, and talking endlessly to decision makers and donors to convince them to support IPM training have not proven sufficient. All this must be supplemented by what I call IPM Immersion which means arranging for decision makers, donors and development partners to visit IPM/FFS activities in the field and interact directly with farmers. We found this approach very effective when we arranged a visit for the UN Development Programme Resident Representative in Ghana to a vegetable IPM/FFS session in a village location outside Accra. After a full day interacting with IPM farmers, the UNDP Representative remarked ‘This FFS is science in action’ – and became a strong advocate for IPM/FFS. Other donors who had an opportunity to visit IPM/FFS fields came away, not only impressed, but also fully convinced that the investment was well worthwhile. Similarly the visit of the Minister of Agriculture in Cote d’Ivoire to a rice IPM/FFS in the Sakassou irrigated rice scheme achieved the same result.
    Therefore it would seem to me that a combination of talking to decision makers and donors supplemented with IPM immersion, could successfully convince them to invest in IPM training.

Professor Anthony Youdeowei is a Consultant IPM Specialist, and advises African governments, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the World Bank, GTZ, CTA and other development agencies.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 61, September 2003, pages 9-10]