pfs training output - dakoro (niger)

PASTORALIST FIELD SCHOOL TRAINING OF FACILITATORS (PFS - TOF)

ORGANIZED AND FUNDED BY;

THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANICATION OF UNITED NATIONS

(FAO NIGER).

IN COLLABORATION WITH

GOVERNMENT OF NIGER (MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK RESOURCES) AND VETERINAIRES

SANS FRONTIERES – BELGIUM (VSFB) NIAMEY REGIONAL OFFICE FOR WEST AFRICA.

24TH December 2011 – 13TH January 2012, In Dakoro town, at VSFB & Karkara conference hall.

Training ouput by:

Francis ANNO, PFS – Consultant Master Trainer.

[email protected], [email protected] +254 (0) 728 853 070, +256 (0) 750 509 072

FAO, VSFB and Government of Niger| PFS training of Facilitators 2

Table of Contents Table of contents ............................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction to PFS and ToF in Niger ............................................................................................................. 4 Executive summary. ......................................................................................................................................... 6

PFS methodology and principles .................................................................................................................. 10

Pastoralism ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

Participatory epidemiology ........................................................................................................................... 13

Intergrated herd health management ........................................................................................................... 14 Experiential learning ...................................................................................................................................... 14

Field learning visits ........................................................................................................................................ 17

PFS core activities. .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 21

Training evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Implementation action plans ......................................................................................................................... 22

Training contents and timing......................................................................................................................... 23

List of participants .......................................................................................................................................... 24


List of Acronyms.

ABCD Asset Based Community Development

AESA Agro Ecosystem Analysis

CAHWs Community Based Animal Health Workers

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations

FFS Farmer Field Schools

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus / AIDS

IGA Income Generating Activities

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

PESA Pastoral Ecosystem Analysis

PFS Pastoralist Field Schools

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

ToF Training of Facilitators

VS&LA Village Savings & Loaning Associations

VSF B Vétérinaires Sans Frontières Belgium


Sensitization of pastoralists in Azagor village on PFS methodology.

Pastoralists at watering point in Azagor. Livestock labour is vital in water extraction

1.0 Introduction. 1.1 Background to PFS approach and its role in building drought resilient pastoral communities.

PFS is an extension approach designed from the original Farmer Field School - FFS concept to enhance discovery based learning among nomadic and semi settled agro-pastoral communities. It is described as a ‘School without walls’, where groups of people learn through observation and experimentation in their own context, based on methods of adult learning. The primary objective of PFS is to improve knowledge (what people know), build on skills (how people do things) and change mind sets (what

people believe in) for sustainable production.

PFS also aims at empowering pastoral communities with knowledge and skills to make them experts in their own context, enable pastoralists’ livelihoods to become more resilient and less vulnerable to disasters such as drought, facilitate pastoralist communities to learn new ways to solve problems and adapt to changes through participatory and discovery based learning. PFS sharpens the ability of pastoralists to make critical and informed decisions that strengthen their coping mechanisms, help pastoralists learn how to best organise themselves and their communities and provide platforms where pastoralists’ groupings, extension and research workers jointly test and adapt options within specific local conditions. PFS approach is in line with principles of Asset Based Community Development (ABCD).

The pastoralists’ system of livestock production is complex based on rich experience and culture that is passed down from one generation to the next. The PFS approach, in contrast to most conventional extension approaches, strengthens the capacity of local communities to analyse their livelihood systems, identify their main constraints and to develop and test possible solutions. This builds articulate, dignified and resilient pastoral communities that can contribute to policy change, maximise use of indigenous knowledge and reduce their disaster associated risks, for example through Early warning systems, disaster mitigation and prevention to survive and cope with effects of drought. PFS is a tool that promotes: Strong pastoral advocacy, proper use of time, human resources, planning and evaluation, sustainable pastoral/dry land agricultural practices, basic health services, education, facilitation of learning and development, alternative livelihoods and entitlements. By merging their own traditional knowledge with external information, pastoralists can eventually identify and adopt the most suitable practices and technologies into their livelihood systems and become more productive, profitable and responsive to changing conditions.


Farmers in Bini Lalle village analysing vegetable garden.

Trainees during the last day of training.

PFS, as participatory learning approach helps pastoralists to acquire new and relevant knowledge and to test innovations. During its inception, Pastoralist Field School approach was thought not to be a new thing but a new thinking for efficient and effective delivery of impact oriented extension packages by the development actors for improved animal health, production, environmental management and social development among pastoral communities.

This concept was adopted in 2005 by VSF Belgium – East Africa, FAO in Kenya and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and pilot tested for the first time in Kenya – Turkana pastoral region i.e. (VSFB area of operation). So far, it has expanded to Uganda, South Sudan and currently on going in Ethiopia and Somaliland involving about 400 PFS groups and considerable number of resource persons active at organizations and communities levels.

Expansion of PFS approach to Niger in 2012 and in the near future to other countries of West Africa is envisaged to support the ongoing efforts of governments and other development partners in sustaining the livestock sector through pastoralism and dry land farming. As depicted by minimal annual rainfall, in countries within Sahara desert, livestock keeping remains one of the leading sectors contributing to national GDPs. The opportunities existing for PFS to cause change remain outstanding on essentials of production i.e. livestock assets, environment, human

capital and sociological aspects.


Official opening of Dakoro PFS ToF by the prefect of the department of Dakoro.

2.0 Executive summary. PFS – ToF training conducted in Dakoro commenced on 24th December 2011 and ended on 13th January 2012. 37 Trainees from 13 organizations benefitted out of this ToF i.e. (Masnat – 2, Aren – 2, Jemed – 2, Adkoul – 2, Tadress – 2, Capong – 2, Timidria – 2, Fnen Daddo – 2, VSFB – 5, Cesao – 2, Karkara – 3, Ministry of Livestock resources – 10 and FAO – 1). Gender proportion of Trainees was (36 men, 1 woman). The facilitation of this training was lead by Francis ANNO – PFS consultant Master Trainer supported by assistant trainers with their names and topics handled in the table below, Topics Facilitators supported by lead trainer. Pastoralism Ag Bika Alhassane, Gordi Hammadou, Najib Issa, Mohamed Ahmed. Integrated Herd health management Drs Abdourahamane Inoussa and Laouli Garba Extension systems Laouli Sama Ecological functions Abdou Issa Participatory epidemiology Dr. Abdourahamane Inoussa Experience of FFS in Niger Dr. Garba Laouli Ethno medicine Dr. Abdourahamane Inoussa Monitoring and evaluation Najib Issa In overall, about 80% of trainees took lead in facilitating the deliverables of this training at different learning sites. The training opening ceremony was officiated by the prefect of the department of Dakoro in the afternoon of 24th December 2011. From his speech, he recognized PFS as an extension methodology to necessary to enhance pastoralist’s capacity building, empowerment, confidence development and capacity of decision making in order to ensure productivity of livestock and the environment. The prefect assured of his support to the PFS ToF programme at any time of need. Participatory and adult based learning methods were practiced during this training such as Facilitation – Guiding the learning process, Focus Group Discussions, use of folk media e.g. video documentaries, pictures, sketches, experiences from other areas i.e. Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan, Drama and role plays, field excursions, practical demonstrations (Hands on learning). These methods were employed in a manner required by PFS methodology. Concerning the training contents, week one covered general aspects of field schools with emphasis on supporting topics, discovery based learning concepts, production systems characterization, livelihoods identification, prioritization, Disaster Risk Reduction and mentoring of trainees. In week two, the training majored on PFS core activities i.e. learning and application, designing of experimental trials, field visits and continuous mentoring of trainees. Week three was programmed to deliver organization and implementation process of PFS, (phases & stages), boundary partners and participatory monitoring and evaluation plan, evaluation and documentation of presentations from trainees with mentoring for better understanding of the whole training contents.


Experiential learning cycle adopted during session recaps.

Recap of the previous day’s activities and topics was treated as an important item in the daily learning programme. Recap exercises were done in turns with host groups using experiential learning cycle which was a powerful tool that resulted to better understanding of PFS process as delivered during this training. This technique has got 4 stages i.e. Experience which facilitates remembering of the contents of the previous day, Reflection that leads to discussion on relevance of the contents of the previous day while taking into account what went well and what did not. Conclusion part helps in concretizing knowledge and lessons learned i.e. Issues well understood and those that require more input. Finally, Application that facilitates how knowledge can be transferred to the field e.g. to PFS groups.

Facilitation of the training programme focused on aspects of field

schools methodology with more emphasis put on PFS adaptation. Learning took place in the training hall for electronic presentations (VSFB / Karkar conference hall), under trees at villages of Azagor and Bini - Lalle and pastoralists’ settlements during practical sessions. Participatory training methods were applied. Lecture method was least used. PowerPoint presentations were made on videos, pictures, photos and sketches. The training was based on practical approach in relation to lessons learned from past ToFs conducted especially in Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia. To enhance experiential learning, video documentaries showing PFS process implementation and impacts were presented. Mentoring was treated as part of training. At the end of training, I8 trainees had benefited out of mentoring services (Direct consultations with lead trainer and subject specialists). Individual trainees who had been given specific questions to prepare for purposes of revision and documentation, performed so excellently. Concerning the successes of this ToF, All trainees demonstrated good understanding of PFS methodology and Facilitation process. They participated actively in training activities with minimal cases of absenteeism. At the end of the three weeks period, 37 trainees graduated and certificates presented to them. Trainees were confident to learn and share experiences which were emanating from their technical fields and areas of operation. Trainees made proper use of facilitators in areas that needed extra coaching and mentoring. Final training evaluation was rated by 60% of trainees i.e. 22 out of 37 as excellently conducted with no cases of unsatisfactory scoring as presented in the figure 1 below; (Table of details as Annex).

Dakoro – ToF: Evaluation results.

60% i.e. 22 trainees

out of 37.

32% i.e. 12 trainees

out of 37.

8% i.e. 3 trainees

out of 37.

0% i.e. No cases of

unsatisfactory scoring

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor


PFS ToF trainees conducting AESA at the vegetable garden in Bini - Lalle.

Use of Experiential learning tool to analyse and revise past

sessions.

Community needs analysis process.

Results of evaluation process were based on: Relevance of the training to participants jobs, methods of facilitation / techniques of training, logical flow of training programme and activities, training contents, process and achievement of expectations, clarity of sessions and trainers, participants involvement in learning, identification of opportunities to practice PFS, visual aids: videos, photos, drawings, the interchange of ideas among trainers and trainees, field visits and meals/ accommodation. 2.1 Knowledge and skills obtained from PFS training. Trainees pronounced the training as good and relevant to their day to day’s activities. It had a lot of knowledge and skills necessary for enhancing capacities in training and transformation of local communities. PFS approach is vital because it takes into account both modern and local technologies in enhancing intended productivity. As guided by its fundamentals, it was so encouraging for trainees to discover knowledge and skills through use of participatory learning tools and discovery based concepts. Beyond doubt, PFS was appreciated as new approach of development that is easy to understand leading to efficiency and effectiveness in influencing needs of communities. As compared to other approaches targeting nomadic and semi settled pastoral communities, PFS was recognized as an empowering methodology indeed to contribute to efforts already in place for livestock development in Niger and the neighbourhood. 2.2 What trainees liked most during the PFS training.

The fact that livestock herders are given opportunity to handle PFS processes is an interesting idea. Logical flow, relevance and coherence of training themes and contents, positive attitude of trainers coupled with mastering of training techniques and their applications gave training participants easy time to grasp training contents and process. PFS approach is an interactive and participatory learning process that takes into account possibilities of adults especially illiterate taking part in issues of their learning and development. The use of visual aids, video documentaries, and professional translation services enhanced better understanding of the training programme. The lead trainer ensured harmonized understanding of PFS training contents by all participants.

2.3 What is likely going to change in the way of service delivery in the field. Training participants acknowledge their improved capacities in training styles, reporting methods and efficient tools to enhance skilful approach to training. Trainees have known need to keenly focus on development of rural communities with full integration of community mobilization and participation. Learning tools will be used to add value to communities decision making processes through organized problem identification and provision of possible solutions through action research practices.


Major production system in Niger is Livestock keeping.

2.4 General recommendations on PFS development. There should be continuous PFS trainings being run in Niger on annual basis leading to more PFS groups established and expanded to reach more pastoralist areas. FAO and respective organizations should support PFS groups and facilitators especially during this pilot phase. FAO, VSF Belgium and the government of Niger should support extension of PFS to reach many livestock related stakeholder partners in several countries of West Africa. Monitoring and evaluation component of PFS should be put in place using tools delivered during this training. There is need for exposure of the facilitators to East African countries where PFS approach has taken roots. There is need to solicit government support to ensure PFS establishment process is recognized and given consideration at field level as one of extension approaches for pastoral communities. More training on DRR is needed to improve capacity of PFS facilitators to understand Risks and Hazards facing pastoral regions and livelihood assets. PFS groups should be linked to customary resource management system to support in building community mechanisms on environmental management. Role of PFS facilitators and respective organizations should be strengthened to develop responsibilities and action oriented engagement of stakeholders to support PFS plans and targets. In future PFS – ToFs, efforts should be made to increase numbers of women participants. This will ensure built capacity for women in livelihoods and gender development leading to their concretized roles in production.

2.5 Recommendations for sustainable PFS initiatives in West Africa.

Understanding the main production systems and differentiating the two, i.e. primary and alternative livelihood options of an area is key for a PFS trainer/facilitator to solicit support, influence and to understand the entry points in ensuring establishment of demand driven PFS. Field schools adaptations must be based on pre-condition and initial surveys to inform which adaptation is applicable in a given area, e.g. PFS – in pure and agro - pastoralists context, FFS in purely crop farming areas.

PFS standards should not be compromised, i.e. the whole process from precondition survey, implementation, capacity to deliver,

selection, identification of learning site, applicability, appropriate adaptations, and inputs for learning, graduation and post PFS activities should all be followed without compromising any stage. Learning grants to field schools for independency and sustainability of PFS activities is vital for implementing organizations to include in their fund raising proposals.

2.6 Action planning of the ground working and establishment stages of PFS preparatory phase. ToF trainers supported trainees in developing their action plans to operationalize PFS process in all departments represented. It was made clear to trainees that the duration possible for ground working and establishment stages to take (when time is available) is 2 to 3 months. In cases of emergency interventions, this period may be shorter to give room for PFS groups to participate in urgent interventions. Action plans developed showed ground working process starting 1st week of March 2012 in all areas with the assumption that all the concerned stakeholders will be ready to implement PFS by then. (Action Plan as Annex).


2.7 Specific aspects of PFS methodology and Principles. PFS is a structured concept that delivers systematic extension packages in production and sociology (Tested concept). Its uniqueness is based on the pillars that support its process implementation and objectivity in facilitating learning through discovery of knowledge and skills. Principles of PFS ensure conducive environment for learning and application of the concept deliverables. As discussed in the principles below; objectives and indicators to verify that PFS is built on such pillars was vital for trainees to internalize for efficiency and effectiveness in PFS process delivery. (Indicators developed by trainees). Learning by doing. This principle enhances learning through accumulation and consolidation of practical experiences. It is verified If PFS members are participating actively in group activities, joint planning and implementation of PFS action plans, each PFS member having a role to play either as an individual or through host teams, members doing/performing their responsibilities, members built interest in PFS activities, members improved skills in problem solving, members highly motivated to learn, if there is sharing of roles among members.

Learner led study. It facilitates demand driven learning that focuses on the learning needs of the beneficiaries. This is indicated by: if simple methods for learning are discovered and practiced, if experience sharing is present, members getting interested and able to generate areas for learning and facilitator not dictating areas for learning. Learning from mistakes. Its objective is to give opportunity for participants to evaluate their actions and performance for subsequent implementation of the suggested resolutions. Is verified if PFS members are confident to take position, comments, to ask questions and give answers with no fear for making mistakes, members getting opportunity to express their own ideas, desire to learn and discover new things/innovations, high self esteem, Mistakes not taken as great sin, Mistakes are forgiven to learn from and people’s behaviour being shaped morally. Learning how to learn. It helps create a learning culture that considers need to continue building on existing knowledge and skills that can enhance improved decision making among pastoralists. It is verified when PFS members discover simple methods of study, Simple ways to learn fast, experience sharing is present, members enjoying their learning, documentation of each step made by PFS members and more learning being generated.


Need for farmers to regularly analyse their enterprises i.e. crops and livestock.

Problem posing and problem solving. It gives opportunity for viewing community problems as an opportunity to learn and discover way forward. Verified by Identification of real problems of the community and giving possible solutions, when ideas are generated to solve problems, evidence of goal setting and team spirit, members taking initiatives, commitment to problem solving process, well empowered traditional institutions through confidence in decision making. The herd, livestock and the environment is the learning ground. It ensures that pastoralists learn from where the subject matter is. (On site Learning). Verified when PFS is planning for field visit to learn on different issues, e.g. Water rehabilitation issues discussed at the water points, PFS doing activities to improve people’s way of life, their herds and the environment.

Facilitation, not teaching. It empowers the facilitator and the entire PFS group to adopt facilitation system of learning through guiding the learning process with participation of everybody. Evident when there is good environment for learning from each other, the facilitator is only guiding the learning process, questions and answers are from PFS members, facilitator gives his/her packages in facilitation styles, there is interactive learning, leadership skills being developed, PFS members capable of running sessions, and PFS members are responsible for learning process. Unity is strength. It empowers PFS members to work together and perform activities with concerted efforts and together discover new and unique knowledge, skills and practices. (1+1=3). It is indicated by members listening to each other, respect, planning together, coordination, team spirit present, punctuality, good communication, commitment to PFS principles and work/learning process, and Courage.

Every PFS is unique. It ensures each PFS group is focusing on the real issues of specific localities, facilitate its needs and realities. No PFS which is copyright of the other. This is enhanced by unique goal setting, PFS tackling real problems of specific locality, desire to solve their own and common problems, desire to learn new things, developing different skills for problem solving. Systematic learning process. It helps in facilitating procedures for learning involving key steps: observation, reflection, group discussion, analysis, decision making and action planning with necessary inputs. In systematic learning, time is a factor for efficiency and effectiveness of PFS programmes. It is verified by step by step learning, organized, coordinated and recorded, clear goal setting, end results perceived, everything recorded as


new thing emerge, properly scheduled activities and plans, there is no waiting for miracles to happen overnight, members ask questions on related topics, the beginning and the end of PFS cycle is known.

PFS Season long learning; from dry to wet to cold then back to dry season.

3.0 Pastoralism. The subject of pastoralism was delivered to trainees through Focus Group Discussion based on questions distributed to subgroups. Pastoralism was understood as a production system whereby those involved (Pastoralists) derive about 50% of their livelihood from livestock and the rangelands. All trainees being from pastoral communities had much understanding on the lifestyle of pastoralists with considerable contributions on how pastoralism is conducted in Niger and its neighbourhood. The challenges facing pastoralists in practicing pastoralism were highlighted and discussed by trainees such as: drought, insecurity, lack of enough forage for livestock, poor livestock markets, scarcity of water resources, lack of modern knowledge among pastoralists, climate change and migration. The discussion over this subject was intensified by the impact of the current droughts on the people, livestock and the environment. Seasonal variation was reported as a good indicator of climate change. Rains do not come as expected and when they come, are either minimal or erratic causing flooding and destruction of environment and livelihoods. Pillars needed to practice and sustain pastoralism were also discussed. It was clearly understood that to practice pastoralism, the herds (Livestock), the people (Pastoralists) and the natural resources (Environment) should be in place. As evident nowadays, pastoralism is becoming a difficult venture because, environmental factors such as climate change and droughts have caused limitation in natural resources that reduces livestock kept and pastoralists not able to get all the requirements needed for welfare support. The linkages between the three pillars were demonstrated in relation to the management of existing rangelands. It was appreciated that there is unproportionality in managing the three pillars such as: If livestock population increase, natural resources get depleted and so if people do not protect the environment, livestock do not get enough resources for production. Possible opportunities for PFS were presented such as: ensuring extension among pastoral communities, conducting experiments on the best options for pastoralists to apply to their herds and environment and building on gender roles through community mobilization and participation in issues of their own development.


Health management in drought.

4.0 Participatory epidemiology. This topic was facilitated by Dr. Abdourahmane Inoussa of Ministry of Livestock resources of Republic of Niger. This subject was introduced as a study of patterns of diseases in populations with participation of those concerned to find solutions to their own development challenges. At the end of the introductory part, trainees had understood epidemiology as use of participatory approaches to improve pastoralists understanding of patterns of diseases in populations, a way of learning from and with community members, a method by which a trained team can quickly and systematically collect information and use for common understanding. It can be applied in non literate rural communities to collect and own their knowledge. Trainees were also instructed that when doing participatory epidemiology to consider: - listening to the views of all people in a group, optimal ignorance (collect every information but stick to those relevant to the subject), flexibility (change, adapt and modify as the situation goes), visualization (use drawings and pictures so that everybody can understand easily), triangulation (every time cross-check the information you get from different directions) and using different types of tools to verify the data. The objectives of participatory epidemiology were linked to PFS approach whereby it is important to detect the presence of livestock diseases in the target area(s), to describe the incidence and mortality of livestock diseases, to ascertain temporal distribution of livestock diseases in the areas for interventions and to determine previous history of suspected livestock diseases in the target area(s). In cases of PFS study through experiments and follow up on disease timelines, Participatory Epidemiology becomes an important tool for learning. Trainees were also introduced to methods of information collection such as semi-structure interviews, mapping, seasonal calendar, timelines, ranking and scoring methods which were discussed and practiced by all trainees. The following show results of a few practical exercises conducted by trainees with the support of facilitators

Transect walks. Mapping. Interviews with pastoralists. 5.0 Integrated herd health and production management.

(Lead facilitator was Dr. Laouali Garba of FAO Niger). The concept of integrated herd health and production management focused on production of livestock that economic returns could be realized by the owners. The concept empowers PFS facilitators and pastoralists to understand different aspects necessary for improved animal health, production and management practices. An educative drawing at VSFB compound in Dakoro was used to explain the topic of the day. A picture of drought affected cattle in south omo - Ethiopia was used to create discussions on drought as a natural disaster and its impact on livelihoods if not well managed as shown below.


Drought: South Omo – Ethiopia 2011.

Trainees were asked to outline the possible challenges to cattle production in Niger pastoral ecosystems and these were the responses: Livestock diseases, Drought, Insecurity, limited feeds and water during dry periods of the year, migration to far places, external and internal parasites, predators, poor breeding methods and zoonotic infections among others. Using such discovery based concepts; PFS will ensure step by step facilitation process of the issues affecting pastoralists leading to development of sustainability solutions. Concerning the necessary inputs to be provided to the livestock in these areas, trainees gave: livestock vaccination, using local and modern de-wormers, planting of forage trees to supplement the local available nutrition such as grass, acacia pods, construction of more water wales, maintenance of existing wales, seeking advice from wildlife authority when the problem of predators is beyond the coping capacity of pastoralists.

6.0 Experiential learning Challenges faced by PFS groups In Kenya, Uganda and South Sudan. The objective of this session was to depict a practical scenario whereby trainees could learn from the process of PFS facilitation as practiced in the three countries mentioned above. In implementing PFS, there are different and high expectations from some of the facilitators and group members wanting handouts (for personal gains) from PFS implementing agencies. As well, due to lack of learning grants provided to PFS groups, pressure is realized by members to contribute resources for group learning needs. Food insecurity causing absenteeism in members’ attendance to PFS sessions because they have to move out in search of food for their families. Technical competence of some group facilitators e.g. not being CAHWs or trained in Agricultural extension causes facilitation gap that leads to lack of satisfaction of group members in specific areas for learning. Insecurity at various levels is a common challenge in pastoralists’ areas especially in Karamoja – Uganda and this has a negative impact on PFS establishment and implementation since pastoralists are not well settled to attend learning sessions regularly. Lack of incentives / motivation for PFS facilitators and members to sustain groups throughout implementation phase and post PFS stages has constrained the progress of PFS groups. Constant migration pauses a challenge much as migration is practiced as drought coping mechanism, it can on the other hand be a major hindrance to the implementation of PFS activities since groups get disorganized, especially those that migrate to different directions making it difficult to conduct parallel sessions.


Mitigation measures and methodological recommendation for all PFS practitioners based on the above experience are: -

- For each PFS group to be formed, the prioritized focal enterprises should contribute to reduction in challenges of production in the area. This can motivate members towards learning.

- Proposals developed should be inclusive of learning grants then to be disbursed directly to PFS groups (Avoid project level management of funds) according to needs and priorities including catering for facilitators’ incentives.

- Alternative options of contributions other than cash, e.g. members should be allowed to contribute in kind inputs such as supplementary feeds and other resources they may require to facilitate learning.

- Regular trainings followed by refreshers to update and address learning gaps. - Thorough leveling of members’ expectations done at ground working stage before the actual

implementation of PFS concept enables interested members derive a common objective/interest for all to attain at the end.

- It was also made clear to trainees that the ground working activities for PFS should be concluded towards the end of the wet season so that season long learning to begin at the onset of the dry season where production challenges are visible for hands on learning. (This depends on the dry period if manageable and if not; learning shall be suspended as pastoralists resort to coping mechanisms such as migration. Running parallel sessions during times of drought is more ideal – This was a great debate during this training).

- Inclusion of some group members other than the initial trained facilitators in ToFs and refresher trainings is worth considering for building internal capacity on facilitation roles for considerable number of PFS members.

- PFS groups organizing for outreach services in form of peace crusades, community sensitization and for common activities that bring communities together through joint participation. In this way, even the conflicting communities can get an opportunity to amicably discuss their differences.

- Conduct thematic study tours and Field days to learn and disseminate knowledge to others.

Results of some comparative field experiments conducted in Turkana Kenya and Karamoja Uganda were also shared to build trainees capacities in designing their own trials. Goat meat production trial was conducted in Turkana whereby herding part of the experiment was regarded as control compared to supplementation. Out of the 2 He goats compared, at the end of the experiment, supplemented He goat was sold price worth USD 50 while the control was sold price worth USD 10. Half confinement involving 5 chickens with regular feeding was compared to other 5 chickens put under free range system in Moroto. At the end of the trial, the Half confined had increased to 35 chickens while the free range reduced to only 1. The lessons learned here strengthened the need for experimentation in PFS because it promotes discovery based learning for improved knowledge, skills and change of attitude (PFS primary objective) as shown here below;


Pictorial experimental setups developed by trainees.

Goat meat production trial – Turkana 2008. Poultry half confinement trial – Moroto2010.

Training participants designed four (4) experiments using examples from Eastern Africa referred countries. This involved 2 field trials and 2 comparative experiments i.e. crop pest control, livestock feeding, vegetable growing and livestock external parasite control. The design involving experiments titles, objectives, material inputs needed, procedure of experimentation and monitoring and evaluation plan were well practiced and internalized. Following the expected outputs set by the lead facilitator i.e. trainees able to understand the principles of experimentation in PFS, designing of experiments based on local needs, generation of possible solutions and capability to set such experiments at field level were well achieved. Below are pictorials depicting the layout of some of the designed experiments: -

7.0 Video documentaries presented during the PFS ToF. Two major video documentaries were presented for trainees to learn from. One of the documentaries was developed by the consortium of VSFs under ECHO – RDD phase 1of 2009 funding and the other developed by FAO – Uganda under drought preparedness project funded by ECHO in 2008. The objective was to develop mental checklist and trainees being able to learn and analyze the documentations. The following are the observations and resolution made: -

- Children getting malnourished should be supported earlier before the problem worsens by educating mothers on best diet for infant children.

- Due to water scarcity causing mobility among pastoralists, there is need to develop water resources especially in areas with pasture potential. (Temporary water sources to minimize permanent settlements that can lead to environmental depletion).

- Increase production of different food crops not only Sorghum and millet grown in large scale. This will enhance food security and improved diet among the agro – pastoralists.

- Increase CAHWs trainings for better coverage in providing animal health and production services.

- Ensure measures for soil and water conservation because soil erosion is becoming a big concern leading to continuous degrading of pastoral lands.

- Explore markets for farm and livestock produce. This will enable pastoralists explore economic returns from their livestock and dry land crops.


- Construction of schools for pastoralist’s children is also vital to facilitate transfer of knowledge that will eventually reduce illiteracy levels as evident in Pastoral regions.

- In order to reduce spread of livestock diseases, pastoralists should be properly sensitized on disease control measures and raising up of healthy and productive livestock.

- Modern irrigation systems should be developed for pastoralists to produce enough food other than total dependency on food aid.

- Increase livestock vaccination exercises to combat Goat plaque disease and other preventable livestock prevalent epizootics.

- Strong coordination between government, donors and communities should be established and strengthened for sustainable development.

- Drought preparedness is essential to facilitate resilience among pastoralists and their assets.

Field Learning Visits. Terms of reference for Field visit to Azagor village: - The first Field visit was conducted on 29th December 2011 and all trainees and facilitators participated. A long side testing preliminary topics covered during the first week of ToF, the other target was to visit pastoralists’ settlements in order to establish the following: -

- To learn from the challenges affecting pastoralists’ way of life i.e. to establish specific challenges affecting people, livestock and their environment.

- Collect information using PRA tools on prevalent Livestock diseases, livelihoods diversification within pastoral context and seasonal variations.

- Learn on the effects of drought, pastoralism and establish livestock benefits and loses to pastoralists.

- Find out the level of practice of indigenous knowledge in improving animal health and production by encouraging trainees to document traditional practices employed in livestock management.

- To compare pastoral settlements and resource based management practices. - To document extension systems available in pastoral areas and - To identify opportunities for PFS in the areas visited and recommend possible interventions to

improve people’s capacity in enhancing production and sociological improvement. Terms of reference for field visit to Bini Lalle village: - The second field visit was conducted on 8th January 2012. Alongside practical application of PFS aspect, trainees during this field visit majored on practical exercises on ecosystem analysis (general), Pastoral Ecosystem analysis using transect walks conducted to find out living and non living things in the environment and their relationships developed and analyzed by trainees using AESA and PESA format.

- In analyzing the agricultural specimens (Livestock and crops), Agro ecosystem analysis exercise was conducted to develop interactions existing among environmental components.

- Area production system analysis and prioritization of community livelihood activities and identification of challenges facing pastoralists’ production activities was conducted in subgroups with the support of the pastoralist from the same locality.

- Categorization of community challenges to be addressed either through special topics, comparative field experimentation, study tours or participatory demonstrations. (This was done purposely to support curriculum development and objectivity in planning PFS core activities based on community issues of concern).

- Still at Bini Lalle village, trainees were to identify opportunities to be addressed by PFS.


Lessons learned from the Field visits. From the two field visits, trainees appreciated having a lot of issues within communities they live and working in and so a number of measures need to be put in place to facilitate expected changes. As referred in the terms of reference for the first field visit, challenges affecting pastoralists’ production systems and livelihoods are so adverse that productivity of the living assets and environment is retarded limiting the expected benefits. There are modal pastoralists in Bini Lalle (Exemplary good modal pastoralists) who have produced healthy and productive livestock through supplementation with local available feeds. 8.0 PFS core activities. These are the principle activities undertaken during season long period of PFS to facilitate learning, interactions, experience sharing and technology development in enhancing required knowledge, skills and change of mindsets of target groups. The core activities in this case are: Comparative Field experiments, Agro & Pastoral ecosystem analysis, Special topics, group dynamics and Participatory monitoring and evaluation. Trainees exercised the implementation of all core activities as discussed below; AESA & PESA. AESA process was conducted using a horse and vegetable garden to improve decision making on management. As presented to trainees, AESA is a tool to help monitor experiments that are designed on agricultural specimens such as crops and livestock. The sample of the experiment should be considerable for all sub groups to participate in managing and monitoring respective portions of it. At the end of the practice session, trainees had understood the process and the importance of undertaking AESA as a cornerstone core activity in discovery based learning. The four steps in conducting AESA process begin with: Observation and discussion both done at subgroup levels then presentations are done in the plenary before synthesis on the lessons learned and final decisions to be taken and implemented by the entire PFS group.

AESA stages and process as conducted during Dakoro ToF.


FAO officer Dr. Laouali Garba presenting a special topic on livestock disease control.

Trainees presenting group dynamics exercises (Role play).

Special topics. Special topics as a core activity was introduced as an activity undertaken during the PFS learning sessions that is used to widen the scope of knowledge and skills. As presented to trainees, it was stressed that special topics need to be facilitated by a competent person (May be by PFS facilitator or external facilitator) and it usually lasts for approximately 1 hour. Maximum curiosity is needed while conducting special topics because it is one of the 3 key aspects of the PFS guide. Trainers made use of the following questions to facilitate the whole learning process on special topics including practical aspect of it (Facilitation as demonstrated by trainees): - What is a “Special Topic” in PFS? Why the “Special Topic” in PFS, What are the objectives of the “Special Topic” in PFS? How do you identify “Special topics” in PFS? How do you think “Special Topic” should be presented during the PFS sessions? Group dynamics.

Group dynamics as a core activity was introduced as: A variety of exercises, games, activities, quizzes, etc employed during training for team building, breaking the ice, re-energizing, refreshing, mind teasing, etc. the importance of having group dynamics exercises in PFS was explained based on different types of possible exercises to be employed in PFS such as introduction of topics and experiments, enhancing participation, dynamics to help solve group conflicts and discovery based learning. Like in special topics, facilitators adopted the same methodology

of using questions to guide the learning process on group dynamics in PFS. The questions used were: - What is “Group Dynamics” in PFS

context? Why have group dynamics? (The purpose they serve), List four types of group dynamics stating their usefulness? And when should group dynamics be used? (When are they most appropriate?). The following are the group dynamics exercises and energizers practiced by trainees during this ToF. No Type of group dynamic Objective Lesson learnt. 1 PFS clapping

(Two rounds of three fast clap followed by one loud clap).

Motivation and PFS identity.

Appreciate and use the energizer to facilitate the PFS learning process.

2 Group Names and Slogan. (Nagge, Azawak, Amali, Chamaux).

One voice for team building, training understanding and use as energizer.

Each sub group linking its name and slogan to the learning process.


3 Clapping using the phrase “ Give - Give again’’ (Give – clap once –Give again – clap 3 times) using the local languages represented in the training.

To convey the importance of giving knowledge for pastoralists.

As a facilitator, be ready always to give/share your knowledge to pastoralists so that they develop their skills and change their attitudes in order to boost the production of livestock and increase their income for better livelihoods. Learning about different cultures also is more captivating and uniting.

4 Collecting fruits hanging on the tree branches and those fallen down while counting one to ten. (Mango tree).

To depict community participation.

The idea behind this exercise is to enable PFS members learn on the importance of participation in production and working together with others to realize the group set objectives and targets.

5 Chinese whisper Second hand observation Correct information should be conveyed correctly to achieve the anticipated results. Under involvement of many parties, there should no difference in messages being conveyed. Feedback is important as interests may change the message intention.

6 Ostrich song Energizer/icebreaker Group cohesion

Increase learning capacity.

7 Drama on livestock diseases. To perceive the learning easily

Seeing is better than hearing to remember that has been taught

8 Coconut (participants stand up and sing a song while writing the letters “C-O-C-O-N-U-T” With their bodies.

Energizer/icebreaker Increased concentration Increased learning capacity.

9.0 Participatory monitoring and evaluation. PM&E is an important core activity in PFS process because it helps in gauging if the group is making progress or not. It is always implemented by group leaders, members and supporting project staff and donor representative. The primary objective for PM&E process is to develop learning points to help influence the PFS operations. Trainees and their supervisors were cautioned not to take PM&E process as a tool to cause discouragements among the PFS implementing team on the group. They all agreed that the process to assess PFS groups and projects should be thoroughly consultative and inclusive of the entire PFS boundary partners. The following are the possible areas to be monitored and respective tools to facilitate information collection.


Changes in livestock productivity. Indicators Tools Herd size Proportional pilling Milk yield in Shoats, Cattle and camels Farm records, Observations guided by AESA / PESA.

Discussions, Oral testimonies. Changes in body condition as result of nutrition Drawings (PESA), Observation. Reduction in disease incidence Proportional pilling, CAHW Statistics, DVO reports. Weight of kids at birth Records and observation (PESA). Mortality rates in young stock Oral testimonies, Proportional pilling. Time between birth and market weight Records and Observation (PESA). Lactation period Trend lines, Records. Proportions of lactating animals in a herd Proportional pilling, Individual records. Seasonal Feed availability Seasonal calendar, Transect walks. Resource mapping. Adoption of appropriate technologies. % of members adopting new technologies, Replication of knowledge learnt through exchange visits, improved livestock productivity – livestock production records, improved animal health, technology helping in managing common problems.

Changes in household income. Improved cash economy at village level, improved household diet, more IGAs by Field school members, access & affordability of Education / medical services, Savings through VSLA / VICOBA, access to loaning services. End of Training evaluation. The exercise to evaluate the Dakoro PFS training was conducted with participation of all trainees (37). The methodology used was a score sheet that was containing areas for evaluation, scores and remarks. The results of the exercise are as summarized in the table below (Format for evaluating PFS Trainings adopted in 2009). Scores against parameters S/N Parameters Excellent Good Fair Poor Comments / Reasons 1 Relevance of training to

participants jobs 26 11

0 0 Additional tools to support

community learning processes.

2 Method of facilitation / techniques of training

21 14

2 0 Good enough

3 Logical flow of training programme and activities

21 15

1 0 Training programme well accomplished

4 Training contents, process and achievement of expectations

22 12

3 0 Contents riming with process.

5 Clarity of sessions and trainers 20 16

1 0 Audible, clear enough and easy to understand.

6 Participants involvement in learning

28 9

0 0 Highly participative and interactive.

7 Learning on opportunity to practice PFS

25 11

1 0 Good enough

8 Visual aids : Videos, photos, 19 13 5 0 Good experiences


drawings 9 The interchange of ideas among

trainers and trainees 30 4

2 0 At maximum

10 Field visits and practice 25 11

1 0 Good and encouraging learning process

11 Meals and accommodation 5 15

16 1 Good but needed improvement

Totals (Sum scores) 242 131 32 1 % 60% 32% 8% 0% Trainees distribution (out of 37) 22 12 5 0

10. PFS schedule (Ground working and Implementation). All participants adopted the same format possibly taking effect as from March 2012. PHASES Key Activities to be undertaken by PFS

Facilitators and Organizations. March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 12

w1

w2

w3

w4

w5

w6

w7

w8

w9

w 10

w11

w12

w 13

w 14

Phase 1. Preparatory phase.

Step 3

General ground working

1 Making contact with the community – (Initial survey).

2 Community awareness raising 3 Identification of PFS participants 4 Identification of focal activity 5 Identification of learning site Step 4

PFS Establishment

1 Participatory introduction of participants

2 Levelling of expectations 3 Host groups formation 4 Participatory planning of PFS

activities

5 Legalization and Submission of PFS grant proposal

Phase 2. Implementation phase.

Step 5.

PFS sessions with core Activities

1 Undertake learning on special topics& other group activities

2 Undertake designed experiments.


11. PFS ToF Training programme. Week 1: (24th – 30th Dec 2011): General aspects of field schools (PFS) methodology and supporting topics. Introduction to Field Schools Concepts (From FFS to LFFS to PFS, objectives, characteristics and group dynamics), Participatory methods and tools for use in PFS, Principles of field schools, Adult learning principles, Pastoralism, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), vulnerabilities, hazards and risk profiling in pastoral areas, Participatory epidemiology, underlying concepts in PFS, concept of ecosystem, integrated herd management, concept of what is this - what is that?, Field visit at the end of week 1 – to test the preliminary topics and their application in the field.

Week 2: (31st Dec 2011 – 6th Jan 2012): PFS implementation and areas resources management. PFS core activities (Agro ecosystem analysis, Field comparative experiments, special topics, group dynamics, monitoring and evaluation), Field practice in designing core activities, Setting Field experiments, Soil and water conservation, Ethno veterinary, Designing PFS group dynamics exercises, Drought cycle management and second field learning visit.

Week 3: (7th – 13th Jan 2012): Organization of PFS, participatory monitoring and evaluation. Organization of PFS i.e. (Phases and steps, Practical application of PFS sessions, Lessons learned from Kenya, Uganda, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Somaliland, Monitoring and evaluation of PFS projects – Continuation of core activities, Curriculum development, Action planning, Revision, Evaluation of trainees and graduation on the last day.


List of participants.

N° Oragani. Name Responsibility. Tel. Email Residence 1 Masnat Mahamane Abdoulahi Agent terrain 97 47 44 65 [email protected] Abalak

2 Masnat Mohamed Hamed Hamidoune

Animateur 96 64 39 64 [email protected] Abalak

3 Aren Djibir Adamou Sécrétaire Général Adjoint

[email protected] Diffa

4 Aren Boubacar Abdou Animateur 94 72 96 79 Filingué

5 Jemed Najib Issa Chargé Suivi Evaluation

97181921 [email protected] Abalak

6 Jemed Abdoulmomine Issa Animateur 96 00 78 11 [email protected]

Abalak

7 Adkoul Mohamed Attaher Animateur [email protected]

8 Adkoul Alitinine Ounfane Animateur 96 43 89 81 [email protected] Tchinta baraden

9 Tadress Alhassane Agazoum Mohamed

Secrétaire permanent Superviseur

96 06 51 60 [email protected] Agadez

10 Tadress Ousman Intinikar Animateur Chef d'équipe

96 39 36 49 Agadez

11 Capong Abdou Harouna Sécrétaire Général 96 67 66 48 [email protected] Dakoro

12 Capong Mohamed AbdoulKarim

Animateur 96 52 94 90 [email protected] Dakoro

13 Timidria Alassane Ag Biga Point focal régional des programmes Timidria

96 81 91 39 [email protected] Tillabéri

14 Timidria Bilal Adamou Animateur de programme Timidria à Abala

96 58 22 93 Abala/Filingué

15 Fnen Daddo

Hammadou Gordi Chargé des relations et secrétaire permanent du bureau

90 46 27 70 [email protected]

16 Fnen Daddo

Ibrahim Lado Moussa Animateur 96 57 9116 [email protected]

17 VSF Laouali Abou AE/PROXIVET 96 52 18 35

18 VSF Saidou Agada AE/SAPROX 96 36 90 81

19 Karkara Mahaman Almou Animateur/Karkar-SAREL


Dakoro

20 Karkara Ahmoudou Hamed Attaher

Animateur/Karkar-SAREL


Abalak

21 Cesao Abdou Issa Animateur/LIKES-CESAO

94 64 77 54 [email protected] Téra

22 Cesao Hamadou Boureima AE/Téra 97 00 10 66 Kokorou

23 VSF Madame Haoua Abdou Animatrice villageoise PASEL

90 23 64 20 Gidan Roumdji

24 VSF Boubacar Mamane Animateur villageois PASEL

90 66 58 20 Doutchi

25 VSF Kalilou Hassane Animateur villageois PASEL

90 12 35 83 Batako


26 Karkara Mohamed Ahmed Technicien d'Appui Conseil


27 Ministère de l'elevage

Ousmane Issa Dir Régionale Elevage/CSPA

96 67 03 36 [email protected] Zinder


Boubacar Hassoumi Dir Régionale Elevage/CSRPA

96 47 31 54 [email protected] Maradi


Abdou Idi Dir Régionale Elevage/CSPA

96 13 61 48 [email protected] Tahoua


Idrissa Hassane Dir Régionale Elevage/CSRPA

94 01 71 31 [email protected] Diffa


Hamadou Ousmane Dir Régionale Elevage/DRE A


Tillabéri


Yahaya Hamani Dir Régionale Elevage/CSRPA



Garba Moumouni Dir Régionale Elevage/CSRPA


Dosso


Dr Amadou Boureima, DDP

Cadre d'élevage 96 98 07 04 [email protected] Niamey


Dr Abdourahmane Inoussa, DSA

DSA/MEL 96 49 11 80 [email protected] Niamey


Laouali Sama DGPIA/MEL 96 97 02 87 [email protected] Niamey

37 FAO Dr Laouali Garba Consultant national élevage/ERCU-FAO

96 89 40 92 [email protected] Tahoua

pfs training output - dakoro (niger)

Documents

training contents

pfs methodology

training evaluation

training ouput

pfs core activities

pfs consultant master

vsfb karkara conference

field learning visits