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 [June–May] • 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. MUST KNOW Useful to Know Nice to Know 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