Transforming Agricultural Sustainability Strategy into ...

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 06, Number: 04, August 2016 09

Transforming Agricultural Sustainability Strategy into Action: The Case of Farmer Field School Training in Relation to Integrated Pest Management

in Sindh Province Of Pakistan

Dr. AKHTAR AHMED SIDDIQUI1 AND MUHAMMAD IDREES KHOSO1 1AE&WM Wing of Agriculture Department, Government of Sindh

ABSTRACT

Sindh province of Pakistan has embraced foreign funded various agricultural development programmes during the last seven decades regarding the transformation of sustainable agriculture. But unfortunately, most of the programmes were abandoned by the passage of time, due to the weaknesses in them. During 2001-2004 National Integrated Pest Management (Nat-IPM) Programme for cotton was launched and FFS model was introduced as an effective training strategy based on the assumption that, through this FFS training model, farmers would change their traditional role from passive learner to active learner. Basic principle of the programme was to enable farmers to be self sufficient, using practices that are agro-ecological friendly. It was hypothesized that facilitators to farmers’ diffusion of knowledge and dissemination of agricultural technologies would be occurred. This study was carried out in Sindh province. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of facilitators in a Nat-IPM programme. The sample size comprised 48 facilitators who participated in Training of Facilitators (ToF) and established IPM-FFSs. The results revealed that despite facing some constraints/problems during IPM-FFS training, the facilitators performed effectively to attain the objectives of Nat-IPM programme. It appears that facilitators improved farmers' knowledge, skills and behavioral change in attitude towards agro-ecological sound IPM practices through FFS training. Keywords: Integrated Pest Management (IPM), Farmer Field School (FFS), Training of Facilitators

(ToF). 1. INTRODUCTION:

The Government of Pakistan launched and introduced several programmes / projects during the last seventy years for the sustainability of Agriculture in Pakistan e.g. Village-AID Programme (V-AID), Basic Democracy System (BDS), Rural Works Programme (RWP), Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP), Peoples Works Programme (PWP), and Training and Visit (T&V) System. However, due to the weakness, most of the programmes were vanished by the passage of time. Those programmes have witnessed many debates in the country that have reformed it repeatedly. The preliminary designs were chided because of no opportunity for active role of the farmers (Birner et al., 2006).

In connection to agro-ecological sound farming, in the strategy and policy for agricultural development by government of Pakistan, field workers of agriculture department trained to empower the farmers in growing healthy cotton crop by understanding agro-ecosystem and conserving bio-diversity with Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) to increase profit margin of farmers. Potential stakeholders took efforts and launched FAO-EU funded National Integrated Pest Management Programme (Nat-IPM) for Cotton in Pakistan from 2001-2004 and introduced new extension training methodology called Farmer Field School (FFS). FFS training emphasized that the crops should be healthier with minimum and rational use of pesticides in order to avoid the adverse impact on the nature and encouraged to stick with the natural pest mechanism through IPM practices.

The FAO-EU regional project was designed for the capacity building of the field workers of agricultural department and farmers through National (Nat) IPM programme to encourage more eco-friendly cotton crop production. Programme activities began in Pakistan in year 2001. IPM programme played a key role in mobilizing and strengthening the farming families; as the schools provided the know-how about management skills, environment-friendly agriculture, and rural development. Nat-IPM programme officials along with other coordinators have substantially benefited many existing production

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 06, Number: 04, August 2016 Page 110

methods and future plans to decrease poverty and safeguard the natural resource of Pakistan (FAO, 2004).

In Pakistan, about 70-80 percent growers who are being benefited by Nat-IPM programme live below the poverty line. The programme operated at the local level; hence it assisted the poor and empowers the cotton farmers on procurement and increase in their economic stability. The IPM programme, along with FFS training, has reduced poverty and established knowledge on environment-friendly methods (GoP, 2011). For accomplishment of IPM programme objectives, the main focus was to equip the existing staff with the latest trends and educate the cotton growing farmers about methods for luxuriant cotton growth through the season-long training of FFS. Rind (2005) reported that during 2001-2004, a total of 425 IPM facilitators in ToFs belonged to agricultural extension staff, research and NGOs personnel were trained. About 13000 farmers participated in the trainings. In the end of 2004, a total of 525 season-long IPM-FFS trainings were conducted in Pakistan. Among those season-long trainings four ToFs and 331 FFSs in the nine districts were established in Sindh province. And around 129 extensionists, researchers and NGO activists got practical skills and hands-on training and about 8,225 common farmers received IPM-FFS training.

Furthermore, Agricultural Engineering and Water Management (AE&WM) Wing of Agriculture Department, Government of Sindh has launched a long-term project titled “Sindh Irrigated Agriculture Productivity Enhancement Project (SIAPEP)” in Sindh Province with the financial assistance of the World Bank. There are various sub-components under components in this project for the betterment of poor / small farmers and interventions include, establishment of 1500 Farmer Field Schools with a focus on Integrated Pest Management, Training of Facilitators (ToFs) will be established to train the 750 field facilitators and about 200 Natural Enemies Farm Reservoirs (NEFRs) will be established to promote rearing of beneficial insects. In this connection, recommendations based on the conclusions of this study may help the IPM-FFS programme officials / stakeholders and make them able to evaluate IPM-FFS training programme activities thoroughly in relation to overcome negligence in the future. 2. BACKGROUND:

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was introduced in 1957 with the application of biological control, agro-economic methods as well as other methods previously used to curb pests. At present, the farmers are using pesticides and consider them essentially useful, while the government is responsible to discourage its misuse thus from time to time various IPM programmes were launched. Basically, IPM is a “corner stone” for sustainable agriculture which fulfill today’s requirements and activates to think about upcoming generation. Day by day, increase of population is occupying the agricultural land. Thus, it is difficult to maintain the area and fulfill all the requirements for future generations. In this regard, IPM is playing an active role and brings improvement in farmers’ practices to gain increased profit margin while maintaining environmental quality and community health. Moreover, IPM is not only the method of solution and decision making about controlling pests but a “problem solving” and “decision making” method of handling pest harms (FAO, 2005).

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a farmer-based knowledge oriented management method. It curb of pests through natural ways by understanding the pest problem before reaching economically damaging levels. All suitable methods are applied like growing pest-resistant crops, enhancing beneficial insects, adopting traditional management methods and at last, using pesticides fairly (World Bank, 1997). IPM means the thoughtful review of all prevalent pest curbing techniques and incorporation of available measures that reduce the pest population and discourage the use of pesticides to such level that is economically acceptable. IPM aims at lessening harms of the pesticides to the human beings and emphasis on the production of healthy crop without disruption to agro-ecosystems (FAO, 2002). IPM is a result oriented and environment friendly method to control pests and rely on collection of common sense approaches, by using current situation of pests and latest information about environment (EPA, 2007). The IPM was introduced with the methods of curbing pests, rise on crops but now it has widened its approach falling in the ambit of the agricultural development (NCCA, 2007).

A single method is insufficient to control pest to satisfactory situation. A collective approach must be adopted; in this regard IPM is one of the best approaches as an alternative method. It is generally known as a “diverse mix of approaches” to control pests by restraining them below damage


causing levels by applying various methods ranging from traditional methods to chemical use (GoS, 2014). Pesticides have played a key role in increasing crop production through the effective control of insect pests. However, the indiscriminate use of pesticides has caused serious health hazards to human health and environment (Ahmad & Poswal, 2000). Cotton is the cash crop as compared to paddy, sugarcane, fruits and vegetables. It exclusively accounts for nearly 60 percent of the total consumption of pesticides. The pesticides and the herbicides have helped control insect pressure and weeds (Hanif et al., 2004).

In Pakistan, the use of pesticide was started in 1950s for controlling locust. In the beginning, 254 tons of formulated pesticides were imported by the government (Habib, 1996). And up to 1980, the Department of Plant Protection under obligation for synthetic pesticides had traded and distributed in Pakistan through the National Agricultural Extension system. There has been firm increase in consumption and import of pesticides due to privatized in 1980 (Ahmad et al., 2002). As the outcome, from 1992 to 2005 the use of pesticides in the country increased at an annual rate of 14.5% and 51% of the synthetic pesticides were consumed only on cotton crop in the year 2000, 64% in 2005, 55% in 2010 and 47% in 2011. In Sindh province, pesticides consumed in cotton accounted for about 50%. The consumptions annual average rates of pesticides used in cotton in Sindh province were fluctuated as 32% dropped in the year 2000, increased 83% in the year 2005 and dropped 60% again in the years of 2010-11. The random use of pesticides induced outburst of secondary insect pests. As a result, spray of pesticides was increased in cotton significantly and become too expensive given the mediocre amount of production levels (GoS, 2014). 3. METHODS:

The literature review indicated that various research designs were used to assess the effectiveness of integrated pest management farmer field school training programmes. These methods include self-reported measures, observations, personal interviews, etc. The present study utilized a descriptive survey research approach. 3.1 Sample and Sampling Method: The present study revolved around targeted population of facilitators. The sampling frame of facilitators (ToF participants), involved in the implementing of IPM-FFS for cotton in selected districts of Sindh were obtained from National IPM programme coordinator, Director General, Agricultural Extension Wing, Hyderabad, Sindh. From the population of facilitators, the total sample size of 48 was taken out of 55. The sample was determined using “Table for determining random sample size from a given population” at 95% confidence level and 5% (+ or -) margin of sampling error rate (Fitz-Gibbon & Morris, 1987; Wunsch, 1986). 3.2 Instrumentation/Questionnaires: Questionnaire was developed in consultation with the subject specialists and review of available literature. A questionnaire included the information about FFS establishment, their performance in IPM programme, awareness in farmers regarding agro-ecological sound IPM practices and open-ended questions about constraints/barriers faced during IPM-FFS training. A researcher took eminent care over the wording of questions before starting the research. A researcher made a specific effort to produce a short, feasible and easily understandable questionnaire. 3.3 Validity of the Research Instrument: Face validity of the questionnaires was carried out using foreign expertise and best local talent available at the convenience of the researcher. A pretest of questionnaires was performed in order to overcome irregularity if any before initiated the actual data collection process. Furthermore, comments made by the experts in the field suggested some changes in the questionnaires, after detailed discussion with the subject specialists and in view of comments received from the expert’s questionnaires were finalized. 3.4 Instruments Reliability: To check the usability of the instrument, validity tests were done on the basis of responses. The popular estimator, cronbach alpha was calculated to check the instrument consistency. The value of cronbach alpha was estimated and reliability coefficients ranged from .80 to .95, which were considered quite high according to the criteria developed by the Nunnaly, J. (1978). Thus, the instrument was considered reliable for the study. 3.5 Data Collection: Data was collected from the Sindh province, where FFSs were established conducted during 2001 to 2004 through the National IPM (Nat-IPM) programme for cotton. The researcher personally visited and conducted interviews with facilitators using the well-reviewed and


structured questionnaires. The concepts/ideas were predominantly measured through different statements on a continuum ranging from negative to positive. 3.6 Statistical Analysis: The data was computed and analyzed using appropriate statistical analysis techniques to fulfill the objectives of the study. Using computer software Statistical Package of Social Sciences (IBM-SPSS), information on various demographic parameters of targeted population (facilitators) were gathered and frequency, mean, percentage, standard deviation were also calculated. In this study, data was analyzed using different quantitative and qualitative statistical procedures and methods. For the compilation of the opinion survey, descriptions of the suggested opinion were presented in the subjective form. 4. RESULTS: 4.1 Facilitators Profile: The demographic characteristics of the sampled facilitators surveyed and accumulated data with respect to their age, education, official position and interest of association with IPM-FFS programme. 4.2 Age Group: The Figure 1 shows that vast majority of the facilitators (87.2%) fell into the age group of 41 to 50 years and rest them either between the age group of 31 to 40 (8.5%) or 51 to 60 (4.3%). 4.3 Educational Qualification: Masters’ degree in the relevant subject dominated the scenario. Majority of facilitators had M.Sc. degree (91.5%) and were Agriculture Officers, while only 8.50% were diploma holders (Figure 2) received from Agriculture Training Institute (ATI), Sakrand. This indicates that facilitators are highly educated. 4.4 Designation/Position: Data gathered in relation to the designation of facilitators who got ToF training, majority 70.20% were Agriculture Officers, 12.8% Deputy District Officers, 8.5% Field Assistants, 6.4% District Officers and 2.1% of the facilitator had the position of Director in the Extension wing of Agriculture Department, Government of Sindh (Figure 3). This indicates that the extension personnel keep the position of Agriculture Officers and are the key facilitators to disseminate agro-ecological sound IPM practices/technology to farmers/growers. 4.5 Interest towards IPM-FFS Training: Figure 4 shows that majority of the facilitators (68.1%) perceived that they were associated with IPM-FFS for their self-development, and 14.9% responded that knowing the government interest in IPM-FFS they decided to associate with programme. However, 8.5% of the respondents were of the opinion that their interest towards IPM-FFS was because of incentives offered (TA/DA) by the government; while a same percentage of facilitators responded were associated with IPM-FFS due to their colleagues’ motivation. 4.6 Regularity in Training of Facilitator (ToF): The facilitators were also invited to perceive their regularity in season-long ToF (figure 5) depicts a highly positive response of the respondents, and reportedly 97.9% facilitators always attended ToF. Such attitude of the facilitators indicated most promising professionalism in the field of agriculture education and extension. 4.7 Site/Plot Selection Criteria for IPM-FFS Training: The facilitators were asked to disclose on plot/site selection criterion considered for the establishment of IPM-FFS and the responses (figure 6) indicated that 80.9% of the respondents established the IPM-FFS in cotton areas; while 83% considered the area with availability of irrigation water 80.9% considered and established FFSs in areas of transport availability while 61.7% facilitators considered areas having pest management problem. 4.8 Participants’ Selection Criteria for IPM-FFS Training: For obtaining the perception on participants selection criterion considered by facilitators for IPM-FFS training, 13 options were offered and more than 90% of the respondents denied the options that participants for IPM-FFS training considered on the basis of same age group, wealth status, marital status, language basis, religion basis, political affiliation and relationship of the facilitators. More than 80% but less than 90% of respondents denied the criterion of qualification/education level, farm size ownership and status in community; while more than 60% but less than 70% denied criterion supposed to be on farming experience and extent of knowledge on cotton. However, huge majority of respondents (97.9%) advocated that the selection of participants for IPM-FFS training considered on the basis of farmers’ own interest figure 7. 4.9 IPM-FFS: Learning Objectives Achieved: The extent of IPM-FFS learning objectives achieved by facilitators was assessed using a five-point Likert scale (e.g. 1=Not at all, 2=To little extent,


3=To some extent, 4=To considerable extent, 5=To a great extent) and percentage response of each category are presented in figure 8. The facilitators were asked to perceive the extent of IPM-FFS learning objectives achieved while participated and conducted IPM-FFS training; majority of facilitators perceived ‘To a considerable extent’ in ‘capacity building’ (42.60%), ‘empowerment’ (31.90%), “confidence development’ (34.00%) and ‘decision making’ (29.80%), indicating that facilitators achieved the IPM-FFS objectives ‘To considerable extent’. Figure 1: Age Profile of Facilitators Figure 2: Educational Level of Facilitators

Figure 3: Facilitators Designations Figure 4: Facilitators interest Association with Programme


Figure 5: Facilitators Regularity in Training of Facilitators (ToF) Figure 6: Site Selection Criteria for IPM-FFS Training

Figure 7: Participants Criteria for IPM-FFS Training Figure 8: Achievement of IPM-FFS Training Objectives

4.10 Facilitators’ Perception of Self-Assessment: Perception of facilitators was assessed for their self-assessment on the basis of 12 statements related to IPM-FFS training programme through a five-point Likert scale (e.g. 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Undecided, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree). Responses are reported in table 1. Majority of the facilitators had ‘strongly agreed’ that extension utilized its manpower and played a vital role in IPM-FFSs, which was highest average statement (4.21) recorded with the standard deviation 0.93. Besides, the table shows that facilitators were with the statement that incentive increased the interest of facilitators towards IPM-FFS training programme 3.04 (lowest average) with the standard deviation 1.26. These findings were supported by FAO, (2006) reported that FFS could effectively fill the gap in extension services and enable farmers to become more efficient and self-reliant managers of their scarce agricultural resources. The FFS approach had the potential to provide farmers with the practical knowledge and skills to operate more effectively in a market-oriented agricultural system and to enable optimum utilization of services offered by private providers.


Table 1: Facilitators’ perception of self-assessment

Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Undecided, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation

4.11 Improvement in FFS Participants’ Knowledge, Skills and Attitude: The extent of improvement in farmers’ knowledge, skills and behavioral change in attitude was assessed by using a five-point Likert scale (e.g. 1=No change, 2=Minimally improved, 3=Much improved, 4=Very much improved, 5=Not assessed) and responses of the facilitators along with their mean and standard deviation are shown in table 2.

The facilitators were enquired of extent of improvement in farmers’ knowledge through IPM-FFS training; average highest statement about knowledge in application and use of agricultural inputs was 3.09 with standard deviation 0.90. Besides, the table shows that drop lowest average statement regarding improvement in relation to diseases in cotton was 2.79 with standard deviation 1.60. These findings coincide with David (2007), who reviewed knowledge improvement in relation to IPM-FFS and literature relevant to IPM-FFS indicates that varied outcomes do not permit to be reached with regard to the effectiveness of the IPM-FFS approach. Positive results have been acquired to assure the discovery based learning; IPM improved participants' knowledge and also FFS graduates given practical exhibition of their superior knowledge on FFS as compared to non-FFS farmers.


Table 2: Improvement in FFS participants’ knowledge, skills and attitude towards IPM

Scale: 1 = No Change, 2 = Minimally Improved, 3 = Much Improved, 4 = Very Much Improved, 5 = Not Assessed M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation

While knowing the extent of development of farmers’ skills in various farm operations; facilitators indicated that improvement in farmers’ skills related to crop monitoring and critical observation was 3.17 (highest average) with the standard deviation 0.84 and development in farmer skills regarding conservation of natural enemies was (2.68), lowest average improvement in skills, with the standard deviation 1.10. The results of present study are also in line with those reported by Vasquez-Caicedo et al; (2000); Boucher and Ashley (2001) and Godtland et al; (2004), who reported that due to training of farmers under FFS cotton production and protection technologies. The farmers' skills were markedly improved and their average cotton yields were increased considerably.

Facilitators were also asked to perceive farmers’ attitude towards IPM practices after FFS training; facilitators indicated that behavioral change in working relationship of farmers was (3.13), which was recorded highest average statement with the standard deviation 1.05; while drop lowest average statement (2.64) with the standard deviation 1.00 was attitude changed towards the alternative strategies to control insect pest as perceived by facilitators. Bajwa et al; (2010) stated that transfer the skills, knowledge, technologies and facilities among farmers to make certain that hi-tech and scientific developments are reachable to applier who can then advance and make use of the crop production and protection technologies. 4.12 Rank Wise Barriers Faced by Facilitators in IPM-FFS Training: The information gathered about barriers faced by the facilitators during IPM-FFS activities through the open-ended questions as respondent may answer according to their wish and ranked. According to facilitators’ respective opinion, ‘lack of participatory approach among participants was one of the barriers during IPM-FFS activities’ had been the top ranking barrier; while ‘Late coming of the participants at IPM-FFS training’ ranked 2nd and ‘farmers considered pesticides are easy to apply so they felt that it’s useless to go for agro-ecological sound IPM practices’ ranked as 3rd most important constraint as perceived by the facilitators at IPM-FFS activities. Similarly, the polite dealing of the facilitators with participants developed ignorance and lack


of enthusiasm among them, this barrier for facilitators ranked 4th, while 5th ranking barrier was that the ‘some participants thought that facilitator is compelled to run IPM-FFS and they expected extra benefit to attend the training’. The problem that is a barrier and ranked 6th was that ‘Not all participants cultivated cotton so it was difficult to make them understand the harmful and beneficial cotton insect pests’ The 7th ranking as the barrier considered by facilitators that ‘some participants were not interested in all IPM-FFS activities i.e. CESA, insect zoo, sheet preparation and presentation’ (table 3). Table 3: Rank wise barriers/constraints faced by facilitators’ in IPM-FFS training

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of findings / conclusions, several recommendations are proposed. It is also hoped that programme officials will become well aware about constraints / barriers, which were practically faced by facilitators during the Nat- IPM programme activities. In addition, Government of Sindh has launched a mega project i.e. “Sindh Irrigated Agriculture Productivity Enhancement Project (SIAPEP)” that is in inception phase and interventions include establishment of FFSs with a focus on IPM, Training of Facilitators (ToFs) and Natural Enemies Farm Reservoirs (NEFRs). Following recommendation may also provide guidance to the officials / stakeholders, who are associated with such projects / programmes.

Present research showed that IPM-FFSs were established in those areas where easy accessibility and facilities were available, as opposed to the areas infested with pests, excessive use of pesticide and less cotton production despite potentiality in area. Further, in the selection of farmers for IPM-FFS training, gender, wealth, farm-size ownership, and caliber in society were not brought under consideration. Surprisingly, the IPM-FFS had no female in the area under study. Therefore it is suggested that facilitators should not select site plot and participants by their choice in the upcoming IPM-FFS training programmes, but on the basis of need of farming communities. It is also recommended that the females should be inducted or arranged FFSs separately in such projects to accelerate multiple factors. Further, the monitoring and evaluation process to assess the IPM-FFS training is essential. Programme officials or third party evaluators should evolve the methods for supervision and assessment of IPM-FFSs.


Research study revealed that the facilitators performed efficiently in IPM-FFS activities during Nat-IPM programme for cotton that is confirmation of the adoption and a validation of FFS as a successful extension training method to strengthen the agriculture information flow and dissemination of IPM knowledge among farmers. Unfortunately, since the programme ended, IPM-FFS approach has received less importance in the extension system in Sindh province as ToFs have not become a part of regular extension trainings programmes. It is suggested that whole season continuing trainings for ToF may help the extension field workers to learn problem solving techniques, as training is must for change of their mindsets so that they may become real facilitators. In addition, the agriculture extension is the important channel for spreading knowledge and has the capability to present agro-ecological friendly IPM practices through FFS training among the farmers.

The researcher discovered that agriculture extension wing of agriculture department, utilized its manpower and played a vital role in IPM-FFs training programme. Only few field officers of other wings of same agriculture department were involved in IPM-FFS and improved their facilitation skills in ToF. It is suggested that the On Farm Water Management, Agriculture Research, Agriculture Extension and NGOs cooperation increases experimental learning process and their joint capacity for innovation, regarding this, agriculture extension may expand the IPM-FFS programme, to change their individuality working pattern and join hands with other departments/organizations for partnership for sustaining IPM-FFS approach. Because Innovation is the interaction process and well-operation of an innovation system relies on the ability of actors to interact and exchange information and knowledge with one another. Culture of cooperation and contact has to be evolved among the public and private sectors for promoting IPM programmes.

It was disclosed by facilitators that some farmers (FFS participants) ignored and not participated enthusiastically in IPM-FFS training, also thought that facilitators are compelled to run FFSs and they expected extra benefit for growing pesticide free cotton crop. In future IPM-FFS programme, officials may involve investors and exporters who are related to production, marketing and processing and might benefit from cotton so they should develop strong connection with IPM-FFS groups in relation to clean/pure/quality cotton production. It is concluded and worth noting that FFS graduates considered that pesticides are easy to apply so they felt that it’s useless to go for agro-ecological sound IPM practices. Also less interested in IPM-FFS activities. It is recommended that programme officials/implementers of agriculture department should ensure the availability of IPM items and products in the local markets. The pesticide and fertilizer dealers may be sensitized about advantages of IPM products and educate them to pursue the essence of IPM in the national context. It is also recommended that facilitators should incite the IPM-FFS selected farmers at the onset of the training programme so that they may establish small-sized agricultural business projects such as preparation of trichogramma, synthesis of neem-extract, establishment of Natural Enemies Farm Reservoirs (NEFRs) for breeding of useful insects, etc. This will encourage the non-FFS to apply agro-ecological IPM practices. Further, it is suggested that the farmers could be a good source of transferring knowledge and information. The reorientation of FFS participants is important. Regarding this, programme officials need to play an important role to support and persuade farmers who were participated in IPM-FFSs series of trainings. Also, the initiative may be taken by provincial / federal Government for further expansion of IPM-FFS through farmer to farmer training. REFERENCES: Ahmad, I. & A. Poswal, 2000. Cotton integrated pest management in Pakistan: current status. Country

report presented in cotton IPM planning and curriculum workshop, held at Bangkok, Thailand, February 28 - March 2, 2000.

Ahmad, I., M.A. Khan, M.H. Soomro & H. Waibel, 2002. Pesticides hazards for health and environment. “Farming Outlook”. pp. 14-16.

Bajwa, M.S., M. Ahmad & T. Ali, 2010. An Analysis of effectiveness of extension methods used in farmers’ field school approach for agricultural extension work in Punjab Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Research, 48(2): 259-265.

www.theinternationaljournal.org > RJSSM: Volume: 06, Number: 04, August 2016 9

Birner, R., K. Davis, J. Pender, E. Nkonya, P. Anandajayasekeram, J. Ekboir, A. Mbabu, D. Spielman, D. Horna, S. Benin & M. Cohen, 2006. Best practice to best fit: A framework for analyzing pluralistic agricultural advisory services worldwide. Discussion paper No. 37, IFPRI, Washington D. C.

Boucher, T.J. & R.A. Ashley, 2001. Northeast pepper Integrated Pest Management (IPM) manual, University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System Publication. p. 136.

David, S., 2007. Learning for think for ourselves: Knowledge improvement and social benefits among farmer field school participants in Cameroon. Journal of International Agricultural & Extension Education, 14(2): 35-49.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 2007. What is IPM. Retrieved February 01, 2016, from http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ipm/brochure/whatipm.htm

FAO, 2002. International code of conduct on the distribution and use of pesticides. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4544e/y4544e00.htm

FAO, 2004. Report of the twenty third session of the Asia and Pacific plant protection commission. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Bangkok.

FAO, 2005. A training resource manual on planning, organizing, implementing and evaluating farmer field schools for integrated pest management in the near East, Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO, 2006. Strengthening implementation capacity for Integrated Production and Pest Management (IPPM) training based on the Farmer Field School approach in Kyrgyzstan. Pro forma project agreement, unpublished, FAO, Rome. p. 18.

Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. & L.L. Morris, 1987. How to analyze data. London: Sage Publications. The International Professional Publisher.

Godtland, E., E. Sadoulet, A.D. Janvry, R. Murgai & O. Ortiz, 2004. The impact of Farmer Field Schools on knowledge and productivity: A study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 53: 63-92.

GoP, 2011. Economic Survey of Pakistan, 2009-10. Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Davison, Islamabad.

GoS, 2014. Sindh Agricultural Growth Project-Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP), Government of Sindh.

Habib, N., 1996. Invisible Farmers: A study on the role of woman in agriculture and impact of pesticides on them. Khoj Research & Publication Centre, Lahore, Pakistan. p. 129.

Hanif, M., S.A. Khan & F.A. Nauman, 2004. Agricultural Perspective and Policy. Ministry of Food, Agriculture & Livestock, Islamabad.

National Cotton Council of America (NCCA), 2007. The First 40 Days and Fruiting to Finish. National Cotton Council of Am. unnumbered. Memphis, TN.

Nunnaly, J., 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rind, A.W., 2005. Report on cotton IPM activities in Pakistan under FAO-EU IPM programme for

cotton in Asia. IPM Management Unit ATI Sakrand, Nawabshah. p. 2. World Bank, 1997. Integrated Pest Management: Strategies and policies for effective implementation.

Environmentally sustainable development studies and monographs series number 13. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Wunsch, D.R., 1986. Survey Research: Determining sample size and representative response. In K. W. Brown (Ed.). Action Research in Business Education. pp. 31-34.

Transforming Agricultural Sustainability Strategy into ...

Documents

Transcript of Transforming Agricultural Sustainability Strategy into ...