Evaluating the success of farmer field schools in Senegal  

Integrated Pest Management offers many benefits to farmers; but even well trained farmers can be restricted from implementing the technique due to external factors. Ben Gill analyses the situation for cotton farmers in Senegal. 

Evaluating FFS in the shade of a mango tree - Kayel Bessel, Senegal 2004.  Photo: Ben Gill

Cotton crop and donkey cart, Velingara 2004.  Photo: Ben Gill

Evaluating FFS - Focus Group, Sare Yobe Niani, Senegal 2004. Photo: Ben Gill

After training cotton producers in southern Senegal for three years in Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Africa commissioned an independent evaluation of their work, which gave mixed results. While the producers were enthused by the possibilities that IPM offers and fascinated by the concept of natural enemies, the purchasing system for cotton seeds obliges producers to buy pesticides as well. By neglecting to engage with the relevant authorities an insurmountable obstacle remained in the way of the producers, who were unable to practise what they had learned.
    The south eastern region of Senegal is its largest cotton producing area, though it is still a minor crop compared to the food staples of groundnut, millet, maize and sorghum. Of farmers interviewed in this south eastern region, 70% dedicated more land area to food rather than cash crops(1). In spite of this, cotton, along with vegetable production, represents the largest use of pesticides in Senegal, but it is not the quantity of pesticides used but the manner in which they are used that causes the most concern. 

How cotton inputs are controlled
The procurement of the inputs for cotton production is indirectly controlled by Societé de Développement de Fibres Textiles (SODEFITEX). A national inventory of producers determines the land area of cotton to be produced and, using a formula devised by SODEFITEX, the quantity of seeds and other inputs (pesticides, herbicides and fertiliser) required nationally is calculated. The bank lends the money to the cotton producers’ union to purchase the inputs on condition that they follow the SODEFITEX calendar of treatment, which in the south east averages one treatment a week totalling 7.5 litres of Callisulfan (endosulfan) and 1 litre of Conquest Plus per hectare annually.

This system of procurement has many negative impacts:

• it compels the producers to take more pesticides than they may need
• the pesticides are given to the farmers during the dry season, when they are usually short of money, and are often sold in the local markets of Diaobé and Manda(2). The pesticides that are sold, or left over, are often used on vegetables and food crops for which they are not designed(3).

This contributes to the anarchic use of pesticides that already exists in Senegal. The market of Diaodé is full of illegally and often poorly labelled pesticides that are destined to be stored in unsafe conditions(4). Over half of the producers of vegetables and cotton apply the pesticides without any protective clothing and the rest period between the final treatment and harvest is frequently not respected(5). All of this leads to many negative health and environmental effects.

The farmer field schools (FFS)
It is in this context that PAN Africa launched its first full campaign of FFS in producing IPM cotton in 2001/2. Over three years, 20 field schools of 25 producers, taken from five villages, were run training the farmers in the concepts of IPM. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) technique was employed with theoretical lessons followed by practical application in an experimental field. 
    The experimental plot was divided into three sections; the ‘Farmer’s Technique’ (FT) where the owner applied his or her normal techniques (500m2); the IPM plot, where decisions about treatments were made on a consensus basis by all the producers (500m2); and the ‘compensation’ plot that was used to mimic the effects of pests on the plants (200m2). Once a week the producers gathered at the experimental site to make and record observations concerning the size and health of the plant, and the level of pests and natural enemies in the fields. The trainer then introduced a specialist subject. The work that needed to be done was discussed and implemented, allowing the producers to leave before lunch.
    The producers were taught about:

• using field observations to determine the need to apply pesticides
• identifying cotton pests, their natural enemies and their life cycles
• a more efficient planting technique
• organic compost
• the effect on yield of different pests
• natural alternatives to pesticides and their preparation.

At the end of the season the two different plots (IPM and FT) were harvested and their yields compared. PAN then calculated and compared the respective profits of each technique.

Successes and failures
Over the three years, approximately 500 producers were trained in the IPM technique, most of whom had never seen a system of cotton-production with restricted pesticide. Up until this point they had always been told that pesticide use was integral to cotton production; yet over the three years and 20 FFS not once did the producers decide to use pesticides. 
    The table shows the basic economic and agricultural results of the three years field schools. The averages hide much variation between schools but show that while the yield can be reduced there is little effect on the profit. 
    But the cold economic data hide the real successes of the FFSs, which were revealed by the evaluation. Focus groups were held in eight of the 20 FFSs and with an average turn out of about 15 of the 25 producers a frank structured discussion was held for up to six hours on the various successes and failures of the FFSs (see photos). The participants expressed their fascination with the concepts of natural enemies; they demonstrated that they could identify cotton pests, and were keen for the project to be     expanded to other crops, notably vegetable production. In fact their main complaint was that the project was too short; that one year was not long enough to really master the techniques involved, and as the field school was on an area about one-twentieth the size of a normal field, they felt questions remained about using the technique on a larger scale. 
    One or two of the participants had started to produce IPM cotton, and most had incorporated at least some of the techniques into their approach, and all expressed a desire to work further with PAN Africa and IPM. However, for the most part their pesticide usage remained unchanged. Why? Because, not only were they compelled to buy the pesticides when they bought the seeds, but they were pressurised by the SODEFITEX outreach workers to treat the fields if they had not been doing so. In the face of this coercion the majority of producers continue to use the pesticides sold to them.
    This highlights the main difficulties in the PAN Africa approach: the lack of prior analysis of the existing institutional barriers to IPM and a failure to engage with the organisations that control these barriers. The evaluation showed that while the farmers were tied to SODEFITEX, most of them did not have the confidence to implement IPM in the face of the pressure from SODEFITEX.

Conclusion
Mistakes are always made and the evaluation has clarified the direction that must be taken in the next season. PAN Africa is currently searching for funds to tackle these issues: the next campaign will include further follow up with the producers to support farmers in applying the techniques on a larger scale. Most importantly though they will engage with the authorities (SODEFITEX and the producer organisations) to ensure that they are no longer working in isolation and that the enthusiasm of the producers to implement their new skills can be translated into reduced pesticide use and a cleaner healthier Senegal.

References
1. Williamson S, The Dependency Syndrome: pesticides use by African smallholders, PAN UK, London, UK, February 2003, page 29/35.
2. PAN Africa, 2004.
3. Williamson S, op. cit. 1.
4. PAN Africa, Gestion Progressive des Ravageurs pour la Securite Alimentaire et L’environnement, unpublished, 2004, pages 69/70.
5. PAN Africa, Organic cotton country report, PAN UK, London, UK, August 2002, page 14.

Ben Gill has been volunteering at PAN Africa (www.pan-africa.sn) BP 15938, Dakar-Fann, Senegalbengman@email.com. 

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 64, June 2004, pages 16-17]