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. Reach large number of farmers; Simultaneous learning-teaching process: Farmer participants of first cycle facilitate 2 nd cycle. FWS cycles one and two run simultaneously with gap of two to four days First cycle : FWS – 34; Second cycle : FWS– 272 FWS: Multi-cycle approach

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. 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. 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 Intermediate results…

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