Int. J. Agron. Agri. R.
International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research (IJAAR) ISSN: 2223-7054 (Print) 2225-3610 (Online) http://www.innspub.net Vol. 10, No. 5, p. 45-52, 2017 OPEN ACCESS
RESEARCH PAPER
Impact of farmers’ field schools on environment protection in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan Ijaz Ashraf1, Amir Khatam2, Ayesha Riaz3, Gulfam Hassan*1 1
Institute of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Agriculture,
Faisalabad, Pakistan 2
Department of Agriculture, Swabi, Pakistan
3
Institute of Home Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan Article published on May 22, 2017
Key words: Impact of Farmers’ field schools, Environment protection, Khyber-PakhtunKhawa.
Abstract Farmers’ Field School (FFS) is an innovative extension approach, which is expected to play a critical role of non formal education in educating farming community regarding protection of environment thereby leading to healthier life of people. Keeping the importance of this very aspect in mind, a study was therefore, carried out to determine the impact of FFS on environment protection. For this purpose, six districts from the central region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa including Peshawar, Charsadda, Nowshera, Mardan, Swabi and Kohat were selected. Data were collected on various aspects of environment protection from 240 randomly selected FFS farmers with the help of a pre-tested interview schedule using survey technique. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics showing means and standard deviations besides using a paired t-test for comparison of the pre and post FFS scenarios in this regard. The results showed that FFS had a significant positive impact on environment protection through reduced use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. It had helped in reduction of soil, water and aerial pollution by establishing orchards and by using well decomposed farm yard manure, poultry waste, green manure and compost manure as alternative sources of nutrients’ supply for plant growth in the field. Furthermore, FFS had promoted local recipes for controlling insect/pests which had helped a lot in protecting the environment from pollution. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to consider FFS strategy as an important instrument to improve the environment for achieving better living conditions. * Corresponding
Ashraf et al.
Author: Gulfam Hassan g.h.gullz@gmail.com
Page
45
Int. J. Agron. Agri. R. Introduction
This process will ultimately empower them in
Environment protection has become an area of
improving
critical importance across the world. Environmental
environment. Equally important were the results of
problems are on the rise and affecting the natural
Khatam et al. (2010) who concluded from their
assets like biodiversity, range land, forest and fresh
studies that FFS approach develops knowledge of
water (Govt. of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2005). CSE
farmers, facilitates them in learning by doing,
(2003) reported that pesticide residues even in the bottled drinking water and ground water. Similarly, agricultural intensification in has caused degradation of soil fertility, water depletion and contamination by nitrate, phosphate and pesticide residues, and loss in biodiversity (Mancini 2006). For curbing this very menace, the government of Pakistan has launched many programs but very few of them seem to be successful in achieving the task. FFS has emerged as
their
social
as
well
as
economic
discourages them from use of pesticides, promotes application of local plant protection recipes, provides systematic training and learning procedure, helps farmers in identification of problems themselves, encourages using balanced dozes of fertilizers, diminishes
cost
of
production,
encourages
community organization, inculcates better leadership, instills communication and improves
to play a critical role in the protection of environment
research, extension and farming community, helps in
by improving knowledge of farmers regarding
filling gaps in local knowledge, facilitates farmers in
environment protection, discouraging the use of
implementing their decisions, enables them to
pesticides and promoting local recipes for plant
systematically evaluate various technologies, builds
protection (Khatam et al. 2010). Likewise, Simpson
up farmers’ capacity in situation analysis, develops
and Owens (2002) stated that FFS approach had a
confidence in farming community, brings about
significant role in enabling farmers to understand
changes in farmers’ attitude, improves the overall
important
socio-economic environment and augments per
relating
to
the
natural
among
all
skills,
an alternative extension approach, which is expected
concepts
linkages
management
stakeholders
i.e.
environment. FFS participants have proved to be
capita
willing
aforementioned importance of FFS approach in view
and
able
to
communicate;
new
plant
protection and production technologies to non-FFS participants in their localities and beyond, and in some cases had contributed significantly to social development. Similarly, Buyu et al. (2003) concluded that
FFS
facilitates
understanding
regarding
comparative analysis of new and existing technologies in the surroundings. Mutandwa and Mpangwa (2004) reported that yield of crops, income of cotton and scores of technical knowledge for FFS participants were higher than those non-FFS participants. In the same way, Asiabaka and James (2003) stated that in
income
of
farmers.
Keeping
the
the present study was conducted to determine the impact of FFS approach on environment protection in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Materials and methods Population The study consisted of the farmers in the study area comprising 6 districts of the central region of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa i.e. Peshawar, Charsadda, Nowshera, Mardan, Swabi, and Kohat.
FFS, farmers had become researchers who test various agricultural technologies and make decision
Selection of Study Sample
about the best possible option to adopt under specific
On the basis of Table for selecting sample size
conditions. In this process, farmers take up the
(Fitzgibbon and Morris 1987) 40 farmers were
central role and extension worker acts as a facilitator.
selected at random from each district from the list of
FFS give emphasize the need that training should be
FFS
designed in such a manner that conclusions can easily
(Extension),
be drawn by the participants.
respondents.
Ashraf et al.
farmers
provided thereby
by
making
Agriculture a
total
Page
of
Dept. 240
46
Int. J. Agron. Agri. R. Instrumentation
Data Analysis
Keeping in view the study objectives, a
Collected data were analyzed using Statistical Package
comprehensive interview schedule was prepared and
for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive as well as
used as research instrument for data collection. It was
inferential statistics was applied to make the data
also be pre-tested to check its validity and reliability.
meaningful.
Data collection
Results and discussion
The data were collected through face to face
The respondents were asked about their perceptions
interviews. Moreover, qualitative techniques like
regarding the effect of different factors contributing
observations and focused group discussions were also
to environmental hazards both under pre and post
be used for in-depth analysis.
FFS scenarios. The data in this regard is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Farmers’ perception regarding the effect of different factors contributing to environmental hazards under pre and post FFS scenarios. Sr.
Factors contributing to
No.
environmental hazards
1
Use of fertilizers
3
Water pollution
4
Soil pollution
6
8
V. high
V. low
Low
Medium
High
V. high
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
1
151
72
15
0.4
62.9
30.0
6.3
1
1
149
78
11
0.4
0.4
62.1
32.5
4.6
3
1
145
79
12
1.3
0.4
60.4
32.9
5.0
2
1
151
73
13
0.8
0.4
62.9
30.4
5.4
0
1
147
90
2
0.0
0.4
61.3
37.5
0.8
1
3
154
69
13
0.4
1.3
64.2
28.8
5.4
Use of decomposed
1
0
150
87
2
farm yard manure
0.4
0.0
62.5
36.3
0.8
Use of decomposed
2
3
148
84
3
0.8
1.3
61.7
35.0
1.3
2
2
154
80
2
0.8
0.8
64.2
33.3
0.8
1
2
168
65
4
0.4
0.8
70.0
27.1
1.7
poultry waste
10
Use of compost manure
11
1 0.4
Establishment of
Use of green manure
WS
High
Air pollution
9
Post-FFS scenario
Medium
orchards 7
WS
Low
Use of pesticides
2
5
Pre-FFS scenario V. low
Use of local recipes for
2
0
167
69
2
controlling insect/pests
0.8
0.0
69.6
28.8
0.8
819 817 816 814 813 810 809 803 798 789 789
0
0
54
145
41
0.0
0.0
22.5
60.4
17.1
0
0
63
131
46
0.0
0.0
26.3
54.6
19.2
0
0
66
130
44
0.0
0.0
27.5
54.2
18.3
0
0
70
123
47
0.0
0.0
29.2
51.3
19.6
0
0
63
143
34
0.0
0.0
26.3
59.6
14.2
0
1
63
142
34
0.0
0.4
26.3
59.2
14.2
0
1
62
145
32
0.0
0.4
25.8
60.4
13.3
0
0
74
125
41
0.0
0.0
30.8
52.1
17.1
0
0
77
134
29
0.0
0.0
32.1
55.8
12.1
0
0
88
123
29
0.0
0.0
36.7
51.3
12.1
0
0
98
116
26
0.0
0.0
40.8
48.3
10.8
n=240 1 Scale:
V. low
2 Low
3
4
Medium High
5 V. high.
The data exhibit that the weighted scores with respect
FFS period due to positive impact of FFS approach
to all factors contributing to environmental hazards
launched in the project area. However, the highest
were higher in the post FFS period than those of pre-
improvement
Ashraf et al.
in
environment
protection
Page
was
47
947 943 938 937 931 929 928 927 912 901 888
Int. J. Agron. Agri. R. recorded in the use of pesticides as is obvious from
of nitrates have been found in ground water by the
the score values 819 and 947 followed by use of
Central Ground Water Board of the country, caused
fertilizers and water pollution with score values 817,
by the use of fertilizers in many villages of the Punjab,
943 and 816, 938 in the pre and post FFS scenarios,
Haryana and Karnataka, three intensively cultivated
respectively. The findings of the present research are
states of India (Singh 2000). The situation illustrated
supported with those of UNEP (2004) which stated
above characterizes more than just a technological
that natural resources have been polluted and
failure. Non-availability of sufficient choice to farmers
exploited to the point of compromising future
and their access to information and extension
productivity. Water contamination has become one of
educational services also counts up for these
the major environmental issues in India. High levels
consequences.
Table 2. Mean ÂąSD with t-values for comparing impact of FFS on environment protection (paired t-test for comparing pre and post FFS scenarios). Aspects contributing to environment protection
Pre-FFS
Post-FFS
t-value
Prob.
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Use of pesticides
3.27
0.52
3.73
0.64
-11.40**
0.0000
Use of fertilizers
3.26
0.51
3.68
0.64
-10.50**
0.0000
Water pollution
3.31
0.54
3.78
0.63
-10.82**
0.0000
Soil pollution
3.35
0.52
3.86
0.62
-11.08**
0.0000
Air pollution
3.37
0.50
3.85
0.62
-10.54**
0.0000
Establishment of orchards
3.33
0.56
3.84
0.63
-10.38**
0.0000
Use of decomposed farm yard
3.38
0.60
3.91
0.66
-9.41**
0.0000
3.37
0.63
3.93
0.62
-10.23**
0.0000
Use of green manure
3.39
0.62
3.89
0.65
-9.36**
0.0000
Use of compost manure
3.38
0.64
3.88
0.68
-9.90**
0.0000
Use of local recipes for
3.36
0.62
3.84
0.67
-10.37**
0.0000
manure Use of decomposed poultry waste
controlling insect/pests NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant (P<0.01). Impact of FFS on environment protection
This was closely followed by reduced use of fertilizers
It is obvious from the data given in Table ii that there
that was ranked 2nd with mean values 3.26, 3.68 in
existed a highly significant positive impact of FFS
the pre and post FFS periods, respectively. The
interventions on environment protection. However,
reduction in the use of fertilizers may be due to the
the highest impact of FFS was recorded in the
encouraged use of well decompose farm yard manure,
reduction of pesticidesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; use that was ranked
1st
with
green manure and compost manures and high prices
mean values 3.27, 3.73 in the pre and post FFS
of fertilizers in the study area. Similarly, FFS had also
periods, respectively. This highest ranking of reduced
helped farming community to control water, soil and
use of pesticides may be due to the regular field based
air pollution which were ranked 3rd, 4th and 5th with
and practical training sessions which participant
mean values 3.31, 3.78; 3.35, 3.86 and 3.37, 3.85,
farmers had attended during the whole cropping
respectively. However, the least impact of FFS was
season in FFS. However, high prices of pesticides in
recorded in case of using local recipes for control of
the study area may also have contributed to the
insect/pests in the study area.
reduced use of pesticides.
Ashraf et al.
Page
48
Int. J. Agron. Agri. R. The data show that there existed a highly significant
lessening soil, water and air pollution through
difference in farmers’ perceptions regarding various
establishment of orchards and using decomposed
aspects of environment protection between the pre
farm yard manure, poultry waste, green manure and
and post FFS scenarios. It means that FFS have
compost manure in the field. Furthermore, promoting
significantly protected the environment by reduced
the use of local recipes for controlling insect/pests
use of pesticides and fertilizers. It has helped in
have helped a lot in protecting the environment.
Table 3. Farmers’ perception regarding the effect of environment protection on social conditions of farming community under pre and post FFS scenarios. Sr. No.
1 2
Effect of environment protection on social conditions Community health
3
Human food and nutrition Education of children
4
Tourists attraction
5
Social interaction
6
Transportation
V. low No. % 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Pre-FFS scenario Low Medium High No. % No. % No. % 0 147 89 0.0 61.3 37.1 0 147 93 0.0 61.3 38.8 0 149 89 0.0 62.1 37.1 1 156 82 0.4 65.0 34.2 1 179 60 0.4 74.6 25.0 1 193 46 0.4 80.4 19.2
WS V. high No. % 4 1.7 0 0.0 2 0.8 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0
817 813 811 803 779 765
V. low No. % 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Post-FFS scenario Low Medium High No. % No. % No. % 1 111 118 0.4 46.3 49.2 4 111 118 1.7 46.3 49.2 1 125 109 0.4 52.1 45.4 2 146 89 0.8 60.8 37.1 1 168 67 0.4 70 27.9 1 181 70.0 54 22.5 0.4
WS V. high No. % 10 4.2 7 2.9 5 2.1 3 1.3 5 2.1 5 2.1
n=240. The findings of the present research are supported by
Effect of environment protection on social conditions
those of WHO (1999) which stated that pesticides’
of farming community
misuse has undermined human health. Every year,
Data in Table iii show that the weighted scores with
about 1 to 5 million cases of pesticide poisoning occur
respect to the effect of environmental protection were
in the world, of which majority belongs to developing
higher in the post FFS period than those of pre-FFS
countries
climatic
period due to positive impact of FFS approach.
conditions increase occupational risks. Van den Berg
However, the highest improvement in environment
(2006) stated that FFS is a participatory extension
protection was recorded in the community health as
approach, which empowers farming community
is obvious from the score values 817 and 857 followed
through building their knowledge and skills regarding
by improvement in human food and nutrition and
various farming practices.
education of children with score values 813, 811 and
where
socio-economic
and
It reduces pesticides’ use, increases yield and farmers’ farm income and thus improves rural life. Feder et al. (2004)
stated
that
IPM-FFS
have
increased
knowledge of farmers that had led indeed to reduced pesticide use. Godtland et al. (2004) evaluated the impact of FFS on farmers’ knowledge of IPM practices used in potato cultivation. The results of the study showed that FFS significantly enhanced
848, 838 in the pre and post FFS scenarios, respectively. The findings of the present research are supported with those of Kishi (2005) who stated that in developing tropical countries the use of non- or less toxic pesticides seems to be the only viable solution to protect farmers’ health.
farmers’ knowledge regarding pests, fungicides, and
Mohr, 1999 and Jiggins, 2003) stated that impact of
resistant varieties. Two separate approaches used to
the cotton IPM FFSs cannot be limited to decrease in
determine the impact of FFS yielded the same result
pesticide use to effects on the environment, health of
that knowledge score of FFS participants were
farmers andtheir social organization.
significantly increased.
Ashraf et al.
Page
49
857 848 838 813 788 774
Int. J. Agron. Agri. R. Table 4. Mean ÂąSD with t-values for comparing impact of environment protection through FFS on social conditions of farming community (paired t-test for comparing pre and post FFS scenarios). Impact of environment protection
Pre-FFS
through FFS on:
Post-FFS
t-value
Prob
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Community health
3.19
0.40
3.48
0.50
-4.84
0.0000
**
Human food and nutrition
3.25
0.44
3.52
0.50
-4.13
0.0000
**
Education of children
3.35
0.49
3.58
0.50
-3.33
0.0010
**
Tourists attraction
3.39
0.49
3.60
0.49
-3.01
0.0028
**
Social interaction
3.39
0.51
3.55
0.50
-2.23
0.0264
*
Transportation
3.40
0.52
3.58
0.53
-2.36
0.0189
*
NS = Non-significant (P>0.05); * = Significant (P<0.05); ** = Highly significant
(P<0.01).
The data indicates a highly significant difference
Similarly, improvement in education may be due to
between perceptions of respondents in the pre and
the increased access to resources and availability of
post FFS scenarios regarding community health,
better transportation facilities.
human food and nutrition, education of children and attraction of tourists (Table iv). However, there was significant difference in the aspects of social interaction and transportation as perceived by respondents in the pre and post FFS scenarios. It
Conclusions and recommendations The study concluded that FFS had highly protected the environment through reduced use of pesticides
means that as a result of FFS activities, community
and fertilizers. It has helped in lessening soil, water
health, human food and nutrition, education of
and air pollution by establishment of orchards and
children
using well decomposed farm yard manure, poultry
improved.
and
touristsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;
Similarly,
attraction
social
were
interaction
highly the
waste, green manure and compost manure instead of
residents was increased and transportation facilities
of
chemical fertilizers in the field. Furthermore, FFS had
were highly improved due to the enhanced socio-
promoted the use of local recipes for controlling
economic activities and conducting FFS interventions in the study area.
insect/pests which had helped a lot in protecting the environment from pollution. Hence, FFS had proved
The findings of the present research are more or less
to be a successful approach in improving all aspects of
supported by those of van den Berg (2004) who
environment in the study area. Consequently, its
stated that some of the less real but not less
replication is recommended across the country and it
important parameters of FFS included producing
may be included in the curriculum of agricultural
demand
universities.
based
qualitative
goods,
reducing
contamination of ground water, developing health conditions improving
through
reduced
biodiversity
and
use
of
pesticides,
sustainability
in
agriculture, bringing about change in policies, projecting role of gender, enhancing farmer to farmer diffusion, improving education and other indicators of empowerment.
References Asiabaka CC, Mureithi JG, Owens ME. 2003. Participatory monitoring and evaluation methodology development of farmer field schools (FFS) for scaling up the adoption of integrated nutrient management technologies and information. Proceeding of 19th
The highest difference between the pre and post FFS
annual association for international agriculture and
scenarios in community health may be due to higher
extension education conference 2003, April 8-12;
income by touristsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attraction and increased business
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
activities in the area.
Ashraf et al.
Page
50
Int. J. Agron. Agri. R. Aslam M, Ahmad S, Baloach QB. 2006.
Jiggins JLS. 2003. New approaches to evaluation.
Sustainable
integrated
In CIP-UPWARD. Farmer field schools: Emerging
management policies and strategies. International
issues and challenges. International potato center
symposium on sustainable crop improvement and
users’ perspectives with agricultural research and
integrated management. September 14-16, 2006.
development, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines, 49-68.
crop
improvement
and
Faculty of agriculture, Univ. of Agic., Faisalabad, Khatam A. Muhammad S, Chaudhry KM,
Pakistan. 66-74.
Mann AA. 2010. Farmers’ field schools: An Braun A, Deborah D. 2005. The farmer field school approach – History, global assessment and success stories. Background. Paper for the IFAD rural poverty report 2011. Braun AR, Jiggins J, Röling N. Van Den Berg H, Snijders P. 2005. A global survey and review of farmer
field
school
experiences.
International
livestock research institute, Nairobi.
Minjauw B. 2003. The concept and application of farmer field schools for livestock research and Working
paper
strategy to
benefit resource poor
farmers in NWFP. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 26, 689-692. Khisa G. 2004. Farmers field school methodology: Training of trainers manual (First Ed.) FAO, Kenya. Kishi M. 2005. The health impacts of pesticides: What do we know? What can be done? In: Pretty, J.
Buyu G, Mango N, Ndiwa N, Romney D,
development.
alternative
of
international
livestock research institution (ILRI), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). 2003. Pesticide residues in bottled water, CSE Report. Centre for science and environment, New Delhi, India. David S. 2007. Learning to think for ourselves:
(Ed.),
The
Pesticide
detoxification:
Earthscan,
London, Sterling, VA., 23-38. Mancini F. 2006. Impact of IPM farmer field schools on the environment, health and livelihoods of cotton growers in Southern India. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. Mohr BM. 1999. The qualitative method of impact analysis. American Journal of Evaluation 1, 69-84. Mutandwa E, Mpangwa JF. 2004. An assessment of the impact of farmer field schools on integrated
knowledge improvement and social benefits among
pest management dissemination and use: Evidence
farmer field school participants in Cameroon. Journal
from smallholder cotton farmers in the low veld area
of International Agriculture and Extension Education
of Zimbabwe. Journal of Sustainable Development in
14, 35-49.
Africa 6, 245-253.
Duveskog D, Friis-Hansen E. 2008. Farmer field
Rai NA, Waqas A, Umar D. 2005. Comparison of
schools: a platform for transformative learning in
water saving in furrow bed with boarder irrigation for
rural Africa. In: Mezirow J. Taylor E., Editors
wheat. Annual research report. Water Management
“Transformative learning in action: Handbook of
Research
practice”, Jossey-Bass Press.
Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Fitzgibbon CT, Morris, L. 1987. Table for
Simpson B, Owens M. 2002. Farmer field schools
determination of sample size from the given
and the future of agricultural extension in Africa.
population. How to design a programme evaluation.
Journal
Newbury Park CA: Sage publications.
Education 9, 29-36.
Ashraf et al.
Centre,
of
University
International
of
Agriculture,
Agriculture
Page
Extension
51
Int. J. Agron. Agri. R. Singh RB. 2000. Environmental consequences of
Van DBH. 2004. IPM farmer field schools: A
agricultural development: a case study from the green
synthesis of 25 impact evaluations. Wageningen
revolution state of Haryana, India. Agriculture
University, Netherlands.
Ecosystems and Environment 82, 97-103. World Health Organization (WHO). 1999. Nnited
Nation
Environmental
Program
(UNEP). 2004. Childhood pesticide poisoning.
Public health impact of pesticides used in agriculture. WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Information for advocacy and action. Chemicals programme of the UN Environ Progress. U.C. (Ed.).
Ashraf et al.
Page
52