Regional Fisheries and Livestock Development Component, Barisal and Noakhali Technical Support Units Farmer Field School

Performance and Impact Evaluation, Cycles 1-4 (FFS completed by April-May 2010) PART I: Background, Rationale, Methodology and Sampling Process 1. Introduction and Rationale 1.1 Introduction and Background The Regional Fisheries and Livestock Development Component (RFLDC) has been operational since its inception on October 1, 2006 and is scheduled to end on December 31, 2012. Both the Technical Support Units (TSU) of Noakhali and Barisal are implementing their planned activities to produce four major outputs (i) Establishment of Integrated Field Schools1 (FFS), (ii) CBO Formation and Development2, (iii) Linkages and Support to the Private Sector (PS)3 and (iv) UP Capacity Building4. These outputs will contribute in achieving RFLDC's immediate objective of 'improved and sustainable productivity of and returns from fisheries and livestock systems of resource poor households'. Two of the recommendations of the Joint Technical Review Mission (JTRM) of the Agricultural Sector Programme Support conducted in 2009 was that RFLDC should be ensure that current initiatives for the two regional units to collaborate on component monitoring would be followed up; and that coordination between the two RFLDCs in Noakhali and Barisal should be formalized in terms, for example, of regular meetings and joint consolidated reporting. In implementation of the recommendations of the JTRM, the Monitoring and Evaluation Units (MEU) of RFLDC have agreed that for evaluation of project interventions and activities under the FFS, CBO, PS and UP common tools would be devised and the results and outcomes would be reported with common reporting formats. Recently the MEUs have taken an initiative to conduct an evaluation study on the Farmer Field School (FFS) interventions using common tools and similar types of progress indicators including some socio-economic indicators. This has been the first attempt of harmonization of M&E activities in RFLDC. 1.2 Rationale for the FFS Impact Evaluation RFLDC has adopted the Farmer Field School (FFS) as its main vehicle for development of resource poor farmers and its incorporation with all other interventions for improving impact and sustainability. The FFS focuses on building farmers capacity to make well-informed crop management decisions through increased knowledge and understanding of the agro-ecosystem. Farmer Field Schools follow a demand-driven curriculum that is determined by the priority
1

Output-1: Effective support to resource-poor households through decentralized, integrated and demand-driven fisheries and livestock extension provision. 2 Output-2: CBOs and farmers associations formed and enabled to successfully articulate their demands to local private and public service providers. 3 Output-3: Linkages with the private sector improved to enable farmers to access quality inputs and markets. 4 Output 4: Local government institutions (Union Parishad) in component areas enabled to address the expressed demands of the local community in relation to the areas of fisheries and livestock development.

constraints identified during needs assessment. FFS encourages farmer experimentation as part of discovery learning. In RFLDC farmer field schools are organized for about 25 households with common interests, who can support each other, both with their individual experience and strengths and to create a 'critical mass'. The main objectives of FFS are: to provide an environment in which farmers acquire appropriate knowledge and skills; to be able farmers to make sound crop (in the fields of fisheries, livestock and vegetables) management decisions; to sharpen farmers abilities to make critical and informed decisions that make their farming activities more profitable and sustainable; to improve farmers problem solving abilities; to show farmers the benefits of working in groups and encourage group activities; to empower farmers to become experts on their own farms and to be more confident in solving their own problems. Both Noakhali and Barisal TSU began their farmer field schools in the middle of 2007 with an initial number of 157 FFS. Based on the experiences of the piloting, both Noakhali and Barisal TSUs began their next round of FFS on a larger scale. However, there were differences in the modalities of the FFS between the two TSU. Noakhali considers each round of FFS to cover a cycle of 18 months whereas Barisal considers an FFS to cover 8-10 months. Nevertheless both TSU have prepared training materials for different modules covering fisheries, livestock and vegetable cultivation and the FFS also includes some social issues like good governance, human right issues and health and nutrition, including HIV/AIDS. Up to April 2010, a total of 1,629 FFS had been phased out in Noakhali TSU from 4 cycles and up to December 2009, a total 2,504 FFS phased out in Barisal from 2 batches. In case of Noakhali TSU, the phase out period FFS was 18 months and in case of Barisal TSU, the phase out period of FFS was for 8-10 months. Table 1: Distribution of phased out Farmer Field School by Cycles/Phases by TSUs
Noakhali TSU
Cycles Cycle-1 Cycle-2 Cycle-3 Cycle-4 No. of FFS 84 191 459 895 Phased out 2008 2009 2009 2010 Batches Batch-1 Batch-2

Barisal TSU
No. of FFS 73 2,431 Phased out 2008 2009

Total FFS

1,629

2,504

Since the inception period, the implementation of the FFS in the command areas of RFLDC has included the following activities: Development of FFS curricula based on farmer's demand in fisheries and livestock, including homestead vegetable gardening;

Recruitment of Local Facilitators (LFs) from farming families in the community with potential for good facilitating skills; Training of these Local Facilitators through season-long-learning sessions run by specialized trainers; Organization of farmers' exchange visits for practical learning and sharing skills. Provision of continuous technical, organizational and management supports provided by RFLDC-TSUs. As mentioned above, both the TSUs have completed several cycles or phases of FFS. It is expected that targeted farming households have achieved considerable livelihood improvement through the process of FFS interventions and other allied activities initiated. Some modest attempts have already been made to measure the impact of the FFS interventions with a relatively small sample of households. However, with the greater number of FFS now completed, it is an opportune time to conduct an evaluation study to measure the short/long-term changes in household production systems of and incomes deriving from fisheries, livestock and crops (vegetables), as well as the changing attitudes, behaviours, skills and capabilities of those targeted households. 2 Objective and Outputs of the FFS Evaluation 2.1 Objectives The general objective of the FFS evaluation study is to assess to what extent the FFS interventions of both TSUs have brought changes in knowledge and adoption behaviours of the farmers, have benefited the resource-poor farmers through increased production and income and have brought about improvements in livelihood. The specific objectives are: to assess to what extent the FFS conducted by the TSUs have been able to bring changes in farmers' agricultural (mainly aquaculture, livestock rearing and vegetable cultivation) practices, production and returns; to determine how far the FFS have contributed in livelihood, food security, employment opportunity and nutrition of rural poor households; to assess the status of womens engagement and employment in rural community to compare specifically the changes in the status of target farming households between cycles and across agro ecological zone and sub-regional categories.

2.2 Outputs The following evidence-based outputs will be generated by the study: Completed evaluation questionnaires Computer based databases of the survey data Both primary and secondary analytical tables and matrices The final report of the FFS evaluation

3. Study Methodology and Sampling Design 3.1 Approach Design and Methodology and Evaluation Tools Impact evaluation assesses the changes that can be attributed to a particular intervention, here the Farmer Field Schools (FFS) conducted in RFLDC, both intended ones, as well as ideally the unintended ones. The methodological approach is participatory and community-based. The study approach is to ask the stakeholders about the impact of the FFS intervention on their life, living conditions and well being of targeted farming households. The study also encourages direct and active participation of the targeted farming community and partners in collecting data, analyzing, reporting, and sharing the results. 3.2 Development of FFS Evaluation Study Tools Farmer Field School (FFS) intervention has been considered as the main vehicle for development of RFLDC. In implementation of FFS several activities have been accomplished and performed since 2007. These include identification of resource poor households and potential local facilitators, onsite trainings and extension services, organized exchange and cross visits and regular follow up visits with technical backstopping. It is expected that there would be likelihood of changes in knowledge and adoption of extended and enhanced farming practices in place, increased production and incomes for the targeted FFS farming households. The focus for the evaluation covers five major farming sub-systems practised by target farmers participating in the FFS, namely: (i) Indigenous poultry rearing and, in the case of the Barisal TSU, broiler farming, (ii) Vegetable gardening, (iii) Aquaculture, (iv) Small ruminant (goat and sheep) rearing, (v) Cattle rearing, including cattle fattening and the rearing of milch cows, as well as nutrition and improved health and hygiene. The study addresses several questions of change in a logical sequence namely, (i) knowledge and adoption of improved practices arising from the FFS learning sessions, (ii) production and income from each of the farming sub-systems, (iii) improvements in consumption and utilization of the improvements in incomes, (iv) views of the overall farmer-to-farmer extension services developed and (v) the degree of exchange of knowledge and skills with other farmers. Initially the M&E unit of Noakhali TSU prepared the first draft of the evaluation questionnaire in English. This was then shared with M&E unit of Barisal TSU. The M&E Managers then jointly reviewed and updated the study tools. Later the draft questionnaire was shared with the Specialists and Upazila Coordinators of the Technical Support Units (TSU) for technical review, comments and feedback. After incorporations of comments and feedback the study tool was translated into Bengali for pre-testing at field levels of both Noakhali TSU and Barisal TSU. (Please refer to Appendix I for a sample of the Evaluation Study Tool)

The pre-testing exercises were done with farming households in both the Noakhali TSU and Barisal TSU service areas. M&E Unit staff members5 actively participated in the field testing exercises at the different locations of both Noakhali and Barisal TSU. After analysing and reviewing pre-testing results, the study tool was finalized and used in the evaluation study. 3.3 Analytical Framework In looking into changes in production systems and incomes of the farming households, quantitative methods have been applied. In estimating changes into behavioural and adoption of farming practices some tolls of qualitative methods e.g. Likert scaling have been applied. Computed results and interpretations have been summarized in tables and matrices for presentations. Sometimes graphical presentations have been included for showing comparative status. 3.4 Defining Sampling Frame and Sampling Units The RFLDC command areas spread over two regions Noakhali (Lakshmipur, Feni, Noakhali plus three Upazilas from Chittagong district) and Barisal (Patuakhali, Barguna, Bhola, Jhalakathi, Pirojpur and Barisal districts). Given the assumption that the relevance of the FFS to the farmer would depend on the agro-ecological context, the initial design of the sample was based upon the different agro-ecological zones in each region. According to the Agro-ecological Zoning of Bangladesh of .., in Greater Noakhali there are four main agro-ecological zones (AEZ-17, 18, 19 and 23), while in Barisal there are only two zones (AEZ-13 and 18). However, these zones were defined several decades ago and often cover large areas. In reality there exist significant differences within some of these zones which affect agricultural potentials. To reflect these differences, we have defined smaller sub-regions based upon other resource characteristics, which are listed in Table 2 for each macro region. Table 2: Definition of Sub-regions

Sub-regions
Noakhali TSU A. Water logged agriculture land B. Irrigated main land and flashflood riverine area C. Coastline land area D. Isolated char land area E. Hill area Barisal TSU A. Inundated areas due to high-low tide B. Irrigated main land and flashflood riverine area C. Coastline land area D. Isolated char land area

In selection of sample households, both purposive and random sampling processes have been followed. To keep the size of the total samples to 5-10% of total population (4,146
5

M&E staff members include M&E Managers (2), Management Information Officers (2), Assistant M&E Officers (2), Assistant Monitoring Officers (3) and Junior Monitoring Officer (22) from both Noakhali and Barisal TSU.

FFS) a total of 450 FFS (200 from Noakhali and 250 from Barisal) sample FFS were drawn randomly from different sub-regions. After that FFS farmers from each FFS have been drawn using simple random system (at least 5 from each FFS for logistical reasons). In this process a total of 2,250 sample households were selected finally for the study. Table 3 shows the distribution of samples by AEZ, sub-region and Upazila.

Table 3 Sample distribution for FFS Evaluation 2010 (Noakhali) lst Cycle 2nd Cycle 3rd Cycle 4th Cycle Total Sub Regional Category/Upazila FFS HH FFS HH FFS HH FFS HH FFS HH Noakhali sadar 2 10 4 20 6 30 Sonaimuri 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 8 40 Begumgonj 2 10 6 30 8 40 Kabirhat 2 10 4 20 6 30 12 60 Chatkhil 4 20 4 20 Senbagh 2 10 2 10 Lakshmipur 2 10 6 30 6 30 14 70 SRC A Subtotal 2 10 6 30 16 80 30 150 54 270 Raipur 2 10 4 20 6 30 12 60 Ramgonj 2 10 6 30 8 40 Feni Sadar 2 10 4 20 6 30 12 60 Daganbhuiyan 2 10 2 10 2 10 4 20 10 50 Chhagaolnaiya 2 10 4 20 6 30 Fulgazi 2 10 2 10 Parshuram 4 20 4 20 SRC B Subtotal 2 10 6 30 14 70 32 160 54 270 Companigonj 2 10 4 20 6 30 Subarnachar 2 10 4 20 6 30 6 30 18 90 Sonagazi 2 10 4 20 6 30 Ramgoti 2 10 4 20 2 10 8 40 Komolnagar 2 10 2 10 4 20 4 20 12 60 SRC C Subtotal 4 20 8 40 18 90 20 100 50 250 Hatiya 2 10 4 20 10 50 20 100 36 180 SRC D Subtotal 2 10 4 20 10 50 20 100 36 180 Mirersharai 6 30 6 30 SRC E Subtotal 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 30 6 30 Grand Total 10 50 24 120 58 290 108 540 200 1,000

Sample distribution of Barisal

Sub-regional Categories A (Irrigated Main B (Coastal Land) C (Isolated area) D (High and Low Tide area) Tota area) l FFS Starting
200 Year 200 7 8 126

Sample
Tota l 129

30 18 0 25 73

950 5 36 62 243 1 1

952 3 36 64 250 6 4

200 FFS200 7 2 8 12

Tota l 13

2 0 2 6

50 4

63 24 6

Sampl e H H 65 26 1 5 52 0 4 20 32 65 25 1,26 5 2 0

3.5 Data Gathering, Computerized Storage, Consistency and Validation Data Gathering and Training for Data Collection: Field data collection has been carried out by the MEU staff members of the TSUs. A total of 27 field staff members (AMOs, AM&EOs and JMOs) from the two MEUs were trained through a piloting data collection process which included understanding of the study tool and direct interviews with the head of the FFS farming household at his/her residence. The field data collection took place during the months of May 2010 to mid-July 2010. Development of Computerized Data Entry Application Program: The filled in evaluation questionnaires were verified by AMOs and AMEOs at their designated base stations. The respective MISO of the MEUs developed computer based databases and customised data entry applications in Microsoft Access which were then distributed and installed into computers for data entry. As all the field level M&E staff members of Barisal TSU have provided Notebook computers, data capture from study questionnaires have been done by them at field levels. But, data entry took place at headquarter level in Noakhali TSU.