|
| Type: |
Book / Book chapter |
| Language |
English |
| Year of publication: |
2007 |
| Citation: |
Praneetvatakul, S., H. Waibel and L. Meenakanit, 2007. Farmer Field Schools in Thailand: History, Economics and Policy. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 12, Hannover, January 2007. pp. 89. |
| Authors: |
Suwanna Praneetvatakul, Hermann Waibel and Lakchai Meenakanit |
| Target countries: |
Thailand |
| Download: |
www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/.. |
| Summary |
The urgency to explore new avenues of departing from a pesticide-based path in agriculture has been long recognised. For example, in 1997 the Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI), the Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE), the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) together with the University of Hannover, Germany conducted a workshop in Hua Hin, Thailand, to develop strategies that help to escape from the pesticide treadmill that has been taking over Thailand’s agriculture. The workshop reached a consensus for the need to generate policy conditions and other direct government interventions that greatly facilitate the diffusion of Integrated Pest Management in the country.
One of the earlier measures to foster implementation of IPM was a project on Farmer Field Schools in Rice supported by FAO since 1992. The concept of Farmer Field Schools on Integrated Pest Management was developed with the aim to enable farmers to make better decisions based on a good understanding of their field situation rather having to rely on the often imprecise advise from external information sources like the pesticide dealers.
Implementing Farmer Field School is an investment and mostly it is the public sector that provides the necessary funds. Since public funds are scarce and thus compete over alternative ends accountability has become a necessity. Impact assessment provides the necessary information to show administrators and decision makers in international donor organisations and national governments whether these investments were efficient or not. Impact assessment of FFS has proven to be complex because of methodological problems and a large diversity of impact parameters. Also, many of the past impact assessment studies have been conducted under the influence of different perspectives held by stakeholders on what constitutes impact.
Another problem was the oftentimes-problematic databases that were used to conclude on the impact of FFS. Therefore, there was a need for a study that relied on a single, but in as much as possible, consistent database that would allow the conduction of a rigorous scientific analysis.
The papers presented in this book make an attempt to move in this direction. All the analysis presented relies on a unique set of panel data collected over a period of over four years in five pilot projects on FFS in rice in Thailand. While the book does not claim to be a guideline on how to do impact assessment of FFS, it offers a good blend of analytical procedures covering the various aspects of impact. It is hoped that the book will help to rationalize the sometimes overly emotional debate on the pros and cons of Farmer Field Schools in IPM in developing countries.
|
| 1.1 Socio- economic Sector (OECD) |
311 Agriculture
|
| FFS Topics |
Agriculture
|
|
|
|
