Output 1 was itself an approach to clustering the outputs of other research from RNRRS and other programmes.  Thus the output has the potential to add value to many other research outputs that have either stayed "on the shelf" or have not been as widely promoted as they merit. Value could be added to output 2 by further dissemination and utilisation of the products, perhaps as part of a wider effort to make research outputs easily available and adaptable by intermediaries. The R4D Portal contributes to this, but many target organisations do not yet have adequate internet access so additional dissemination pathways are still required.

A number of other RNRRS outputs have been concerned with promoting uptake of existing knowledge and technologies. Examples include:

R8312 on quality seed production, in which farmer field networks have embarked on seed production and group marketing.

R8457 sweet potato management and promotion through FFS.

R8417, R8341 IPM promotion through improved training manuals

R8448, R8313 Cocoa ICPM in W Africa

R8414 and projects on promotion of Bean ICPM.

R8449, R8212 Promotion and dissemination of IPSFM strategies in the Lake Victoria Basin

R8480 Good seed initiative

Other outputs have concerned methodologies more than specific production constraints or cropping systems, including:

R8428, R8349 Communication strategy for E African semi-arid systems

R8429, R8349 Linking demand with supply of agricultural information

R8404 Knowledge management

R7865 Scaling up processes

R8381 Scaling-up through uptake promotion

R8363 Scaling up through communication

The Innovation Systems approach possibly provides a suitable conceptual framework for clustering these and other outputs.  The emphasis in this approach (only relatively recently applied to agricultural development) is on the full range of actors (beyond the traditional trio of research-extension-farmer), and the linkages between them, which primarily concern information and knowledge flow leading to learning and innovation.

Validation

How the outputs were validated:

Participatory identification of crop production constraints and intervention options was done through farmer interviews using priority setting questionnaire and focus group discussions using ranking and acclamation. The exercise was done for four seasons and different crops and their production constraints were prioritised: season 1: beans and sweet potatoes; season 2: Maize and sorghum; season 3: kale and groundnuts. 

Scientist from KARI and CABI collated technologies for copping with production constraints identified for each crop from CPP and other research programmes, and presented to the FFS facilitators from the Ministry of Agriculture during four training workshops.

The facilitators introduced the technologies to the FFS, and farmers chose the technologies to try out in their own and/or group managed plots. In the group managed plots, season-long discovery-based farmer field school training was undertaken. Approximately 3600 farmers were directly involved in the FFS with a further 1800 attending 30 FFS open days to learn from their colleagues, along with nearly 400 representatives of intermediary and other local organizations.

During the season-long FFS training, FFS members were surveyed for their preferences on the content and format of dissemination materials.  CABI collated relevant existing materials, adapted and modified where necessary. New materials were also created. Twenty two dissemination products were reproduced and disseminated to intermediary organizations as well as through the FFS.  One of the products was a CD containing the source files for all the materials, allowing intermediaries to develop or reproduce further materials as required.

Surveys and farmer evaluations were carried out using questionnaires and focus group discussions. Thirty-three FFS facilitators were trained on how to administer the questioners before conducting farmer interviews where each facilitator interviewed 10 farmers each season from different FFS groups. CABI and KARI conducted the focus group discussions with six FFS groups from three districts each season. The surveys included participatory identification of crop production constraints and option for adoption, assessment of pre- adoption socio-economic situation and production practices of participating farmers, participatory evaluation of new IPPM technologies and post adoption socio-economic survey to assess impact on target farmers.

Farmers reported 10-15% yield increase in maize, sorghum and kale. 95% of the farmers reported an average increase of 50.9% in tomatoes. Over 80% of the farmers felt their food security had been improved. The method of farmer field schools was appreciated by the farmers.  The validation of outputs for specific technologies and crops are in Appendix 1.

Where the Outputs were Validated:            

The validation was done in the target project areas (Bungoma, Busia and Kakamega Districts) and other districts. The other districts included Butere-Mumias, Vihiga, Kirinyaga, West Pokot, Advent group - Kisii District, Uasin Gishu and Trans Nzoia. Egerton University has also validated the outputs. The Intensified Social Forestry Programme (ISFP) of JICA also validated the outputs in 7 districts where it operates, in Kenya. The validation was conducted for the high potential production system. The farming system involved was smallholder rainfed highland. The social groups targeted were female and male farmers, farmer groups and religious groups. The validation was for the period 2003-2005.

Current Situation

Who are the Users?

The range of IPPM technologies that were tested and evaluated by farmers and scientists are being used by the Farmer Field School Networks, individual farmers, other farmer groups, community based organizations, seed companies and non-governmental organizations to improve the production of maize, beans, sweet potatoes, sorghum and tomatoes. The FFS approach is being applied in agriculture, horticulture, livestock and forestry extension. It has also has proved a valuable approach in community and private development (marketing, business development and community empowerment). The FFS is now applied in Junior Farmer Field and Life Schools (JFFLS). The JFFLS include a group of orphaned youths formed in an area with high HIV/AIDS prevalence. The JFFLS follows the FFS principles but with a stronger focus on livelihood issues such as health, nutrition and income generation. Drama and theatre is used extensively as a tool for development of self esteem and confidence among the youths. Usually the group is facilitated by a team of facilitators including: agriculture officer, social animator and school teacher. Close links have been established with WFP for food relief among the participating children and assistance to their families. The promotional materials produced are being used by intermediary organizations to support their extension staff.  The target organizations are capable of reprinting the materials as required. Video programmes based on farmers' successes are aired by the national television and private media house. 

Where the outputs have been used:

The outputs are being used in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania as well as Mozambique. In Kenya, the outputs are used in project target districts (Busia, Kakamega and Bungoma), Butere-Mumias, Vihiga, Kirinyaga, West Pokot, Adventist group - Kisii District, Uasin Gishu and Trans Nzoia. Egerton University is also using the outputs. In Uganda: Soroti, Busia and Kaberamido; and Kagera Region (Bukoba, Muleba and Karagwe) in Tanzania.    

Scale of Current Use:

To date, the FFS Networks in Eastern Africa support about 2,000 FFS with close to 50,000 direct beneficiaries. In Kenya the FFS Network supports 797 Farmer Field schools whose main activities include promotion of improved IPPM technologies, training on quality control, farming as a business, bulking of produce, marketing and facilitating linkages with other stakeholders. In Uganda the FFS Network supports 545 farmer field schools in and the main activities are group marketing, processing sweet potato, saving and credit and storage structures, while in Tanzania the Network supports 257 farmer field schools whose main activities are certified seed production and group marketing.

Policy and Institutional Structures, and Key Components for Success:

The IPPM FFS Programme in Western Kenya provided over 3500 farmers grouped into Farmer Field Schools and 33 FFS facilitators for the validation of and uptake of the CPP research outputs. The DFID Crop Protection Programme provided the financial resources to different projects that generated the outputs that were promoted through and adopted by FFS members and intermediary institutions. The National Agricultural and Livestock extension Programme (NALEP), Kenya Agricultural Productivity Programme KAPP), Appropriate Rural Development Agricultural Programme (ARDAP) and the Community Research Environment Agricultural Development Initiative (CREADIS) have assisted with the promotion and/or adoption of the outputs. The institutions that have been involved with promotion include CABI Africa, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), ICIPE, SACRED Africa, African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) and seed companies. The platforms include the FFS networks, stakeholder forums, workshops, seminars and KENFAP. The policy structures include demand driven, networking and partnership. The key factors of success are full participation of the key beneficiaries in the process of adoption and adaptation of the outputs. There is also collaboration and the good will of the government. In terms of capacity strengthening there are key factors of success. Research outputs of previous CPP-funded projects increase the knowledge base of the extension staff to make them technically strong FFS facilitators. A competent International organisation (CABI) facilitates a multi-stakeholder process established that results in strong functioning linkages between researchers, farmers, extensionists and NGOs with increased capacity to accelerate uptake of the technologies. FFS networks in the project area provide innovative farmers who strengthen the extension team by facilitating farmer-run FFS. A cadre of skilled FFS facilitator on participatory methods and tools ensures a demand-led approach to the promotion of the outputs where relevant technologies address felt needs of the beneficiaries.

Details regarding the current situation are provided in Appendix 2.

Lessons Learned and Uptake Pathways

Promotion of Outputs:

The FFS approach has gained popularity in the country. Currently there are a large number of donors and implementation partners involved in FFS activities and a total of over 2500 FFS groups have been implemented in a broad range of enterprises. FFS Networks are currently promoting FFS approach and IPPM technologies. The networks are characterized as FFSs clustered in a registered or non-registered association or not-for-profit company. To date, the FFS Networks in Eastern Africa support about 2,000 FFSs with close to 50,000 direct beneficiaries. Promotional materials are in the process of being uploaded on a new web site that has been opened to upload FFS information (publications, experts, projects and organisations). This site, http://www.infobridge.org/ffsnet/, automatically links information to the FFSnet database on the Infobridge Foundation Knowledge sharing platform (http://www.infobridget.org/asp). Since December 2005, 166 experts (mostly from East Africa) and 25 publications have been entered on FFSnet. This web site web site links publications directly to the FFS network, and stakeholders are now uploading FFS publications and learning materials by themselves. A video programme shot in the farmers' fields and homes that show the actual crop protection technologies in 5 crops is aired through Regional Reach Company that has an estimated 1.2 million viewers per month in Kenya. Wider dissemination is being achieved through screening of the videos on KBC Television that has a viewership of 14 million people country-wide.

Potential Barriers Preventing Adoption of Outputs:

The first barrier slowing adoption of the FFS approach is variation among extension staff. Most existing extension staff in many countries were hired and trained under T&V top down extension funding (NAEP) that did not provide the staff with facilitation skills that allow a melding of local knowledge and external science based knowledge with client service orientation. Variation in extension staff result in variations of FFS quality. The second barrier is the investment cost (education is not for free) under structural adjustment and declining agricultural (national) budgets. The third barrier, despite FFS attracting mostly women farmers, is the social exclusion of the most vulnerable. While individual FFSs are capable of conducting their own business, they are too small to engage in meaningful negotiations. The most crucial bottleneck to market access for poor rural people is information on the existing and potential options for selling the things they can produce. Most FFSs are established in remote rural settings with limited contact to their potential markets. There is poor communication to small farmers within the FFS who need better access to markets and to reliable information about prices, product quality and market conditions.

How to Overcome Barriers to Adoption of Outputs:

As the FFS Networks grow and take on more complex initiatives, there is need for more investment in capacity building in the fields of financial management, marketing, standards and quality and ICT. A pool of competent and innovative facilitators and mentors should be in place to ensure sustainability of the process. More investments in training and equipping the FFS Networks with the relevant information and communication technology will bridge the information gap and enhance the diversification of business opportunities and improve efficiency of transactions. The revolving funds that have been operationalized within some of the FFS Networks need to be natured into a more sustainable and long-term investment venture by supporting the FFS Networks to identify viable income generating activities. Better documentation of the lessons learned will also be necessary for scaling-up the process of establishments of FFS networks. Lastly, there is a need for much more investment in FFS Networks in the rural areas of Eastern Africa. The potential for investments has not been fully exploited and farmers will still require external investments (grants or loans) to be able to move away from poverty. FFS should be seen as one element of up-scaling an appropriate response within demand-driven systems - not up-scaling of FFS for their own sake!

Lessons Learned:

IPPM FFS approach to farmers' learning by doing rather than instructions and demonstrations, is an effective way of encouraging farmers adaptations of farming practices. It is also clear that FFS educated farmers are capable of establishing and running FFS in their areas thereby creating a multiplier effect of farming practices that enhance increased uptake of technologies. We have learnt that farmers are enthusiastic evaluators of new technologies, and they do it well.

Participatory IPPM FFS contributes to community development. FFS educated farmers have become more confident in running their day-to-day activities. They have assisted in strengthening existing groups and creating new ones which have become more organised and more responsive to community needs. There is enough evidence that given the appropriate policy support, the approach has a good potential of becoming a national program. Scaling up activities could start with documentation of a full-scale impact assessment.

Institutionalised networking from village grassroots to district levels accelerates the uptake rate. The farmer organizations have formed links with marketing organizations. The Chairmen of FFS Network in Busia and Kakamega sit on the District Poverty Eradication Committees while district network representatives sit in the district development committee meetings. The networks have thus opened up excellent avenues for information exchange between farmers and other stakeholders ranging from service providers to market access.

Facilitation of a multi-stakeholder process by CABI has created a platform for different stakeholders to share knowledge and different skills contributing to faster uptake of research outputs with strong positive implications of sustainability and ownership. Participatory training in conjunction with scientific institutions at local level influenced the uptake. Some NGOs provide facilities and access to credit for seed production and distribution, and can help to resolve this important bottleneck. NGOs are valuable partners. Some have contributed with infrastructure and personnel, allowing an increase in the uptake rate.

Promotional materials and the use of mass media (radio and TV) hastens adoption rates through wide geographical coverage.

Impacts On Poverty

Poverty Impact Studies: 

Only a single study has been conducted on poverty in relation to the cluster of outputs:  Post adoption socio-economic survey to assess impact on target farmers by Musebe, R.O.; Odendo, M; Kimani, M.; Asaba, J.F.; Khisa, G. and Ajanga, S. This study was conducted in the target project areas namely Bungoma, Busia and Kakamega Districts as one of the activities under the project R8299.

How the Poor have Benefited (including gender and other poverty groups):

Crop yield increased for all the prioritized crops except sorghum and beans (Table 1). Income received from crop production increased, especially for maize. Eighty six per cent of the farmers interviewed reported that there was an increase in income due to the use of CPP technologies. The actual average income increase and other percentage increases are reported in Table 1. Since maize is a staple food crop it is the case that food self sufficiency and food security increased due to adoption of the maize production technologies. Kales production and the corresponding income also increased. There were some changes in the production of sweet potatoes, sorghum and beans, which were not as high as those from maize and kales. The increases in production of kales can also be explained by the fact that farmers were devising mechanisms for the production of the crop throughout the year possibly because of the increasing demand from government institutions and schools. Maize is also in high demand from these institutions. The percentage of farmers reporting increases in marketed surplus was less than the percentage reporting increase in output. This indicates that some of the crop output was used for increasing food self sufficiency at household level. When farmers were asked about the food self sufficiency situation following the adoption of the CPP technologies, 82% indicated that food self sufficiency had improved. This was attributed mainly to maize production. There were increases in the production of sweet potatoes and sorghum but not with the same magnitude as for maize and kales. The technologies promoted are therefore useful in this regard. Increase in the yield of sorghum was noted but the corresponding income was reduced by the low price. Farmers reported that they were having improvements in their livelihoods, which they could attribute in part to the use of improved crop protection practices that lead to high crop yield.

Table 1: Impacts on livelihoods recorded against capital assets, 2003-2005

Note: The reported impacts are the average from all the crops that were dealt with during the project period. A + indicates that some impact was noted and the figures indicate the percentage increases. A blank cell means that no change was noted.

Types of persons for whom there has been a positive impact were moderate poor and extreme vulnerable poor, including both men and women. The numbers of people who have realized a positive impact on their livelihood are reported in Appendix 1 under "who".

Environmental Impact

Direct and Indirect Environmental Benefits:

There was improvement in the pest and disease management by the farmers and efficiency in the use of agricultural resources. The use of pesticides did not change meaning that any adverse environmental effects attributed to the use of pesticides would be unchanged and would decrease with time. This is due to the fact that farmers were offered a wide range of pest and diseases control methods some of which are not based on the use of pesticides. These include improved husbandry practices, indigenous technical knowledge, habitat management and pest and disease control methods that do not involve pesticides. There was an increase in the percentage of farmers attempting control of different pests and diseases for some crops. Notable increases in the numbers of farmers attempting control were reported for bean root rot, bean fly, diamondback moth on kales, maize stalk borer and striga weed.

Over seventy percent of the farmers reported fewer incidences of pests and diseases. This may be because the project has sensitized the farmers regarding the importance of pests and disease control. Eighty eight percent of the kale farmers reported that there was less pest infestation compared to the time before the CPP project. Similarly, 87.2% of the farmers reported that there was less disease. Seventy seven percent and 73.3% of the beans and maize farmers reported that there was a reduction in pest infestation while 75.9% and 80.0% respectively reported there was a reduction in disease incidence.

Adverse Environmental Impacts:

There is reduced pesticide use that may cause limited adverse effect on the environment.

Coping with the Effects of Climate Change, or Risk from Natural Disasters:

The outputs increase the capacity of poor people to cope with the effects of climate change, reduce the risks of natural disasters and increase their resilience. The poor are able to deal with high pest and disease infestations that occur during the heavy rain season. Planting in ridges and raised beds helps to preserve water, which is a problem during the dry season. There were improvements in access to crop protection information in terms of timeliness, content and reach of the information. The information received enables the farmers to prepare adequately for crop protection.

Annex

Information obtained from a stakeholder workshop held in September 2006 in Kakamega.

bungoma district

buSIA district

KAKAMEGA district

  
Appendix 2: Current situation

Appendix 3: Current promotion/uptake pathways

Relevant Research Projects, with links to the
Research for Development (R4D) web site
and Technical Reports:

R4D	Project Title	Technical Report
R7865	Scaling-up strategies for pilot research experiences - a comparative review
R8299	Accelerated uptake and impact of CPP research outputs in Kenya
R8312	Promotion of quality vegetable seed in Kenya
R8349	Developing crop protection research promotion strategies for semi-arid East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania)
R8363	Enhancing development impact of process tools piloted in Eastern India. Main Report. Annex 1, Annex 2.
R8381	Institutionalised scaling-up and uptake promotion of outputs from soil and water management research in East and Central Africa
R8404	Promotion of control measures for cassava brown streak disease. Main Report. Annex 1, Annex 2.
R8414	Promotion of bean pest IPM
R8417	Promoting adoption of integrated pest management in vegetable production through improved resources for Farmer Trainers
R8428	Communication and research promotional strategies East Africa
R8429	Linking supply and demand in Uganda phase 2. Main Report. Annex
R8448	Implementation of cocoa IPM in West Africa. Main Report. Annex 3, Annex 4.
R8449	Promotion and dissemination of integrated pest and soil fertility management strategies to combat striga, stemborers and declining soil fertility in the Lake Victoria basin
R8454	Accelerated uptake and impact of CPP research outputs in Kenya
R8457	Extending control of sweet potato diseases in East Africa
R8480	The Good Seed Initiative - sharing the learning from CPP programmes into pro-poor seed systems in East Africa