Report of the Evaluation Mission of IPM Projects in Bangladesh · Food and Agriculture Organization...

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM)

(BGD/95/003)

Report of the Evaluation Mission of IPM Projects in Bangladesh

November 2000

Mission Members

� Dr. William H. Settle (International Expert, FAO/Team Leader) � Mr. A.K.M. Giasuddin Milki (IPM Extension Expert, FAO) � Dr. Abdul Halim (Evaluation Expert, FAO)

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD.......................................................................................................................4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND LOCAL TERMS.....................................................5 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................7

1.1 Brief History of IPM in Bangladesh .......................................................................7 1.2 BRIEF PROFILES OF PROJECTS REVIEWED.................................................9

1.2.1 DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Project, BGD/95/003 ................................................9 1.2.2 DAE-DANIDA Strengthening Plant Protection Services (SPPS) ................10 1.2.3 CARE New Options in Pest Management (NOPEST) .................................10 1.2.4 CARE Integrated Rice and Fish (INTERFISH)............................................10 1.2.5 DAE-Command Area Development Progamme (CADP) ............................11 1.2.6 AID-Comilla .................................................................................................11 1.2.7 Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Programme (IPM CRSP) ............................................................................................................11

2. BASIC PROJECT DATA AND TRAINING COSTS...............................................13 2.1 BASIC PROJECT DATA....................................................................................13 2.2 BUDGET FOR REPRESENTATIVE SLTOT....................................................14 2.3 BUDGET FOR REPRESENTATIVE FFS..........................................................15

2.3.1 Staff Trainer FFS ..........................................................................................15 2.3.2 Farmer Trainer and School Children FFS.....................................................16

3. IMPACT AND COST EFFECTIVENESS...............................................................17 3.1 Impact Studies......................................................................................................17

3.1.1 The DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project Impact Study ........................................17 3.1.2 The DAE-UNDP/FAO Project Impact Study ...............................................18

3.2 Cost Effectiveness................................................................................................19 3.2.1 Simple calculations .......................................................................................19 3.2.2 Is this realistic?..............................................................................................19 3.2.3 Other benefits ................................................................................................20

4. TRAINING TEAM PROFILE...................................................................................21 4.1 DAE – UNDP/FAO and DAE – DANIDA SPSS................................................21

4.1.1 Staff Trainer Teams........................................................................................21 4.1.2 Farmers-Training-Farmers ............................................................................22

4.2 CARE INTERFISH and NOPEST.......................................................................23 5. QUALITY ISSUES....................................................................................................25

5.1 Season-long Training of Trainers (SLTOT). .......................................................25 5.1.1 Season Long Training is Required................................................................25 5.1.2 Overall Quality..............................................................................................25 5.1.3 Mixed-topic SLTOT......................................................................................25 5.1.4 Inclusion of NGO Participants ......................................................................26 5.1.5 Follow-up Skill-development Support for Trainers in the Field...................26

5.2 Farmer Field Schools (FFS) .................................................................................26 5.2.1 Timely Arrival of Funds. ..............................................................................26 5.2.2 Balancing Technical and Facilitation Skills..................................................27 5.2.3 Trainee Selection...........................................................................................27 5.2.4 Optimal Size for FFS Trainer Teams. ..........................................................27 5.2.5 AESA ............................................................................................................28 5.2.6 Frequency of FFS Sessions. ..........................................................................29 5.2.7 Time of day for FFS Sessions. ......................................................................29 5.2.8 Duration of FFS Sessions..............................................................................29

3

5.2.9 Periodic Monitoring of FFS ..........................................................................29 5.2.10 Overloading of FFS Trainers ......................................................................29

6. LATERAL SPREAD OF IPM KNOWLEDGE .......................................................31 6.1 General Thoughts .................................................................................................31 6.2 DAE-UNDP/FAO ................................................................................................31 6.3 DAE-DANIDA SPPS ..........................................................................................32 6.4 AID-COMILLA ...................................................................................................32 6.5 CAD .....................................................................................................................32 6.6 CARE ...................................................................................................................32

7. IPM RESEARCH......................................................................................................34 8. COLLABORATION AND LINKAGES ..................................................................35 9. SUSTAINABILITY...................................................................................................37

9.1 Farmer-to-Farmer Training ..................................................................................37 9.2 IPM Clubs and Associations ................................................................................38 9.3 Transfer of DAE Staff to Non-IPM Upazila ........................................................38 9.4 Geographic Concentration of FFS .......................................................................39 9.5 IPM Policy and a National IPM Programme .......................................................40

10. RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................41 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .....................................................................................45 13. APPENDICES .........................................................................................................46

APPENDIX A. Terms of Reference for Mission to Evaluate the IPM projects in Bangladesh ..................................................................................................................46 Appendix B. Senior Persons Contacted .....................................................................49 APPENDIX C. Itinerary.............................................................................................50 APPENDIX D. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED............................................51

4

FORWARD

The Government of Bangladesh (GOB) is currently contemplating the development of an IPM policy and a national IPM programme to effectively coordinate all IPM activities in the country regardless of the IPM implementing agency, donor or crop. As a result of the Tripartite Review (TPR) meeting of IPM Project (BGD/95/003) held on 21 March 2000, it was determined that an analysis of the current status of IPM implementation by various projects and agencies would be helpful in developing guidelines for a national IPM programme. It was suggested in the meeting that an evaluation of IPM activities in Bangladesh should be done immediately. As a result, a three-member team, comprising one International and two National Experts, was fielded by FAO for 4 weeks, starting 26 October 2000, to evaluate the overall effectiveness of several of the major IPM Projects in Bangladesh. The Team Leader acknowledges responsibility for any factual errors, or errors of omission that may exist in this report. The views expressed in the report are those of the Team members and not necessarily those of FAO or the Government of Bangladesh.

5

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND LOCAL TERMS

ADB : Asian Development Bank AEO : Agricultural Extension Officer AESA : Agro-ecosystem Analysis AID-Comilla : Association for Integrated Development-Comilla ANR : Agriculture and Natural Resources BARI : Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute BAU : Bangladesh Agricultural University Boro : Spring rice season BPH : Brown Planthopper BRRI : Bangladesh Rice Research Institute BS : Block Supervisor BWDB : Bangladesh Water Development Board CAD : Command Area Development CARE : Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere CDB : Cotton Development Board CERDI : Central Extension Resources Development Institute CRSP : Collaborative Research and Support Programme CTA : Chief Technical Advisor DAE : Department of Agricultural Extension DANIDA : Danish International Development Agency DDAE : Deputy Director of Agricultural Extension DG : Director General DT : DAE Trainer DT-FFS : DAE-Trainers FFS DTO : District Training Officer ERD : Economic Relations Division FAO : Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations FFS : Farmers Field School FL : Farmer Leader FMA : Field Management Analysis FT : Farmer Trainer FT-FFS : Farmer Trainer FFS FT-TOT : Farmer Trainers Training of Trainers GOB : Government of Bangladesh ICP : Inter-country Programme INTERFISH : Integrated Rice and Fish Project IPM : Integrated Pest Management IPSA : Institute for Post-graduate Studies in Agriculture JAEO : Junior Agricultural Extension Officer MOA : Ministry of Agriculture MOU : Memorandum of Understanding NAEP : New Agricultural Extension Policy NCI : National Committee of IPM NGO : Non-Government Organization NOPEST : New Options for Pest Management NPD : National Project Director NPV : Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus

6

OIRD : Office of International Research and Development PAR : Participatory Action Research PO : Project Officer PPI : Plant Protection Inspector PPS : Plant Protection Specialist PPW : Plant Protection Wing SFS : Student Field School SLTOT : Season-Long Training of Trainers SMO : Subject Matter Officer SPPS : Strengthening Plant Protection Services Project ST-FFS : Staff Trainer-Farmer Field School T. Amon : Transplanted summer-autumn rice Tk. : Taka; (1USD$ = 54 Tk) TOT : Training of Trainers UAO : Upazila Agricultural Officer UNDP : United Nations Development Programme Upazila : local name for subdistrict USAID : US Agency for International Development

7

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Brief History of IPM in Bangladesh

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) began in Bangladesh in 1981 with the introduction of the first phase of FAO’s Inter-country Programme (ICP) on rice IPM. The early 1990s saw the expansion of IPM through the subsequent phase of the FAO Regional Rice IPM-ICP project, 1990 – 1996, under the leadership of Dr S Ramaswamy. During this phase, a new model for training was introduced, based on the approach of the Season-long Training of Trainers (SLTOT) and the Farmer Field School (FFS) model, first developed in Indonesia. The strategy of the rice IPM-ICP was to build up the capabilities of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) to impart high-quality IPM training to rice farmers. Farmers trained under the ICP Programme showed substantial reductions in pesticide use, significantly increased yields, and increased decision-making capabilities, based on a greater awareness of the biological and ecological mechanisms underlying their agricultural systems. Meanwhile, major IPM programmes were being initiated by CARE Bangladesh in the form of the INTERFISH programme (July 1993), and the NOPEST programme (May 1995). These programmes were also based on the FFS and SLTOT training model, with technical input from the outset by the FAO ICP. CARE participated in multiple study tours to Indonesia and the Philippines, and Master Trainers from these countries came to Bangladesh to help with the early SLTOT. Although the CARE projects were formed on a similar model, they had from the outset a broader scope of activities than the FFS and SLTOT in Indonesia. In addition to rice IPM, these projects worked to introduce rice-fish culture, aile or dike cropping and, over the years, have expanded to include a wide range of activities. It is important to note that while this team reviewed only two of the 9 projects currently underway in the CARE ANR sector, 8 out of 9 of these projects are based on the FFS training model and have an IPM component. Yet another major IPM project began at this time in the form of the DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM project (December 1995). This programme had the two-fold objective of (1) building the capacity of the Department of Agricultural Extension and NGO’s to undertake IPM training, and (2), developing a national IPM policy and a national IPM programme. The technical assistance component in this project was provided by the FAO ICP Rice Programme. Within Asia, rice is the strategic first target for IPM as it is the crop of greatest importance to the largest number of farmers, and because it is ecologically a highly robust and stable crop, unlikely to be damaged by insect pests in the absence of pesticides. Vegetable IPM efforts are usually targeted at a later stage of IPM development, being more complex and more problematic. Results, however, can be dramatic as pesticide use on vegetables is almost always excessively high. During 1995 five FFS were conducted on brinjal (eggplant) and other vegetables under the umbrella of the Rice IPM-ICP. The results from these FFS showed significant reductions in pesticide use by brinjal IPM farmers (from an upper range of 120-80 applications per season to a lower range of 20-5 per season), and indicated the potential value in conducting FFS on vegetables. As a result, a sister project to the rice IPM-ICP--the Vegetable IPM-ICP--began in Bangladesh in August of 1996 and went for 3 years. The FAO Vegetable IPM-ICP was not pinpointed as one of the programs for review in the TOR for this mission, presumably

8

because it has already finished. However, we mention this program in this historical section as it provided key inputs in the form of curriculum development and SLTOT training to all three major existing IPM programmes—DAE-UNDP/FAO, DAE-DANIDA SPPS, and CARE. Inputs and training from the vegetable IPM-ICP allowed especially the DAE-DANIDA SPPS programme a substantial “head start” on their planned vegetable IPM training activities. The FAO Vegetable IPM-ICP terminated two years earlier than the planned 5-years duration of the project. While reports and discussions regarding this program were scarcely to be found, from what we could piece together, the program seems to have run into several administrative and personnel problems that crippled the program. By 1997, the original Rice IPM-ICP had come to a close and virtually ceased any training or field activities in Bangladesh. The DAE gave DANIDA occupancy of the FAO IPM offices early in 1998, and most of the FAO IPM staff were recruited by DANIDA at this time. The expectation of a premature closing of the Vegetable IPM-ICP led to the development of a strategic alliance with DANIDA, in which the FAO Vegetable IPM-ICP agreed to train trainers to eventually undertake FFS with DANIDA funding. In this way the Vegetable IPM-ICP hoped to effectively satisfy as much of their original mandate as possible. The DAE- DANIDA/SPPS project went on to use these trained personnel to get a head start on their plans to facilitate vegetable FFS in Bangladesh—initiating the first FFS in their first year when they had originally planned to begin in 2000. The review team acknowledges the valuable contributions made to IPM over the years from the FAO IPM-ICP programmes. These training inputs have played a strong catalytic role in promoting the TOT/FFS training model, as well as bringing in new IPM concepts to Bangladesh. Most recently, the DAE projects have received training on how to develop Farmer-to-Farmer training from Indonesia, where some 28,000 farmers have been active as farmers-training-farmers. The innovative model for trainer and farmer training in IPM was, however, only part of the equation for success (necessary, but not sufficient). Indeed, this same model in similar projects has been initiated in some 12 countries in Asia, and now is being introduced in many African countries, but not all countries have succeeded in the establishment of high-quality IPM programmes to the same extent as has Bangladesh. The review team would like to acknowledge the strong support by the donors, and the hard work and excellent management efforts put forward by the Project Directors, heads of training, and master trainers. Finally, a large measure of the credit for the success of IPM in Bangladesh must be given to the enthusiastic support accorded by DAE government officials at all levels. While the IPM “seed” came from external sources, the GOB, CARE and the donors have developed over the years a nurturing environment, such that IPM in Bangladesh has thrived and diversified in its own fashion and with its own special characteristics. The projects reviewed in this document include:

a) DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Project, BGD/95/003 (1996-2001) b) DAE-DANIDA Strengthening Plant Protection Services (SPPS) Project (1997-

2002) c) CARE New Options for Pest Management (NOPEST) (1995-2003) d) CARE Integrated Rice and Fish Project (INTERFISH) (1993-2000) e) Comand Area Development (CAD) Project (1997-2000)

9

f) AID-Comilla IPM Project (1999-2001) g) USAID funded IPM Collaborative Research and Support Programme (IPM CRSP)

1.2 BRIEF PROFILES OF PROJECTS REVIEWED

1.2.1 DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Project, BGD/95/003

Background: This project under title Integrated Pest Management (IPM) began in December 1995 and was planned for a period of 5 years. The project is funded by UNDP with technical assistance from FAO. It is a nationally executed project with the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of Bangladesh as the executing agency. The budget for this project is US$ 3.4465 million. Objectives. The main two objectives of the project as per project document are:

1. To develop a capacity within the DAE and among selected NGOs to undertake effective IPM training in an initial 122 select upazilas (subdistricts);

2. To develop a national IPM policy and programme framework supported by a medium-term action plan to promote and facilitate expansion of IPM activities, nation-wide, with the aim of providing a feasible alternative to harmful pesticides in the country's rice production systems.

The target of the project is to enable 80,000 farmers to better make their own management decisions based on field ecological observations and training. One indicator of progress is evidence of a reduction of pesticide use by farmers. The project also targeted the training of 480 upazila-level extension officers, as well as 120 NGO staff, to be developed as skilled IPM trainers working at the upazila level.

Achievements. The following major activities have been completed by the project:

♦ Developed a training plan and curriculum

♦ Established 3 IPM training centres (CERDI, Joydebpur, Gazipur; the Cotton Development Training Centre at Sreepur, Gazipur; and the Horticulture Centre at Rahmatpur, Barisal).

♦ Selected and trained 26 Master IPM trainers.

♦ Trained 511 DAE field level staff in season long (100 days) field oriented IPM training.

♦ Trained 79,100 farmers (9% being women) covering 122 uapzilas of 41 districts.

♦ Trained 39 NGO staff in Season Long Training (SLT)

♦ Assisted in the establishment of IPM clubs

♦ Developed 640 Farmer Trainers (FTs) The project has been a leader in IPM and many of the tactics developed are being followed by other projects of DAE and several NGOs (e.g., DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project, DAE-CAD Project, CARE-Bangladesh, AID-Comilla). The project has seen the development of new initiatives such as IPM Clubs, School-IPM programmes, and Vegetable IPM training.

10

1.2.2 DAE-DANIDA Strengthening Plant Protection Services (SPPS)

Background. The IPM component of the SPPS project was designed to introduce IPM in 120 upazilas, in close collaboration with the DAE_UNDP/FAO IPM Project. The other components of SPPS are the development of: (1) a Surveillance, Forecasting and Early Warning System, (2) Pesticide Administration and Quality Control, (3) Pest management practices that are compatible with IPM, such as the development of botanical and bio-pesticides, (4) Strengthening plant quarantine services. The total cost of donor agency support is US$ 3.04 million for a period of 5 years from July 1997. Objectives. Objectives of the project include capacity building within Bangladesh to undertake effective IPM training, initially in 120 upazilas within 40 districts. Care was taken to avoid any overlap with the upazilas in which DAE-UNDP/FAO was active. Another important objective was to develop a national IPM policy in collaboration with the IPM programme, supported by UNDP/FAO IPM Project. Achievements. The project has undertaken IPM activities in 140 locations with rice (88 upazilas), rice and vegetables (32 upazilas), and vegetables only (17 upazilas and 3 horticulture centers). To date the project has trained 45,000 rice farmers and 8,900 vegetable farmers (12% women in rice and 44% in vegetable). The project has produced 580 DAE staff and 70 NGO staff having undergone season long training (SLTOT) . In addition, 39 FT have also been developed and several IPM Clubs and School FFS have been established. The SPPS project has established a good working relationship with several small NGOs and has been working in close collaboration with DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Project.

1.2.3 CARE New Options in Pest Management (NOPEST) New Options for Pest Management (NOPEST) works to increase rice productivity for marginal farming communities in the Mymiensingh and Comilla districts in ways that do not endanger the environment. The project trains farmers in how to reduce insect pests through non-chemical means (integrated pest management or IPM), rice field ecology and rice production technologies, including the cultivation of fish in rice paddies. The health of farm families is significantly improved by the increased production and consumption of fish, vegetables and rice, and by the decrease in the use of toxic chemicals.

1.2.4 CARE Integrated Rice and Fish (INTERFISH)

Integrated Rice and Fish (INTERFISH) aims to improve the incomes and environment of 89,680 farmers in Rangpur, Jessore, Bogra, and Naogaon Districts through regenerative rice cultivation technologies. Using a process-oriented training approach, farmers learn about paddy field ecology, the importance of maintaining beneficial insects, the effects of pesticides on the environment and rice-fish cultivation. This includes the cropping of rice field dikes with vegetable and tree crops, fish cultivation in paddy waters, and the use of low-external input rice production technologies. This integrated approach aims to reduce declining soil fertility and pesticide damage and increase farm income through improved rice field productivity. By providing an increased supply of rice, fish and vegetables, INTERFISH has a direct and beneficial impact on the health of the project participants.

11

1.2.5 DAE-Command Area Development Progamme (CADP)

Background. The CAD project is implemented by the Plant Protection Wing of DAE. It has three components, where component-B deals with the implementation of IPM. It is funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for a period of 42 months (October 1997 to June 2001), with a budget provision for component B of US$ 578,700. This component is a part of the BWDB irrigation project (MDIP and PIRDP) being implemented in two districts in Bangladesh – Pabna and Chandpur. Objectives. The objectives of this project are to protect the crops of the WAPDA irrigated area in the districts of Pabna and Chandpur from pests and diseases, and to help bring about sustainable development for the project people through improving their economic condition, and through increased agricultural production, while minimizing environmental hazards. Achievement. The project has trained 130 staff members of the two target districts IPM SLTOT (90 days) in 3 batches. These including those from DAE (115), BWDB (19), and an NGO (5). As reported by CAD, the IPM SLT TOT trained personnel imparted IPM training to 9000 farmers by establishing 300 FFS during the past 4 crop seasons. The CAD project reports that a total of 7500 neighboring farmers have been given short exposure on IPM technology through the implementation of 25 IPM field days in 25 FFS.

1.2.6 AID-Comilla

Background. Association for Integrated Development (AID) – Comilla is a multipurpose NGO, with headquarters located in the district of Comilla.. It began activities in rice IPM with the financial support of DANIDA, starting from June 1999, and with a total budget of US$ 249,516 for 3 years (up to May 2002). Objectives. The project plans to give direct training to 8640 farmers on rice IPM through FFS and exposure to IPM practices to 69,120 farmers through field days. A total of 288 FFS are supposed to establish in three districts of Noakhali, Laxmipur and Feni during the project period. In each district only three upazilas will be the working area and FFS will be established in T. Aman and Boro seasons. Achievement. To date the total number of FFS executed is 126, with participation by women at 14%. This project has been using the curriculum of DAE for training members of FFS. Technical support for AID-Comilla is received from DAE-UNDP/FAO and DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project.

1.2.7 Integrated Pest Management Collaborative Research Support Programme (IPM CRSP)

Background. The IPM CRSP is a global research support programme, funded by the USAID global Bureau (Grant # LAG – G – 00 – 93 – 00053 – 00). This grant is managed by the office of the International Research and Development (OIRD), jointly with the Outreach and International Programme Division of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. The IPM CRSP completed its first five-year programme (Phase-I) on September 28, 1998, at which time Bangladesh was not included. In Phase-II, Bangladesh

12

began activities from September 29, 1998. BARI is the lead research institute in Bangladesh for this research. Objectives. The main objectives of the IPM CRSP are :

• Reduce crop losses, and sustain or increase production of food crops

• Increase farmer and social economic benefits

• Reduce pesticide use

• Reduce pesticide residues on crops, fish and ducks including export crops and products

• Improve and/or complement existing IPM research, education and technology transfer programmes

• Improve the ability to monitor pests and protect biodiversity and human health

• Increase the role of women in IPM decision making Achievement. The research activities in Bangladesh have targeted vegetable crops. Some farmers, such as in the intensive vegetable growing areas of Kashimpur (Gazipur), Sayedpur (Comilla) and Shibpur (Narsingdi), have been included as the experimental sites. To date five important crops and their pests have been targeted for ‘multidisciplinary pest management experiments’, including eggplant, cabbage, tomato, okra and cucurbits. The IPM CRSP has prioritized four major thematic areas for research in Bangladesh:

• Baseline surveys on vegetable cultivation and farmer practice, and on-farm crop pest monitoring,

• Multidisciplinary on-farm pest management experiments for controlling major pests (insects, disease pathogens and weeds) on major vegetable crops,

• Multidisciplinary laboratory, greenhouse and micro-plot experiments to eventually develop facilities to multiply biocontrol agents (mainly parasites) for their use in vegetable, and

• Socio-economic analyses involving studies on economic impacts of IPM CRSP activities, adoption of IPM measures, and analyses of vegetable price and marketing trends as affected by IPM practices.

To date the IPM CRSP of BARI has developed varieties of eggplant, resistant to bacterial wilt, based on two wild eggplant varieties. In addition, the project has developed an effective control measure of fruit fly in cucurbits, and weed management technologies in cabbage and okra. Research has also been done on improved soil amendment practices, including the use of saw-dust and the burning of mustard oil cake, to effectively suppress the infections of several soil born disease.

13

PROJECT DATA DAE-UNDP

DAE-SPPS

(IPM component) CAD

CARE

NOPEST

CARE

INTERFISH AID-COMILLA

General Information

Inception Date Dec-95 Jul-97 Oct-97 May-95 Jul-93 Jun-99

Duration 60 months 60 months 42 months 60 months 90 months 36 months

Overall Cost of Project $3.708 million $4,188,800 TK 31,250,000

($578,700)

Euro 5.4 million

($4.86 million)

5,582,783 ?

($9.09 million)

Tk 12,933,867

($249,516)

No. of Districts Active 40 40 2 3 8 1

No. of Upazila Active 122 120 5 15 20 3

No. of Farmers Targeted 80,00080,000 (rice)

25,000 (vegetable)9000 -

89,680(70,800 male)

(18,880 female)

8,640

Total No. of Farmers Trained by Project

79,10045,475 (rice)

8,940 (vegetable)9000 30,640 71,460 3,780

Estimated % female FFS participants 9%12% in rice;

44% in vegetables2% 31% 21% 14%

FFS Training

Staff Trainer-FFS (ST-FFS)

No. of Staff Trainers 511 580 130 107 141 16

FFS Trainer Team Size 2 2 5 1 1 2

No. ST-FFS

Rice 2,447 1,819 300 - - -

Vegetables 59 350 - - - -

Combined Rice & Fish - - - - - 126

Combined Rice, dike crops & Fish - - - 1,483 3,608 -

Total ST-FFS 3,164 2,169 300 1,483 3,608 126

No. of Farmer Trainer-FFS 640 20 - 4 (Pilot) -

No. of Farmer Trainers 640 39 -2,966

Farmer Leaders1,847 Farmer Leaders -

No. of School Childern FFS 18 3 (pilot) - 300 (1 week TOT for

teachers) 4 (new initiative) 6

No. of School Childern trained 432 75 - estimated 750 estimated 150 180

SLTOT Training

No. Season-Long Trainings (SLT) 11 13 attended SLT in

UNDP/

DANIDA

2 by CARE, plus individuals attended

DANIDA TOT

4 by CARE, plusindividuals attended

DAE-UNDP&SPPS

attended SLT in DAE TOT

Total Trainees attending SLT511 DAE staff

39 NGO staff

580 DAE staff

70 NGO staff130 141 307 16

Follow-up Activities

No. IPM Clubs / FFS associations

5 established

20 in process of registration

99 of 150 targeted - 48 51 54

No. block-level IPM activities - - - 34 1 -

2. BASIC PROJECT DATA AND TRAINING COSTS

2.1 BASIC PROJECT DATA

14

TABLE 2.

ITEM COST DAE-UNDP DAE-SPPS CARE NOPEST CARE INTERFISH

Total SLTOT completed 11 13 2 4

Typical Cost of one SLTOT 2,000,000 1,774,896 1,200,000 4,100,000

No. Trainees/SLTOT 50 50 50 100

No. Facilitators/SLTOT 9 12 12 23

Ave. no. Trainees/facilitator 5 4 4 4

Ave. Cost/Trainee (Taka) 40,000 35,498 24,000 41,000

Ave. Cost/Trainee (USD) 741$ 657$ 444$ 759$

TABLE 3.

Representative Breakdown of Costs for One SLTOT (DAE-DANIDA/SPPS)

Line Item Taka USD % of total

Total for rice seedbed 1,082 20 0.1%

Total for rice fields 11,260 209 0.6%

Total for ail crops 1,294 24 0.1%

Total for vegetable seedbeds 4,950 92 0.3%

Total for vegetable fields 41,970 777 2.4%

Total for pesticides 1,225 23 0.1%

Total for other field expenses 13,850 256 0.8%

Total for pot cages 2,400 44 0.1%

Total for FFS (associated with TOT) 152,000 2,815 8.6%

Total for car and generator 49,500 917 2.8%

Total for honorarium 732,750 13,569 41.3%

Total for meals 651,000 12,056 36.7%

Total for opening/closing 4,000 74 0.2%

Total for field day at TOT 25,250 468 1.4%

Total for medical expenses 2,000 37 0.1%

Total for miscellaneous materials 46,250 856 2.6%

Total for utilities and other misc. 34,115 632 1.9%

Total for TOT 1,774,896 32,868$ 100.0%

2.2 BUDGET FOR REPRESENTATIVE SLTOT

Training Costs for a typical Season-long Training of Trainers ranged from Tk 24,000 ($444) per trainee, for the CARE NOPEST training, to Tk 41,000 ($759) per trainee for the CARE INTERFISH training.

A representative breakdown of line item costs can be seen from the DAE-DANIDA/SPPS project data below. Honoraria (total for trainers, participants and visiting lecturers) account for the largest line item budget: 41.3% for the DAE-DANIDA/SPPS project and 38% for the DAE-UNDP/FAO project. Detailed breakdowns beyond this were not available.

15

TABLE 4A

COST LINE ITEM DAE-UNDP DAE-SPPS CAD CARE NOPEST CARE INTERFISH AID-COMILLA

Per Staff-trainer FFScosts for 3 season FFS costs for 3 season FFS

No. Sessions per FFS 15 14 15

20-23 Learning

sessions, plus 40+ support sessions over 3

seasons

20-23 Learning sessions, plus 40+ support sessions

over 3 seasons

15

No. Farmers per FFS 25 25 30

25 for male FFS15 for female FFS

25 for male FFS15 for female FFS 30

Operating Costs

Materials 3,500 7,000 6,750 3,000 No breakdown available 5,358

Refreshment 4,500 4,400 6,750 2,750 No breakdown available 5,850

Opening Ceremony - - - - No breakdown available 1,000

Field Day 5,000 4,100 400 No breakdown available 2,500

Transportation costs 1,500 1,500 3,000 No breakdown available -

Miscellaneous 550 1,150 No breakdown available -Sub Total (Tk) 14,500 17,550 13,500 10,300 18,000 14,708

($) 269 325 250 191 333 272

Honoraria

Honoraria for Monitors

or Resource Persons 600 600 1,375 - - 1,200

Honoraria for Facilitators 3,200 3,765 7,500 - - -

(Honoraria as % of subtotal) 26% 25% 66%

Total (Tk) 18,300 21,915 22,375 10,300 18,000 15,908

($) 339 406 414 191 333 295

Avg. Cost per farmer for FFS training (Tk) 732 877 746

412 per male FFS

686 per female FFS 720 530

($) 14 16 14

$8 per male FFS

$13 per female FFS 13 10

2.3 BUDGET FOR REPRESENTATIVE FFS

2.3.1 Staff Trainer FFS

Costs for a typical Farmer Field School (Table 4A) range from Tk 10,300 ($190) per FFS for male FFS under CARE NOPEST, to Tk 22,375 ($414) per FFS for the CAD project. For the CARE projects and AID-Comilla, there are no honoraria costs, or monitoring costs as staff are compensated by their salaries as full time IPM trainers and supervisors. This is one reason their costs are substantially lower compared with the others. Both AID-Comilla and CAD had 30 farmers per FFS compared with only 25 for both DAE and CARE projects, this reduced their costs per farmer (relative to those projects which trained 25 farmers) by about 17%. The CARE projects are conducted over three seasons, with 20 to 25 “Learning Sessions” –comparable to the FFS meetings under the DAE projects, and more than 40 “Support Sessions” –comparable to special projects or Participatory Action Research (PAR) (see section on Training Team Profile for more details). Therefore, the total actual contact time with farmers by staff is substantially more than for a one-season DAE training, yet material costs are the same (or lower in the case of the NOPEST project). The review team appreciates that an FFS spread out over three seasons should not cost three times that of an FFS executed in one season. Many of the materials, such as sweep nets, can be used for more than one season. However many of the other costs, such as paper and pencils, should in fact be greater as the total number of face-to-face visits is greater for CARE. This is not reflected in the comparative budgets. Apparently the actual costs to CARE of running an FFS are substantially less than for the various DAE projects. Unfortunately, from what the review team could gather, the manner in which budgets are created in CARE makes it difficult to factor out unit costs for FFS. For example, for CARE INTERFISH, an overall calculation of cost per FFS was able to be calculated, but no breakdown was available for any of the detailed costs.

16

Table 4B

COST LINE ITEM DAE-UNDP

Per Farmer-Trainer FFS

No. Farmers per FFS 25

Materials 3,500

Refreshment 4,500

Opening Ceremony -

Field Day 1,500 Miscellaneous 150

Sub Total (Tk) 9,650

($) 179

Honoraria for Monitors 425

Honoraria for Facilitators 2,250

(Honoraria as % of subtotal) 28%

Total (Tk) 12,325

($) 228

Avg. Cost per farmer

for FT-FFS training (Tk) 493

($) 9

Table 4C

COST LINE ITEM DAE-UNDP

Per School-Children FFS

No. Students 24

Materials 3,500

Refreshment 4,200

Opening Ceremony -

Field Day 5,000

Miscellaneous 750

Sub Total (Tk) 13,450

($) 249

Honoraria for Monitors 600

Honoraria for Facilitators 4,875

(Honoraria as % of subtotal) 41%

Total (Tk) 18,925

($) 350

Avg. Cost per child

for SC-FFS training (Tk) 789

($) 15

2.3.2 Farmer Trainer and School Children FFS

Under the DAE-UNDP/FAO project we have estimates for FFS conducted by Farmer Trainers (FT-FFS) (Table 4B), and School Children FFS (SC-FFS) (Table 4C). The FT-FFS had significantly lower costs at 493 Tk/farmer. This was due to the reduced cost of the Field Day, the reduced cost of honoraria for facilitators, and the reduced cost of transportation (under “miscellaneous”). The transportation costs under FT-FFS is 150 Tk and is given to the farmers so that they will be able to visit the upazila headquarters on three occasions in order to pick up three installments of funds to be used in purchasing materials for the FFS. The reduced cost of the Field Day with the FT-FFS is due to the fewer dignitaries (the Field Day is aimed more at just the local farmers and not upazila-level officials). The project training specialist, Dr. Alam, felt that the costs for Field Days for the Staff Trainer-FFS could be reduced to about 4,000 Tk, while the costs of the FT-FFS should be raised to about 2,000 Tk. The average cost for the School Children FFS (SC-FFS) (Table 4C), at 789 Tk, was comparable to that of the typical Staff Trainer FFS.

17

IMPACT ASSESSMENT DAE-DANIDA SPPS

T. Aman 1998 T. Aman 1999

pre FFS Post FFS Post minus Pre % change

Avg. no. sprays 1.080 0.090 (0.99) -91.70% Avg. no. granular

applications 0.577 0.048 (0.53) -91.70%

Avg. cost of pesticides 764.20 85.60 (678.6) -88.80%

Avg. yield (kg/ha) 3,388 3,879 491.0 14.50%

T. Aman 1999 T. Aman 1999

untrained farmers IPM farmers

IPM minus

untrained % change


applications 0.537 0.048 (0.49) -91.1%


Avg. yield (kg/ha) 3,508.00 3,879 371.0 10.6%

These data are from benchmark surveys: a sample of 78 FFS (1875 farmers)

planting high yielding varieties.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT DAE-DANIDA SPPS

Boro 1998 Boro 1999

pre FFS Post FFS Post minus Pre % change


applications 1.059 0.004 (1.06) -99.60%


Avg. yield (kg/ha) 4,097 5,587 1,490 36.40%

Boro 1999 Boro 1999

untrained farmers IPM farmers

IPM minus

untrained % change


applications 0.738 0.004 (0.73) -99.5%


Avg. yield (kg/ha) 5,109.00 5,587.00 478.00 9.4%

These data are from benchmark surveys: a sample of 41 FFS (1025 farmers)

planting high yielding varieties.

3. IMPACT AND COST EFFECTIVENESS

3.1 Impact Studies

3.1.1 The DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project Impact Study

These studies were conducted by the project staff as a standard procedure (see documents SPPS-9 and SPPS-11 Appendix D). The methods used were correct by current accepted scientific standards, and in fact are some of the best examples of proper impact study

18

methodology that the review team leader has seen to date. Survey data were taken before training actually took place (instead of the often-used and far less accurate surveys done after the fact, asking farmers to look back on previous years). The surveys compare both before and after training (longitudinal study), and trained vs. untrained farmers. This latter is a necessary (and often overlooked ) step in that it allows for separating out changes in practices or yields from year to year, which are independent of training. For example, the change in Boro yields before and after IPM training are a staggering 36.4%, however by comparing the pre-IPM Boro yields of 1998 with the untrained Boro yields of 1999, we see that yields for untrained farmers had increased during this time (by 1,012 kg, or 25%), possibly due to improved weather conditions. The actual increase due to training can be seen comparing trained and untrained farmers during the same season. Comparing trained and untrained farmers as the only comparison is insufficient because differences could be accounted for by differences among farmer groups (one cannot rule out that farmers involved in IPM might intrinsically be more progressive or better farmers). Hence, both types of comparisons are necessary for a complete impact study. Recommendation

Given that extensive time, effort and expense is put forward by donors and

government agencies in the form of impact studies in many countries, and given the

importance of impact studies on the bearing and future course of participatory-

training programmes, the review team feels that the methodology of impact studies

for IPM and farmer-participatory programmes in general, should be the topic of an

international forum. The review team feels that an international agency, such as

FAO or UNDP should convene a workshop in which existing examples of impact

studies are reviewed by experts in the field of social survey and IPM, and a set of

guidelines should be developed that would have direct benefit to governments and

NGOs in a large and growing number of countries.

Furthermore, the review team feels that any project or agency initiating a new IPM

programme should begin with a baseline study of sufficient scope to offer an

reasonably accurate picture of farmer practices for a particular season and crop.

Subsequent, post-training surveys of IPM farmer behavior can then be compared

with the baseline survey and at the same time with nearby non-IPM farmer behavior.

While there is some difference in the magnitude between boro and T. Aman results, we can conclude from these studies that IPM farmers in the DAE-DANIDA SPPS project reduce their sprays and granular applications of insecticides between 90% and 99%, with a cost savings of between 600 and 700 Tk/season, and with a yield increase of, on average, about 10%.

3.1.2 The DAE-UNDP/FAO Project Impact Study

In 1998 the Planning and Evaluation Wing of DAE conducted a set of interviews in an effort to evaluate the impact of IPM training on farmers (see document UNDP-2 Appendix D). This study was conducted by 16 staff members of the Planning and Evaluation Wing, and involved interviews with 220 IPM and 220 non-IPM farmers. This particular effort went beyond the simple impact study done by the DAE-DANIDA SPPS project by including a large number of questions to farmers regarding a range of issues. However, the review team feels some of the questions asked were inappropriate.. Asking

19

farmers to list names of insects and diseases is not representative of either the content or the philosophy of IPM training. Also, both the presentation of the data and the discussion of the findings were inadequate. Although the interviews did record the basic statistics of frequency of pesticide use, and cost to the farmers before and after training, the manner in which the data were presented leaves the reader in the dark as to the details; hence, we are unable to provide a similar table to the ones above for the DANIDA project. One figure did emerge: it seems that IPM farmers reduced pesticide use by about 88% compared with non-IPM farmers—but again, it is difficult to judge the nature of the change without seeing the results.

3.2 Cost Effectiveness

3.2.1 Simple calculations

We use here the results from the DAE-DANIDA SPPS impact study. To estimate the savings to IPM farmers in terms of reduced use of insecticides we can average the estimates from the T. Aman and Boro seasons, a figure of around 675 Tk/season. Estimates of yield improvement due to IPM vary somewhat more between project and between seasons. For the sake of this discussion we will use again the average of the values for the T. Aman and Boro seasons, or about 425 kg/ha. If we use the DAE-SPPS estimate of 0.45 ha as the average landholding for the farmer, and a value of 10 Tk/kg for the value of the rice, then we come up with an overall benefit to IPM farmers (derived only from pesticide reduction and yield increase) of roughly 2,200 Taka per IPM farmer per season, or 4,400 Taka per year assuming two crops are grown (keep in mind this is the “average farmer” who has 0.45 ha. Clearly this savings will vary with the land holding size). Economic returns in one year for an IPM farmer (assuming 0.45 hectares and two seasons of rice) amount to Tk 5,750, while estimates on the average cost of training the average farmer in an FFS (Table 4A above) range from between 500 to 900 Tk. Conclusion:

Although differences exist among projects in the cost of training farmers, all of the

projects would seem to have a wide margin of cost effectiveness. Based simply on the

estimated reduced costs of insecticides and average increases in yields, the returns to the

average IPM farmer easily outweigh the cost of training that farmer after only one season

of farmer practice.

3.2.2 Is this realistic?

The estimates of average reduction in pesticide use are comparable to estimates from other countries. The estimated increases in yield are, however, higher than those estimates from, for example, Indonesia. This is due principally to overall differences in the level of adoption of currently recommended agronomic practices. IPM training is not simply about pests and pesticides, but is firmly based on teaching improved agronomic practices to farmers (the “First Principle” of IPM is “Grow a Healthy Plant”). Those regions in which farmers have already broadly adopted improved agronomic management practices, such as is the case with the major rice bowls in Indonesia, will be likely to see less improvement in yields with IPM training. The average IPM rice farmer in Bangladesh

20

sees an improvement in yield of about 10% --most likely because of improved practices in the use of balanced fertilizers, improved plant spacing, improved return of organic residues to the soil, and possibly a change in variety planted.

3.2.3 Other benefits

On further reflection we can expect additional economic benefits to IPM farmers in the form of increased income due to the adoption of fish culture and dike crops (which often produce greater returns than changes in rice cultivation practices). These are not reflected in the calculations in this report. Beyond this are the less measurable benefits of improved health due to better nutrition, less toxins in the homestead and larger environment, and of developing a farming community that is more confident in their abilities, and better able to make wise management decisions based on their own determination and experimentation. While it is difficult to put a monetary value on the improved decision-making capabilities, an increased enthusiasm, and pro-active approach to agriculture that characterizes IPM farmers, these are nevertheless very real benefits that will have long-term impact on sustainable yields and the adoption rate of new ideas.

21

AEO: Agricultural Extension Officer, Thana level

PPI: Plant Protection Inspector, Thana level

BS1: Block Supervisors

All team members with season-long TOT training

Team 1:

AEO

+

BS

Team 2:PPI

+

BSAEO: Agricultural Extension Officer, Thana level

PPI: Plant Protection Inspector, Thana level

BS1: Block Supervisors

All team members with season-long TOT training

Team 1:

AEO

+

BS

Team 2:PPI

+

BS

Total FFS

Season TOT Upazila Team No. FFS/wk per upazila/wk

1 a) AEOb) PPI

2 a) BS AEO+PPI 2 2

b) BS

3 Etc. AEO+BS 4 4

PPI+BS

4 AEO+BS 2

PPI+BS 2 4

.....

9 AEO+BS 2PPI+BS 2

2FT 2 8

2FT 2

10 AEO+BS 1

PPI+BS 1

2FT 2

2FT 2 102FT 2

2FT 2

Total FFS

Season TOT Upazila Team No. FFS/wk per upazila/wk

1 a) AEOb) PPI

2 a) BS AEO+PPI 2 2

b) BS

3 Etc. AEO+BS 4 4

PPI+BS

4 AEO+BS 2

PPI+BS 2 4

.....

9 AEO+BS 2PPI+BS 2

2FT 2 8

2FT 2

10 AEO+BS 1

PPI+BS 1

2FT 2

2FT 2 102FT 2

2FT 2

4. TRAINING TEAM PROFILE

4.1 DAE – UNDP/FAO and DAE – DANIDA SPSS

4.1.1 Staff Trainer Teams

Both DAE projects have much the same team structure for FFS at the upazila level, represented below: Upazila level DAE staff teams

The teams began originally with the Agricultural Extension Officer (AEO) and Plant Protection Inspector (PPI) working together as a team. This was followed by a scheme in which Block Supervisors (BS) were trained in SLTOT and added to the team. Initially all four (AEO, PPI and 2 BS) conducted 4 FFS per week. Later, the project management determined it would be more efficient if they split into two teams, as per the figure above. These two teams still only accommodate a total of 4 FFS per week, but it is less time consuming for each team, allowing the AEO and PPI to pursue other duties, such as the monitoring of training done by Farmer Trainers (FT).

The plan is to shift the duties of the AEO and PPI more towards supervision of the FT teams, and in this way hope to maintain quality and a high rate of farmer training.

22

TOT1 week

39 farmers

ApprenticeshipAEO+BS+FT

PPI +BS+FT

39 FT

BORO 2000 AMON 2000 BORO 2001

FT-FFS2 FT/Team

2 FFS/season

39 FT

TOT1 week

80-100 farmers

TOT1 week

100+ farmers


PPI +BS+FT

80-100 FT

Etc.*This Training Scheme

was originally created and

implemented by DAE-UNDP/FAO

and has resulted in 640 FTs by the end

of this project

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

AMON 1999

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

TOT1 week

39 farmers


PPI +BS+FT

39 FT

BORO 2000 AMON 2000 BORO 2001

FT-FFS2 FT/Team

2 FFS/season

39 FT

TOT1 week

80-100 farmers

TOT1 week

100+ farmers


PPI +BS+FT

80-100 FT

Etc.*This Training Scheme

was originally created and

implemented by DAE-UNDP/FAO

and has resulted in 640 FTs by the end

of this project

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

AMON 1999

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

FFSfull season

25 farmers/ FFS

4.1.2 Farmers-Training-Farmers

Both the DAE projects developed a plan for training FTs over a three-season period in which the FT begins by receiving the two-week TOT, followed by a season as an apprentice, working with the AEO or PPI upazila IPM team, finally followed by the FTs conducting their own independent FFS. Below is an example of the DAE-DANIDA/SPPS project current status of FT training, which followed a similar plan by the DAE-UNDP/FAO program:

Fig. 3 Recommendation:

The review team feels this plan and execution of Farmer-to-Farmer training is

excellent and forms a strong strategy for a sustainable, high-quality programme,

which shows promise for scaling up to train large numbers of farmers. The GOB

should place high priority on support for the continuation of this strategy, making

sure to ensure training quality is achieved and maintained.

It is unfortunate that the DAE-UNDP/FAO project was not able to gain further financing by UNDP for a Phase II. The project had invested in the development of a training mechanism, which ensured high-quality trainers. After having built a solid foundation during phase I of the program, the project was just at the point of being able to scale-up the training to achieve large numbers of well-trained farmers.

23

4.2 CARE INTERFISH and NOPEST

It is difficult to make judgments based on the comparison the CARE and the DAE project training structures as they differ substantially in form and scope. To begin with, CARE training takes place over three seasons with the same group of farmers in a village. CARE conducts fortnightly visits, instead of weekly visits, for the formal FFS sessions (they call “Learning Sessions). During these Learning Sessions, the farmers conduct what we understand to be the classic AESA analysis, typical of any good FFS. At the end of the Learning Session, farmers determine specific tasks they would like to pursue the following week (in-between Learning Sessions), and the FFS may split into two or three smaller groups of farmers, each group planning a separate topic to pursue during the following week (based on specific problems or interests related to their particular field conditions). The following week, the CARE Staff Trainer returns (usually in the afternoon) to provide a “Support Session” for each of the groups. The Staff Trainer may return on more than one day during the following week to provide these Support Sessions. In this way the CARE training model combines typical FFS activities with further activities based on the farmers’ expressed interests (this is similar to what we see in Indonsia as “Action Research”) Furthermore, the CARE programme seems to place additional emphasis on technical skills outside of the usual scope of pest management—specifically, rice-fish culture, dike crops, homestead activities. In fact, 8 of the 9 programmes in the Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) sector of CARE, follow an FFS framework for training farmers, although their principal focus may not be IPM. All of these projects do however have an IPM component.

Week 1: Learning Session #1- AESA / FMA #1

- Decide on small group PAR

Week 2: Support Session #1-Staff Trainer visits each small group in afternoons


- Small groups report back on support session activites

Week 4: Support Session #2-Staff Trainers visit each small group in afternoons

Etc. for 3 seasons = 1 FFS

1 Staff Trainer


- Decide on small group PAR

Week 2: Support Session #1-Staff Trainer visits each small group in afternoons


- Small groups report back on support session activites

Week 4: Support Session #2-Staff Trainers visit each small group in afternoons

Etc. for 3 seasons = 1 FFS

1 Staff Trainer

24

In this way, on the positive side, we might imagine the CARE as having a “built in” programme for follow-up in each FFS. Working with the same group of farmers on a diverse range of topics over three seasons is probably more likely to leave these farmers with skills and attitudes that will be sustainable into the future. On the negative side, the team notes several things:

a) first, fortnightly visits for the formal FFS (e.g., AESA) may be sometimes too long of a gap in time for optimal field observation—especially early in the growing season when events can transpire rapidly in the field.

b) Secondly, three seasons of the formal FFS meetings is possibly too long to effectively hold the interest of farmers. One CARE project manager noted that the farmers get “bored” with AESA after one season, as was evident in the quality of their drawings and enthusiasm for the AESA analyses.

c) Finally, the review team feels that employing only a single staff trainer (what CARE calls a Field Trainer, or FT) for each FFS may possibly lead to a somewhat lessened quality of farmer training than if the team consisted of two trainers.

d) The concentration of the same farmers for three seasons is at the obvious expense of using these same trainers to train new groups of farmers.

25

5. QUALITY ISSUES

The participatory (FFS) approach to IPM is rapidly becoming the standard for extension in Asia, where it has been employed since its initial development more than a decade ago. It is now found in more than 12 countries in Asia and now a growing number of countries in Africa and Latin America. The subject of what constitutes minimum requirements for a good quality FFS has been a topic for study and discussion for as long as the model has been in existence, and certain key factors have emerged that have proven time and again to be useful indicators of quality. This list is by no means exhaustive, but covers the basics (and touches on problems that can frequently occur). It is important to note that the team does not mean to imply that IPM FFS must conform to the same format everywhere, without room for modification. Indeeed, experimenting with new methods, using a diversity of means contingent on local conditions, and expanding the scope of activities, as time goes on, are fundamental aspects of the IPM philosophy.

5.1 Season-long Training of Trainers (SLTOT).

5.1.1 Season Long Training is Required

Experience in other countries over the past 15 years leads us to the position that season-long training of trainers is a “non-negotiable” requisite for successful implementation of IPM. SLTOT, or “seed-to-seed” training gives trainers experience in the full range of seasonal agronomic conditions, and allows season-long experiments. In this way no practice remains simply “book learning”. In many countries the first response by agencies has often been that they cannot spare staff members for the 90 – 120 days necessary for a season-long training, and the counter request is most often for a two or three week TOT. While the review team appreciates that it is a substantial commitment for an agency to dedicate staff for such a lengthy time, experience has shown this to be the number one critical element for success in the development of a strong and high-quality program. This fact is well appreciated by the GOB and CARE, and season-long training has been the norm in almost all the programmes we see in Bangladesh. The only exceptions, we understand, are some of the smaller NGOs who have been unable to make that commitment.

5.1.2 Overall Quality

DAE-UNDP/FAO, DAE-DANIDA and CARE all held SLTOT which the review team feels were of superior quality. While the form and content of the SLTOT vary among projects to a certain extent, they share core elements regarding a commitment to both technical strength and the development of strong facilitation skills.

5.1.3 Mixed-topic SLTOT

The review team notes that the DAE-DANIDA SPPS project has experimented with SLTOTs that are a combination rice and vegetables. Recommendation

The review team believes that a valuable analysis could be provided by DAE-

DANIDA SPPS and urges the project to explore to what degree these

26

“mixed-subject” SLTOT suffer loss in quality due to the diversion of

attention, time and resources away from a single-crop focus.

5.1.4 Inclusion of NGO Participants

Both of the DAE projects as well as the various CARE projects have programmed targets for including NGO participants in their SLTOT. However, filling these slots has proven to be somewhat of a challenge (the SPPS project records a 35% fill rate for the NGO slots in SLTOT). As mentioned above, the review team feels this may be due to the feeling by senior administrators in the NGO that they are not in a position to do without staff members for 120 days. There is little recourse but to suggest that maybe these NGOs should not be seeking funding to do IPM if they are unable to release staff members long enough to receive proper training. The spread of poor-quality IPM projects and weak FFS will do harm to IPM in the country Recommendation

The Steering Committee should explore the potential problems associated with

small NGOs increasingly pursuing funding for IPM training programs, but not

following acceptable minimum standards to assure quality in execution.

5.1.5 Follow-up Skill-development Support for Trainers in the Field

CARE has a particularly good follow-up and support system for their trainers. After having completed their SLTOT training, and after having conducted FFS for one season, the staff members all go through a Training Needs Assessment (TNA) exercise. This includes a self-assessment, assessment by their supervisor, and assessment by their peers. The District-level staff then convenes a needs-assessment workshop, where they undertake an analysis of TNA findings from the group of new staff in the district, and come up with plans for curriculum development (usually a 3-day workshop) geared to address the weak areas of the group. Recommendation

The DAE projects should all take a close look at CARE’s mechanism for

follow-up support for skills development of new trainers, and try to adopt a

similar device.

5.2 Farmer Field Schools (FFS)

In the final analysis, an IPM programme is only as good as its FFS. Several key factors have been shown to have direct influence on the quality of FFS. These factors have been studied in several countries over the past 15 years, and have been implicated as weak in cases where FFS have been shown to be of poor quality. These include:

5.2.1 Timely Arrival of Funds.

The early season in a rice field is in many ways the most important time of the season—farmer practice during this time (seedling handling, plant spacing, early-season chemical sprays) sets the trajectory for the entire season. Late arrival of, or insufficient funds for conducting FFS has been shown in impact studies to negatively affect many factors related to quality, including:

27

a) the establishment of comparison plots of IPM versus farmer practice, b) having sufficient materials to conduct a season-long FFS

Staff within the CARE INTERFISH project indicated this had been a problem in the past, but was much improved.

5.2.2 Balancing Technical and Facilitation Skills.

Trainers with strong technical skills are necessary to ensure an adequate understanding of the mechanisms underlying IPM, and to be able to respond to the often unpredictable variation in problems encountered. On the other hand, strong technical skills in the hands of a trainer who still maintains an outdated “top-down” approach to extension undermines the entire process-oriented philosophy that is the strength and hope for IPM. Strong facilitation skills are essential to help lead farmers to a position in which they feel confident and capable in individual and group decision making. What constitutes good facilitation is too large a topic to discuss adequately in this document. Developing good facilitators—both in staff workers and among farmer trainers—is probably the most important and the most difficult factor to accomplish in developing an IPM program.

The review mission feels that Master Trainers in DAE-UNDP/FAO, DAE-DANIDA/SPPS and the CARE projects, all exhibited excellent command of both technical and facilitation skills. Recommendation

The DAE should consider the long-term strategic value and possible uses

for their highly-trained and very capable Master Trainers. Advancing the

most capable ones to positions in which their accumulated knowledge can

be put to use will be of benefit to everyone.

5.2.3 Trainee Selection.

Experience to date in Bangladesh, as reported by staff members from DAE-UNDP/FAO, DAE-DANIDA/SPPS, and CARE, suggests a certain very few criteria for the optimal selection of FFS participants. Recommendation

a) Participants should be full-time farmers, whether land holders or

share-croppers, but not laborers. Experience from around the region

shows that share-croppers tend to be less inclined to try new practices

than do owner/operators.

b) Literate farmers tend to be preferred by the projects, but illiterate

farmers should not be excluded.

5.2.4 Optimal Size for FFS Trainer Teams.

The projects have FFS training teams that range in size from one (the CARE projects) to five (the CAD project). The team feels that a team size of two optimizes quality in terms of efficiency and monitoring capabilities. Also, if the one team trainer is taken ill, the second one can cover. The team feels that

28

the CAD training team of five persons is an inefficient use of trained personnel.

The team noted that whereas the CAD project was using a team of five trainers in the Pabna district (two upazilas), the project manager reported that in the Chandpur district (two upazilas) they have entered into a contract to have a small NGO (Padakhep) conduct FFS. Due to time constraints, the team could not visit Chandpur to ascertain the quality of training, but the general feeling of the mission is that quality could be an issue. Given the fact that the FFS in Pabna are being conducted with five, the review team is puzzled why the CAD Project Director does not simply divide his team among the two districts, rather than to subcontract out to an NGO.

5.2.5 AESA

The agroecosystem analysis (AESA) has proven to be one of the most important and fundamental tools of FFS training. During FFS training AESA provides a process of systematic observation (counts of insects per so many hills) made in both an IPM test plot compared with a “farmer practice” control plot. Farmers make systematic counts and at the same time collect specimens for subsequent drawing and discussion of a poster, which includes all the important components of the agroecosystem (plants, soil, water, and insects). Certain principles have emerged with regard to AESA over the years:

a) IPM plots must be compared to “farmer practice” control plots. In cases where this is for some reason omitted, the quality of the entire FFS is severely reduced. Both IPM and Farmer Practice plots should be in the same field (under the same soil, water and environmental influence), and be planted in the same variety.

b) Sweep-nets are not a tool for systematic observation. They tend to catch only the insects at the top of the plant, and keep farmers away from detailed observation of the whole plant, causing them to miss valuable observations. While sweep-nets might be employed in some FFS to help catch the more difficult insects, they are not required. In Bangladesh, however, sweep-nets have more reason to be employed as they have been proven a valuable tool for the mechanical control of the Rice Hispa;

c) Drawings should be done from collected specimens, never from books or brochures as this reduces the quality of the learning and decision-making process. Booklets can be given at the end of the FFS, usually during the certificate awards ceremony;

d) AESA is only a training tool, and is not necessary to be used by farmers during more than one season of training (unless as a tool for subsequent specific Action Research projects by alumni farmers). Once farmers become familiar with insects in the field, the formal process of counting and drawing is not necessary. However, the discipline that remains which must be emphasized (the “second principle” of IPM) is periodic (weekly) visits to the field to closely observe and monitor the conditions of the field (but this is a qualitative rather than quantitative task).

29

5.2.6 Frequency of FFS Sessions.

Experience shows that phenological development of the rice plant, and successional processes take place on a time scale such that weekly observations are optimal to capture the important dynamics of the season.

5.2.7 Time of day for FFS Sessions.

Farmers are fresher and the field observation experience is more pleasant in the morning. Light intensity and heat tend to favor the early morning (and just before sunset) as times when insects are most active. Furthermore, in Bangladesh afternoon prayer times and afternoon market times tend to interfere with the FFS session.

5.2.8 Duration of FFS Sessions

While this is not a hard-and-fast “rule”, 3.5 hours seems to be enough time for a typical session, which usually includes:

a. Recap (30 min) b. AESA field (45 min) c. AESA drawings, presentations and discussions ( 45-60 min) d. Snacks (15 min) e. Group dynamics (30 minutes or more, in several short sessions) f. Special Topics (30-60 minutes) g. Wrap-up and planning for next week (15 min)

Total: 3:30 minimum

5.2.9 Periodic Monitoring of FFS

Periodic monitoring of FFS by master trainers is essential for high quality. The degree of monitoring varied substantially among the projects, with the CARE projects having the most sophisticated system. If the CARE Field Staff Trainer is confronted with a technical problem for which he/she cannot answer, they refer the problem to the a Technical Officer (TO) assigned to the upazila level. If this person is unable to attend to the problem, he refers it to the district-level Technical Officer in charge of that particular technical area (e.g., fish, rice, vegetables). If the problem is still unable to be solved, the District-level TO sends the issue up to the Project Manager, and possibly the Project Coordinator in Dhaka, where outside expertise may be sought.

5.2.10 Overloading of FFS Trainers

The DAE-DANIDA SPPS project has stated its belief that 3 FFS per week per training team is optimal. The review team feels that, in the interests of rapid dissemination, as many as 4 FFS per week per training team could be employed without serious loss of quality. The review team feels it is necessary, however, to point out that AID-COMILLA is currently fielding training teams of two facilitators, 6 days per week, to conduct 9 FFS per team per week—6 days per week in the morning and an additional 3 days per week with afternoon sessions. The review mission feels this fact brings into question the actual quality of the FFS conducted by the project. Our experience is that quality FFS take preparation time, and follow-up. Plus there are administrative

30

duties required by the trainer regarding the running of an FFS. The review team suggests that AID-Comilla take a serious look at their programme and consider alternative approaches. One good alternative would be to train Farmer Trainers, as being done by DAE-UNDP/FAO and DAE-DANIDA/SPPS projects, to take over the task of farmer training, using the limited number of AID-Comilla field staff (16) as monitors and technical support teams.

31

6. LATERAL SPREAD OF IPM KNOWLEDGE

6.1 General Thoughts

One topic that is addressed in most of the IPM projects is that of the lateral spread of IPM skills and knowledge. We must, however, be careful to examine the nature of our assumptions regarding this topic. Several points are worth taking into consideration:

a) The team speculates that some activities may spread easily and effectively, especially the demonstrable income-generating practices such as dike cropping or rice-fish culture. However, the team feels that the IPM “core curriculum” of skills and knowledge will itself be much less effectively spread by simple word-of-mouth. We know from experience in other countries that “simple messages” in the form of brochures or radio messages are inadequate to impart an understanding of the relatively complex components and mechanisms associated with effective IPM. It is therefore unlikely that simply attending a field day, or hearing about it from a friend will lead to the same robust and experientially-based knowledge that is the goal of IPM training. The bottom line is that farmers need full-season FFS.

b) The measurement of such spread, and the questions of content and quality, are very difficult to measure, but an objective and skillful effort in this direction would be of benefit to all projects involved in IPM. Therefore, the team urges any of the projects to consider such a study.

Recommendation

1) One or more projects should make efforts to measure the lateral spread of IPM

practices, but be wary of assuming that the principles and practices of IPM will

spread simply through a field day. Contact through Field Days should be viewed

as an “advertisement” for FFS, not a substitute.

2) significant and robust lateral spread of IPM will best come about through actual

farmer-to-farmer full-season FFS training, and the GOB should be discussing how

best to encourage this.

6.2 DAE-UNDP/FAO

Up to June 2000 the project has completed 2284 Field Days. It is expected that by November 2000, 880 more Field Days will be completed. In addition, the project organized four IPM Congresses at the upazila level this past season.

Project Target

Accomplished as of

June 2000

Total expected

by Dec. 2000

Farmers in

rice Field Days640,000 456,000 632,800

32

6.3 DAE-DANIDA SPPS

Taken on the explicit target of engaging non-FFS farmers through the mechanism of inviting them to rice and vegetable FFS Field days, held at the end of the FFS field season. The DAE-DANIDA SPPS programme undertook a study to examine the sustainability of IPM training given during the early FAO-ICP programme. Results show some indication that lateral spread took place during the 4 to 9 years after the initial project, but that the degree of this spread was very small. Another survey has been conducted earlier this year with detailed interviews of 200 farmers who were trained in T. Amon 1998 season and also 200 untrained farmers. The report will be ready by year end. In addition, the SPPS project has printed tens-of-thousands of folders, leaflets and posters, and has been actively engaged with the media to promote IPM-related activities. However, the review team wishes to underline the fact that posters and leaflets have been shown, time and again, to be of only very limited value, and do not constitute farmer education in any sense. The best that can be said is that they draw attention to the project and perhaps promote more farmers wanting to undergo FFS training.

6.4 AID-COMILLA

Arranged 18 farmers field days at different locations during Amon 99, and 54 farmers field days during Boro 99/00. The project is targeting 8640 farmers on rice IPM through FFS, and additionally is targeting 69,120 farmers through Farmer Field Days (each IPM farmer invites 8 non-IPM farmers).

6.5 CAD

In addition to the 9000 existing IPM farmers, the project has conducted 25 Farmer Field Days for a total contact with 7500 non-IPM farmers. This process is continuing. The team should note, however, that the documentation provided to the team by the CAD project was very sparse, leaving the team unable to make any real substantive comments on this project.

6.6 CARE

The CARE projects have experience with a diversity of approaches to lateral spread. At the heart of these methods is the model of an FFS as a core group for a Block, and the two Farmer Leaders (FL) from each FFS acting as leaders for the group. The review team observed villages neighboring the FFS village in which obvious indications of spread were evident—specifically dike crops. It is likely that visible and easily implemented technologies like dike crops and fish culture can spread quickly with minimal training of farmer-to-farmer, but as discussed elsewhere in this document, the review team feels that the core IPM message can only really be successfully spread, in a sustainable manner, via

Total project

target

Target

until 6/00

Accomlished

as of 6/00

Farmers in rice

Field Days 800,000 180,000 335,050Farmers in vegetable

Field Days 125,000 - 48,854

33

full-season FFS. The problem lies in the fact that farmers who receive only a “simple message” from an outside source, will be subject to change when the simple message changes (e.g., pesticide company representatives come to sell their products). Full-season FFS (or 3-season FFS in the case of CARE), on the other hand, provides farmers with an understanding of the mechanisms behind the ecological interactions in their fields, and an understanding of the process whereby they can test ideas in their own fields. This leaves trained FFS farmers in a far better position to resist the sales pitches of chemical agents. Indeed, we have noted in many countries that chemical sales people are intimidated by the challenges put forward by IPM farmers, and give up trying to sell pesticides in IPM stronghold areas.

34

7. IPM RESEARCH

Research by established universities and research organizations is an important part of furthering IPM, but it should not be the central focus of IPM. In the past too much emphasis was placed on research to provide answers to what were fundamentally not research, but rather, extension problems. IPM in Bangladesh is on the right track and is providing an effective model for extension that emphasizes the empowerment of farmers to become better and more informed decision-makers. In most crops there is a vast wealth of existing technical knowledge that waits only to be put into a format that is appropriate for farmer training. Problems in the field that have no clear solution are thought of to be the domain of formal research. But even here we are seeing increasing success by IPM alumni farmers who are demonstrating the capability to find new solutions to old problems that have escaped the best efforts of formal research (e.g., stemborer control in West Java; Golden Snail control in Sumatra). Having said this, there are many areas where formal research can be employed to provide new insights. One specific area is that of insect microbial control, which holds great promise for many of the most serious pests of vegetables. In Indonesia, currently an estimated 10,000 farmers are using an NPV virus to control Spodoptera exigua caterpillars in onions. Previously, these same onions were sprayed on average every two days for the entire season (similar to the rates of application of insecticides for the Fruit and Shoot Borer on Brinjal). With the IPM method, however, farmers do only hand picking and virus applications and are enjoying substantially higher yields at a fraction of the cost. This was only possible through the efforts of highly skilled researchers (in this case from Clemson University in South Carolina) who first did surveys throughout the country in order to screen, isolate and identify local biotypes of the insect pathogens. Once having discovered likely candidates, however, the researchers worked closely with the ICP-IPM programme to develop a sustainable method whereby trained IPM farmers could effectively use the technology. Recommendation

DAE should promote research on the use of local biotypes of insect pathogens

against the Fruit and Shoot Borer, to be used in an IPM control program involving

brinjal farmers. Here in Bangladesh, the IPM Collaborative Research and Support Programme (IPM CRSP) supported by a USIAD grant, is doing what looks to be appropriate research in collaboration with the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI), and the Institute for Post Graduate Studies in Agriculture (IPSA), on a variety of topics in rice and vegetables. The review team feels that among the list of research topics being conducted by the IPM CRSP, the topics having the greatest promise to be useful for IPM in the field are those related to varietal screening for resistance to diseases and pests, the management of soil-borne pathogens, and possibly the use of insect biological control organisms for specific pests (in vegetables).

35

8. COLLABORATION AND LINKAGES

IPM in Bangladesh is undergoing dynamic growth and development. IPM is engaged in by a growing number of projects, hundreds of government and NGO trainers, and tens-of-thousands of farmers across Bangladesh. As the participatory farmer training approach matures, the scope and creative approaches to farmer training will continue to expand and multiply. The review team feels that one area of greatest weakness is in cross-programme communication. The team understands that this observation has been brought up in the past by various review missions, and that the creation of the IPM Steering Committee was, in part, a response to this problem. Overall collaboration among the DAE projects seems to have been good. The DAE-UNDP/FAO and DAE-DANIDA SPPS projects have engaged in a strategic plan to divide up responsibilities for districts and upazilas with overlap only where the size of the District warranted a combined effort. Master trainers have gone back and forth between SLTOTs as trainers and resource persons. The DAE projects, together with CARE, have also shared master trainers during SLTOTs, and CARE staff have received training in DAE SLTOT; however, collaboration between CARE and the DAE projects at the upazila level seems very weak, and conversations with DAE personnel in the field show ample evidence of a general lack of awareness of the nature and quality of CARE IPM activities. Similarly, there seems to be a general disinterest among CARE staff in working with Block Supervisors. Yet CARE, and NGO projects in general, are of a more temporary nature than are the local DAE staff. Therefore, it strikes the team as an inescapable fact that increased contact at the field level between CARE Field Trainers and DAE training staff would increase the manifold quality and efficiency of the overall IPM effort for all parties. It remains only for both parties to take increased responsibility for setting up a mechanism for exchanging ideas and experience at all levels, but especially at the upazila level. One such example of already exists. Specifically, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was drawn up between CARE-INTERFISH and the DAE, to cover certain specific upazila in the Bogora District. This is reported to have been somewhat energetically pursued by both CARE and DAE personnel, and is said to have resulted in good collaboration and mutual understanding. This MOU also covers certain upazilas the districts of Jessore, Magura, Satkhira, Rangpur, and Naogaon but the team was unable in this short time to have knowledge of the actual results in these districts. The review team believes that substantively increased collaboration among project personnel at the field level will not necessarily involve a significant outlay of staff time or materials, and would act to strengthen all programmes involved. It remains as the responsibility of the leadership of each group to create a policy environment within and between their projects that will promote such a spirit of collaboration.

36

Recommendation

1) The field-level results of the existing MOU between CARE INTERFISH and DAE

should be fully studied, and should be looked at as a possible model for

collaborative work elsewhere in the country;

2) Representatives of CARE and the DAE projects, under the direction of the IPM

Steering committee, should plan a special working group meeting in which these

issues are discussed in detail, and an action plan is come up with. All parties

should be aware that all such efforts are themselves “experimental” and should be

willing to try alternative solutions if the current efforts fail or are inadequate.

37

9. SUSTAINABILITY

9.1 Farmer-to-Farmer Training

The review team feels that farmer-to-farmer training will be one of the key factors determining the sustainability of IPM, and sustainable agriculture in general, in the years to come. Specifically, we focus on farmer-to-farmer training because:

a) Projects and governments anywhere in the world are numerically limited in their ability to conduct extended working relationships with large numbers of farmers;

b) A successful example exists: positive results have been achieved by FAO-ICP in Indonesia, where 26,000 farmer trainers have been involved, and where farmer trainers are currently responsible for training around 100,000 new farmers every year—mostly based on locally-derived funds (even China, with over 400,000 agricultural extension agents, is adopting an IPM FFS approach, and moving in this direction);

c) Early fears regarding the quality of farmer-to-farmer training have been dispelled. Farmers, not surprisingly, have a better rapport with farmers than do government officials. Furthermore, the nature of the participatory training, being based on easily-replicated simple experiments and practical concepts of farmer-based observation and decision making, tends to support a lateral spread without a serious diminution of quality in the “message”.

In this regard, the DAE-UNDP/FAO project has really led the way in Bangladesh by providing a model for developing Farmer Trainers (FT) in large number (refer to Training Team Profile), and yet in a manner that is consistent with maintaining the quality of the training. The project, after just one phase, was just reaching a point of “scaling up” to be able to develop large numbers of quality FTs. As such, the review team feels it is unfortunate that the project was unable to be funded for a second phase. The Indonesian IPM programme trained over one million farmers, but this has taken three phases and 13 years. Starting slow and developing a solid base of quality trainers is essential to the success of any farmer training program. Once you have this solid foundation and a good training strategy, then a project can begin to witness something in the way of rapidly-increasing growth (it is the nature of exponential growth curves that they start out slow and build increasingly rapidly). Fortunately, the DAE-DANIDA SPPS project is following a similar pattern of training FTs. The CARE projects have not directly pursued the development of farmer-to-farmer training on a large scale. They have, however, facilitated the development of a large number of “Farmer Leaders” (FL). The INTERFISH and NOPEST projects have produced 1,847 and 2,966 FL respectively. Two FL per FFS are chosen by the farmers. They work along with the staff trainers to help organize and carry out the FFS activities. The review team feels that CARE would do well to focus more attention and resources on developing their numerous Field Leaders as farmer trainers. Recommendation

CARE should consider working together with DAE to train and support the CARE-

trained Farmer Leaders (FL) in the role of farmer trainers.

38

9.2 IPM Clubs and Associations

The development of IPM clubs and associations looks to be motivated by the enthusiasm of trained IPM farmers to carry forward with IPM activities (both technical and social) in order to expand in new directions. Experience in other countries, particularly Indonesia, leads us to believe that these clubs, together with the growing number of skilled Farmer Trainers, will provide a skeletal framework for a network of IPM farmers that may someday be able to stand on their own and bridge across upazila, districts and even nationally (Indonesia has some 30,000 Farmer Trainers who have held congresses at all political levels, including national-level meetings). The review team has mixed impressions of the value gained by registering IPM clubs. The team leader feels, based on the experiences in other countries, that IPM clubs work best when independent of the government, being truly farmer-based initiatives supported by the farmers’ own initiative. It was pointed out that registration allows for an annual government audit, which might provide members with a greater sense of security. However, the team has also heard that these audits are sometimes subject to corrupt practices, which could undermine the motivation and enthusiasm of the members. Several examples of IPM clubs in Bangladesh demonstrate their capacity to raise funds through the sale of various items related to IPM (e.g., recorded local music and children’s games). The team has heard reports of IPM clubs are experimenting with providing monitoring and advice as services to other farmers for a fee. This has been seen to be successful in other countries, with some groups developing a village IPM store, where farmers can buy microbial-based alternatives to pesticides, compost, and microbial compost “starters” (based on the fungus Trichoderma, which helps rapidly break down plant material to compost, and also has significant benefits as a biological control agent against “wilt” disease in tomatoes). Recommendation

The IPM Steering Committee should discuss possibilities for evaluating the diversity

and success of IPM clubs and associations, as a means of understanding how best to

support them.

9.3 Transfer of DAE Staff to Non-IPM Upazila

The DAE-UNDP/FAO project drafted a letter to the Director General of DAE with regard to the problem of transfer of IPM-trained DAE staff to non-IPM upazila. The DG signed this letter, stating that no such transfers should take place, unless in the case of promotions in which there is no scope for transfer to IPM upazilas. This letter was apparently not wholly effective. As of December 1999 (Doc. UNDP-17), a total of 42 of 445 (9.5%) of total IPM trained DAE staff under the DAE-UNDP/FAO project had been transferred to other upazilas. Whereas the project was informed of the transfer, it was not ever stated to which upazila the persons were transferred; hence, the project is uncertain as to the percentage of trained IPM trainers lost in this manner. Recommendation

The review team recommends that the IPM Steering Committee review the problem

of loss of trained trainers due to transfers outside of IPM areas, and decide upon a

course of action to reduce the losses by transfer of trained IPM trainers.

39

Problem:

Highly-trained human resources in the field from the DAE-UNDP/FAO project may be left without support for activities due to end of project (June 2001). Without continuation of support for these activities, the progress and momentum established during the first phase of the programme will be lost, and much of the investment wasted.

Recommendation: (three alternatives)

o That the GOB establish a National IPM Programme as proposed in the

draft IPM Policy

o That GOB consider the possibility that a portion (e.g., 20%) of Upazila

Agricultural Development funds could be used to continue supporting FFS

through existing staff, especially considering the 640 Farmer Trainers,

o that GOB consider requesting donors to take over support for some or all

of these activities

9.4 Geographic Concentration of FFS

One issue that remains unclear is the strategic consequences of concentrating FFS--many within a few Districts and upazila, or in contrast, spreading FFS widely across many Districts and upazila. One thought is that the more concentrated the approach, the greater the likelihood that IPM will be sustainable over the longer-term, as IPM farmers will tend to form clubs and associations, tend to communicate with and support each other more readily, and therefore tend to create a more dynamic environment in which IPM can grow. The trend among the DAE projects is to spread a few FFS across many upazila. As we have seen the projects strategy is to establish 2 teams of 2 trainers in each upazila, and to spread the IPM farmer groups out among the various Unions and Blocks. The question then arises--given the size of the farming population, this approach may suffer from a “dilution effect” in that IPM farmers are too few and far between to carry influence in the community. In contrast, the CARE projects tend to concentrate their efforts within a relatively few Districts and upazila. CARE Interfish, for example in the Borora District, has produced 761 FFS in 6 upazila since 1995. If we assume an average of 200 villages/upazila, and knowing there are 11 upazila in the Districs; this gives us an estimate that CARE Interfish has put an FFS in 761/2200, or 35% of all villages in the District, concentrated in just over half the upazila. The issue relates to the idea of a “critical mass”—how many IPM farmers does it take, in a village, a block, a union, or an upazila, to influence the remaining farmers in favor of IPM? The review team doesn’t have an answer to this question, but notes that it is a question worthy of discussion and of some experimentation. In part, this issue will be dealt with naturally by the training of Farmer Trainers. Farmer Trainers are most likely to be working in their villages and in nearby villages; hence, lending a “concentrating force” to the spread. Results from the study of this issue will have value to other countries in the region as well.

Recommendation

40

The IPM Steering Committee should discuss possibilities for conducting a study

aimed at determining the strategic value associated with concentrating training

activities at very level.

9.5 IPM Policy and a National IPM Programme

Clearly one of the most important factors relating to the long-term sustainable success of IPM in Bangladesh will be the ratification of the draft IPM policy, and the establishment of guidelines for a National IPM Programme. The team hopes that the IPM policy can be ratified as soon as possible and that work can begun on establishing a pilot programme for a GOB funded, National IPM Programme. In the opinion of the team leader, who has been involved in IPM projects in numerous countries in Asia and Africa, Bangladesh is one of the best example of a government committed to supporting the education and betterment of its farmers through field-level educational programmes aimed at empowerment of farmers and local communities. As an example of this support, the draft policy on IPM is both comprehensive in scope and based on the most current scientific evidence. When this policy is approved, Bangladesh will be among the leaders in both policy and practice of IPM across the countries of the world.

41

10. RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of recommendations from the body of the text:

The DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project Impact Study(3.1.1)

Recommendation Given that extensive time, effort and expense is put forward by donors and

government agencies in the form of impact studies in many countries, and

given the importance of impact studies on the bearing and future course of

participatory-training programmes, the review team feels that the

methodology of impact studies for IPM and farmer-participatory

programmes in general, should be the topic of an international forum. The

review team feels that an international agency, such as FAO or UNDP

should convene a workshop in which existing examples of impact studies

are reviewed by experts in the field of social survey and IPM, and a set of

guidelines should be developed that would have direct benefit to

governments and NGOs in a large and growing number of countries.

Furthermore, the review team feels that any project or agency initiating a

new IPM programme should begin with a baseline study of sufficient scope

to offer an reasonably accurate picture of farmer practices for a particular

season and crop. Subsequent, post-training surveys of IPM farmer

behavior can then be compared with the baseline survey and at the same

time with nearby non-IPM farmer behavior.

Farmers-Training-Farmers (4.1.2) Recommendation:

The review team feels this plan and execution of Farmer-to-Farmer training

is excellent and forms a strong strategy for a sustainable, high-quality

programme, which shows promise for scaling up to train large numbers of

farmers. The GOB should place high priority on support for the continuation

of this strategy, making sure to ensure training quality is achieved and

maintained.

Mixed-topic SLTOT (5.1.3)

Recommendation The review team believes that a valuable analysis could be provided by DAE-

DANIDA SPPS and urges the project to explore to what degree these

“mixed-subject” SLTOT suffer loss in quality due to the diversion of

attention, time and resources away from a single-crop focus.

Inclusion of NGO Participants (5.1.4)

Recommendation The Steering Committee should explore the potential problems associated

with small NGOs increasingly pursuing funding for IPM training programs,

but not following acceptable minimum standards to assure quality in

execution.

42

Follow-up Skill-development Support for Trainers in the Field (5.1.5)

Recommendation The DAE projects should all take a close look at CARE’s mechanism for follow-up support for skills development of new trainers, and try to adopt a similar device.

Balancing Technical and Facilitation Skills. (5.2.2)

Recommendation The DAE should consider the long-term strategic value and possible uses

for their highly-trained and very capable Master Trainers. Advancing the

most capable ones to positions in which their accumulated knowledge can

be put to use will be of benefit to everyone.

Trainee Selection. (5.2.3)

Recommendation c) Participants should be full-time farmers, whether land holders

or share-croppers, but not laborers. Experience from around

the region shows that share-croppers tend to be less inclined to

try new practices than do owner/operators.

d) Literate farmers tend to be preferred by the projects, but

illiterate farmers should not be excluded.

General Thoughts (on lateral spread) (6.1)

Recommendation

a) One or more projects should make efforts to measure the lateral

spread of IPM practices, but be wary of assuming that the

principles and practices of IPM will spread simply through a

field day. Contact through Field Days should be viewed as an

“advertisement” for FFS, not a substitute.

b) significant and robust lateral spread of IPM will best come

about through actual farmer-to-farmer full-season FFS training,

and the GOB should be discussing how best to encourage this.

IPM Research (7. )

Recommendation DAE should promote research on the use of local biotypes of insect

pathogens against the Fruit and Shoot Borer, to be used in an IPM

control program involving brinjal farmers.

Collaboration and linkages (8. )

Recommendation

a) The field-level results of the existing MOU between CARE

INTERFISH and DAE should be fully studied, and should be

looked at as a possible model for collaborative work elsewhere

in the country;

b) Representatives of CARE and the DAE projects, under the

direction of the IPM Steering committee, should plan a special

working group meeting in which these issues are discussed in

detail, and an action plan is come up with. All parties should be

aware that all such efforts are themselves “experimental” and

43

should be willing to try alternative solutions if the current efforts

fail or are inadequate.

Farmer-to-Farmer Training (9.1)

Recommendation CARE should consider working together with DAE to train and support the

CARE-trained Farmer Leaders (FL) in the role of farmer trainers.

IPM Clubs and Associations (9.2)

Recommendation The IPM Steering Committee should discuss possibilities for evaluating the

diversity and success of IPM clubs and associations, as a means of

understanding how best to support them. Transfer of DAE Staff to Non-IPM Upazila (9.3)

Recommendation The review team recommends that the IPM Steering Committee review the

problem of loss of trained trainers due to transfers outside of IPM areas,

and decide upon a course of action to reduce the losses by transfer of

trained IPM trainers.

Impending Closure of the DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Programme (9.3) Recommendation:

o That the GOB establish a National IPM Programme as proposed in the

draft IPM Policy, and

o That GOB consider the possibility that a portion (e.g., 20%) of Upazila

Agricultural Development funds could be used to continue supporting FFS

through existing staff, especially considering the 640 Farmer Trainers, or

o that GOB consider requesting donors to take over support for some or all

of these activities

Geographic Concentration of FFS (9.4)

Recommendation The IPM Steering Committee should discuss possibilities for conducting a

study aimed at determining the strategic value associated with

concentrating training activities at very level.

Summary of recommendations specifically related to training quality (5.)

SLTOT

o Season-long Training of Trainers (SLTOT) must be a “non-negotiable” requisite

for implementation of an IPM project.

o exchange of trainers among the various SLTOTs has taken place to a certain

extent, but could be increased in the future in order to promote greater exchange

of skills

o the projects should consider SLTOTs dedicated to vegetables, due to:

o increasing demand by farmers for vegetable IPM training

44

o SLTOT Master Trainers should have significant experience conducting FFS. In

general, staff who are responsible for developing curriculum or training trainers

should themselves have done farmer training.

FFS

o money and materials need to arrive in the field on time

o trainers need to be developed with an adequate balance of technical skills and

facilitation skills,

o The agroecosystem analysis (AESA) must be included as an integral part of

each FFS

o IPM plots must be compared to “farmer practice” control plots, and both must

be established at the very beginning of the season

o AESA drawings should be done from collected specimens, never from books or

brochures

o It is best to have weekly FFS session from transplanting to flowering, then

fortnightly meetings till harvest

o Morning FFS sessions are best

o FFS sessions should be around 3.5 hours minimum, with a minimum of 14

sessions for rice

o Periodic monitoring of FFS by master trainers is essential.

.

45

12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The review team would like to express its appreciation to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh for giving the team the opportunity to review IPM activities in Bangladesh. The team gratefully acknowledges the assistance and support of Dr. A.M.M. Shawket Ali, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture; Mr. H.A. Ismet Hakim, FAO Representative a.i. in Bangladesh; Mr. M. Enamul Hoque, Director General, District of Agricultural Extension; Dr. Mohammad Ali Ashraf, Programme Officer, UNDP, Dhaka; Dr. Subhas Das-Gupta, National Professional Officer, and Begum Nurun Naher, Programme Officer, FAO Bangladesh for their support and guidance in accomplishing this task. The Team is graateful to the Project Directors, Project Managers, Chief Technical officers and field staff for rendering strong support and assistance during this review.

46

13. APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. Terms of Reference for Mission to Evaluate the IPM projects in Bangladesh

Background Information

In Bangladesh, Integrated Pest Management(IPM) activities started in 1981 with the

introduction of the first phase of FAO’s inter-country programme (ICP) on rice IPM.

During this phase, IPM demonstrations were conducted in 20 districts. However, it was

during the second phase of the programme which started in 1987, the IPM activities

began to expand and it became a popular topic among people. ICP played a catalytic role

in promoting the IPM concept and approach among Government officials and external

donor community, provided IPM training to build the training capacity of Department of

Agricultural Extension (DAE) staff, and introduced Farmer Field School (FFS) for

training farmers. A number of persons from NGOs were also given training in IPM at that

time.

Based on the success of this programme and to provide IPM training to more field level

agricultural extension workers of the Government, NGO personnel and also farmers, the

Integrated Pest Management Project (BGD/95/003) which is funded by UNDP with the

technical assistance from FAO started functioning from 1996 under DAE. The

Strengthening Plant Protection Services Project(SPPSP) funded by DANIDA where IPM

is one of the components also started functioning under DAE from 1997. IPM has

become component of two other projects funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The IPM component of these two projects are also implemented by DAE. Among NGOs,

CARE Bangladesh has two IPM projects in operation and AID-Comilla, a local NGO has

also started its IPM programme recently. As a result of the success of this programme and

on the basis of the need for IPM in Bangladesh, more IPM projects are forthcoming

covering a variety of crops such as rice, vegetables and cotton.

Through the activities of these projects, Bangladesh has already produced a large number of core IPM trainers which includes staff of the DAE and NGO organizations and farmers. In addition to these activities on human resource development, the IPM projects have been active in the establishment of IPM field schools for farmers and school children, development and promotion of IPM farmer clubs and in the testing and usage of biopesticides, biocontrol agents etc. Thus, in the past, with the good support of the Government of Bangladesh (GOB), a strong IPM base has been established in this country. The Government intends to extend its support for IPM and is currently contemplating on the development of an IPM policy and a national IPM programme to effectively coordinate all IPM activities in the country irrespective of the IPM implementing agencies, donors and crops. At this juncture, it is viewed in the Tripartite Review (TPR) meeting of IPM Project (BGD/95/003) held on 21 March 2000 that an analysis of the current status of IPM implementation by various projects and agencies would be very useful in developing the national IPM programme. Therefore, it was

47

suggested in the meeting that an evaluation of IPM activities in Bangladesh should be done immediately. 1. Objective of the Mission

The general objective of the mission is to evaluate the overall effectiveness of various IPM projects in the country, especially in terms of the quality and impact of the IPM training and congruence, interaction and potential for cooperation between the various existing IPM initiatives. The evaluation should provide a set of practical recommendations for the effectiveness and sustainability of IPM training in Bangladesh. Specifically, the Mission will: a. Evaluate the type and quality of IPM Training of Trainers given to the staff of the

various organizations involved in IPM (This will include assessment on the degree to which the IPM training conforms to the contemporary IPM principles, concepts and training approaches as well as on whether the duration of the training is appropriate and if the trainers/facilitators have relevant experience and educational qualification).

b. Evaluate the type and quality of IPM training given to the farmers through FFS (This will include an assessment on the experience and qualification of the trainers, duration of training, training curriculum etc.) by different IPM projects.

c. Evaluate the overall efficiency and effectiveness of IPM training under various IPM projects. (This should take into account the training approach used as well as the utilization of the human resources, especially trained staff and farmer-trainers).

d. Assess the participation of women in IPM activities at all levels. e. Assess the impact of IPM training (TOT, FFS) on farmers’ practices and attitudes.

This will include the knowledge gain, change in farming practices, and economic benefits (or losses) accruing to farmers. Special attention should be given to assessing the prospects for sustaining the benefits of IPM training at the farmer and local community level, including institutionally organized follow-up actions (IPM clubs, farmer-farmer training, IPM for school children, IPM congress etc.)

f. Analyze the key factors that have facilitated or impeded the effectiveness and efficiency in achieving the objectives of the IPM projects as a whole.

g. Prepare a mission report with a set of actionable recommendations for coordination of IPM activities of various projects giving due consideration to maintain training quality and to promote the expansion and sustainability of IPM in Bangladesh. The recommendations should reflect (a) the importance of maintaining the quality, effectiveness and sustainability of IPM training as well as measures necessary for facilitating the realization of benefits from this training for the farmers, and (b) the appropriateness of and proposed means for the expansion of quality training through a process which includes other national actors and external partners involved in Bangladesh.

2. Composition of the Mission

A three member team consisting of one International expert and two National experts. The International expert should have IPM background and project evaluation experiences. Of the two National experts, one should be extension person with IPM background and another with experiences in evaluation/review work with agricultural economics background. The International expert will be the team leader.

48

3. Duration and timetable

The duration of the mission will be one month (3 weeks for the Team Leader). The Mission will be fielded in mid October. The team will prepare a draft report for discussion with the government and other parties involved prior to the departure of team leader. The report will be finalized and submitted to FAO by the team leader no later than two weeks following the completion of field work. FAO will be responsible for circulation of the report to all parties concerned for their comments. The report will be discussed by the government and other parties within two months from its circulation by FAO. 4. Consultations in the fields

The team will maintain close liaison with the representative of FAO in Bangladesh, UNDP Resident Representative and Ministry of Agriculture/Department of Agricultural Extension.

49

Appendix B. Senior Persons Contacted

Ministry of Agriculture

Dr. A.M.M. Shawkat Ali Secretary Ministry of Agriculture of Bangladesh DAE

Mr. M. Enamul Hoque Director General Department of Agricultural Extension Khamarbari, Farmgate Dhaka 1215 Tel: 8115267 FAO

Mr. H.A. Ismet-Hakim FAO Representative a.i. in Bangladesh Road #8, House #37 Dhanmondi Dhaka-1205 Tel: 8118015-8 Ms. Begum Nurun Naher Programme Officer FAO Representation, Bangladesh

AID-COMILLA

Ms. Rokeya Begum Shefali Director 143 Housing Estate Noorpur Colony, Section No. 3 Comilla – 3500 Tel: 081-6137 CAD

Dr. Shahidul Islam Project Manager CADP, Part – B Plant Protection Wing, DAE Khamarbari, Farmgate Dhaka – 1215 Tel: 8119422

CARE

Mr. Michael DeVries ANR Sector Coordinator 65, Road 7/A Dhanmondi R/A Tel: 8114195

Dr. Marco Barzman Project Coordinator CARE NOPEST

DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project

Dr. S. Ramaswany Chief Technical Adviser DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project C/o. Royal Danish Embassy P.O. Box 2056 House 01 Road 51, Gulshan Dhaka Tel: 9131373 Dr. Hein Bijlmakers IPM Training Adviser in Bangladesh DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Project Dr. E.H. Khandker National Project Director DAE-UNDP/FAO IPM Project Mittle Building, 6th Floor Khamarbari, Farmgate Dhaka – 1215 Tel: 9120867 Dr. M. Shamsul Alam IPM Training Expert Room #722 Middle Building, 6th Floor Khamarbari, Farmgate Dhaka – 1215 Tel: 9120863 IPM CRSP

Dr. ANM Rezaul Karim Coordinator IPM CRSP HRC, BARI Gazipur – 1701 Tel: 0681 56407 UNDP

Mohammad Ali Ashraf Programme Officer UNDP Agargaon, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, Dhaka Tel: 8118600-6

50

APPENDIX C. Itinerary

Oct- 27&28 Comilla: visit to AID-Comilla to discuss with project officials and visit Field Day at Laemipur

Oct- 29 Dhaka:Team Leader Settle arrives from USA Oct- 30 Dhaka: Meeting of team leader with team members Mr. Giasuddin Milki

and Professor Abdul Halim. Met with Programme officer Ms. Naher, FAO Representative, Mr. H.A.I. Hakim and FAO Headquarters staff.

Oct- 31 Dhaka: Visited the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) 1) DAE-UNDP/FAO BGD/95/003 IPM Project: Met with Mr. E.H.

Khandker, the National Project Director, and Dr. M. Shamsul Alam, IPM Training Expert, for overview of project goals and accomplishments, and to acquire project documents.

2) DAE-DANIDA SPPS Project: Met with Dr. S. Ramaswamy, Chief Technical Adviser and Mr. Hein Bijlmakers, IPM Training Adviser for overview of SPPS project and to acquire project documents.

3) Met with Mr. M.E. Hoque, Director General of DAE, for courtesy call and to briefly discuss the accomplishments of DAE IPM projects in Bangladesh.

4) Working dinner with Dr. Ramaswamy and Mr. Bijlmakers for further discussions on the SPPS project.

Nov 1 Dhaka: Visited CARE offices at Dhanmandi to discuss mission with senior ANR Sector staff

Nov. 1&2 Rajshahi and Nawabganj district Kalyanpur: Visited DAE-DANIDA SPPS TOT and FFSs and project activities in the region.

Nov. 3 Dhaka Nov. 4 Afternoon, leave for Mymensingh Nov. 5 Visited DAE-UNDP/FAO project FFS alumni IPM Clubs (2) at Iswarganj,

Mymensingh Nov. 6 Dhaka Nov. 7 Bogra: Visited CARE INTERFISH TOT for partner NGOs held in Bogra;

held discussions with local DAE officials Nov. 8 Bogra: Visted CARE INTERFISH post-FFS farmers and discussed their

results. Nov. 8 Pabna: Visited two CAD FFS and discussed project with field staff and the

Project Director of the program. Nov. 9 Dhaka: Meeting with the Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture. Nov. 10-12 Dhaka: Team study of documents and writing draft interim report. Nov. 13 Gazipur: Visit to DAE-DANIDA/SPPS FFS at Gazipur and the biocontrol

lab set up to rear Trichogramma parasites. Also visited the USAID funded CRSP nearby.

Nov. 13 Dhaka:Visited CARE offices to seek additional documentation. Nov. 14 Dhaka: Report preparation. Nov. 15 Dhaka: Submitted Interim report to the Secretary, MOA. Nov. 16 Presented Interim report to the Secretary, MOA and the stakeholders. Nov. 17-22 Editing report for final presentation. Nov. 23 Submission of draft mission report to FAO

51

DAE - UNDP

Doc. No.TITLE TYPE OF DOCUMENT

UNDP-1 BGD/95/003 - Integrated Pest Management Project Document

UNDP-2 Final Report on IPM Training Impact - January 1999 Impact Study

UNDP-3 Bangladesh Country Report - July 1999 PAC Meeting report

UNDP-4 Project Profile as of September 2000 Progress Report

UNDP-5 IPM in the New Media Oct. 2000 News reportsUNDP-6 TOT for Trainers in Rice IPM Sept. 2000 TOT Manual

UNDP-7End of Assignment Report P. Pachagounder, Team Leader

May 2000EOA Report

UNDP-8 IPM An Overview Brochure

UNDP-9 Farmer Trainers Manual (Bangla) Training Manual

UNDP-10 Miscellaneous Papers, Brochures and Newsletters Miscellaneous

UNDP-11 Project Organization Structure graphic

UNDP-12 Project Statistics training statistics

UNDP-13 Participation of women training statisticsUNDP-14 Facilitator Statistics training statistics

UNDP-15 Budget for establishing DT-FFS budget

UNDP-16 Curriculum for rice TOT: weekly & daily activities curriculum

UNDP-17 Inventory of season long-trained persons. Aug 2000 participant statistics

UNDP-18 Particulars of farmer-trainers (FTs) in Rice IPM farmer trainer statistics

UNDP-19 Mid-term evaluation mission report Nov. 1998 mid-term evaluation

UNDP-20 curriculum design workshop proceedings Jan 1997 curriculum design

UNDP-21 curriculum revision workshop report Sept. 1997 curriculum design

UNDP-22 technical progress report Jan 2000 progress reportUNDP-23 technical progress report Aug 1999 Progress Report

UNDP-24 Interim Progress Report Sept. 1998 Progress Report

UNDP-25 Project performance evaluation report April 1998 Progress Report

UNDP-26 technical progress report Feb. 1998 Progress Report

UNDP-27 Project performance evaluation report May 1997 Progress Report

UNDP-28 Interim Progress Report Nov. 1996 Progress Report

UNDP-29 List of Materials for FFS in Rice Materials list

UNDP-30 TORs for Senior Project Staff TORs

DAE - DANIDA


SPPS-1

Agreement between The Government of the Kingdom of

Denmark and the Government of the People's Republic of

Bangladesh regarding Strengthening Plant Protection Services

Project

Project Document

SPPS-2Report on Review of Strenghening Plant Protection Services

Project BangladeshMid Term Review

SPPS-3 Integrated Pest Management Policy / 3rd Draft Draft GOB IPM Policy

SPPS-4

Progress Report for the Period July 1997 to June 2000

prepared for the 6th Steering Committee meeting, September

2000

Steering Commitee Document

SPPS-5 SPPS An Overview Information Brochure

SPPS-6 Natural Enemies of the Insect Pests of Brinjal in Bangladesh Technical Bulletin

SPPS-7 Guidelines for Farmer field Schools (IPM in rice) FFS Guidelines

SPPS-8 Guidelines for Farmer field Schools (IPM in vegetables) FFS Guidelines

SPPS-9Impact of IPM activities in vegetables during the Winter 1998/99

season in Bangladesh. June 1999Internal Impact assessment

SPPS-10Sustainability and Impact of IPM training in Bangladesh.

November 1999Internal Impact assessment

SPPS-11Impact of IPM activities in rice during the Boro 1999 and T.

Aman 1999 seasons in Bangladesh. February 2000Internal Impact assessment

SPPS-12Season Long IPM TOT in rice and vegetables. Horticulture

Center Kallayanpur. 25 July to 15 November 2000 Training Brief

SPPS-13 Rice-Vegetables TOT Curriculum T. Aman 2000 Training Brief

SPPS-14

2.2.3 Ouput 3 A Monitoring & Evaluation system set up for

assessing the impact of IPM training with specific reference to

impact on women

Excerpt from Document (unknown)

APPENDIX D. LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

52

AID - Comilla


COM-1 Annual Report IPM Rice Project Annual Report

COM-2 FFS Documents Miscellaneous FFS papers

COM-3 FFS Training Topics FFS document

COM-4 Budget Justification Memo

COM-5 Checklist Additions Miscellaneous

CARE


CARE-1 CARE Bangladesh Organizational chart organogram

CARE-2 Bogra Interfish Organizational chart organogram

CARE-3 GO-Interfish (partnering project)SLT Implementation Plan TOT curriculum

CARE-4 TOT weekly daily routine. Interfish 1997 TOT schedule

CARE-5 Memo of Agreement CARE/DAE MOA

CARE-6 Project Implementation Report Jan. to June 2000 6 month reportCARE-7 Project Implementation Report July to Dec. 1999 6 month report

CARE-8 Season Long Training Curriculum SHABGE-DFID TOT curriculum

CARE-9 Baseline Report NOPEST March 1998 Baseline socioeconomic Data

CARE-10 Participants' Monitoring Boro 1998 NOPEST Participatory Monitoring,

Evaluation and Planning

CARE-11 Participants' Monitoring Amon 1998 NOPEST Participatory Monitoring,

Evaluation and Planning

CARE-12Staff Development Training on Rice-Fish and Fish Seed

Production INTERFISHTraining Guide: Rice-Fish

CARE-13Farmers Access to Information: A process of developing

linkages between IPM Programmes and Literacy NOPESTInternal Report April 1998

CARE-14 Monitoring Report NOPEST May 1998 Monitoring Report May 1998

CARE-15 NOPEST Mid-term review mission final report Sept. 1998 mid-term review

DAE-CAD


CAD-1Up to date physical progress and future program of CADP, Part-B

Check-list responses to mission

CAD-2 Syllabus for Farmers' Field Training in IPM at the FFS FFS session outlines

CAD-3 Further responses to Review Mission Questions Check-list responses to mission

Miscellaneous


Misc-1Comparative Performance of GO and NGO led Farmer Field

School in a Selected Area of Mymensingh DistrictMasters Thesis

Report of the Evaluation Mission of IPM Projects in Bangladesh · Food and Agriculture Organization...

Documents

Transcript of Report of the Evaluation Mission of IPM Projects in Bangladesh · Food and Agriculture Organization...