Participatory Technology Development
for Improving Sweet Potato Livelihood in the Philippines
Dindo Campilan, Carlos Basilio, Lilibeth Laranang, Clarita
Aguilar, Clarita Aganon and Irene Idion[1]
Participatory Technology Development (PTD) in the UPWARD
Program Framework
Facilitating Local Research and Development
Lessons Learned and Continuing Challenges
Abstract
This paper focuses on the experiences of the Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (UPWARD) Network in: 1) integrating participatory technology development (PTD) in a broader participatory research and development (R&D) process, and 2) locating PTD within a livelihood system framework. It presents a case project involved with introducing technological improvements in the sweet potato livelihood system of Central Luzon, Philippines. It describes how PTD principles and practices have been incorporated in three key R&D phases: 1) assessment and diagnosis, 2) action research, and 3) facilitating local R&D. The paper ends with a summary of key lessons learned from the case project, as well as the continuing challenges in further refining the PTD approach.
Participatory Technology Development (PTD) in the UPWARD
Program Framework
PTD in UPWARD’s Participatory R&D Framework
PTD in UPWARD’s Livelihood Systems Framework
Participatory technology development (PTD) is generally
conceived as an approach for developing technological innovation toward
improving agriculture through purposeful and creative interaction between
rural people and outside facilitators (Van Veldhuizen, 1997).
PTD has been a key influence in the evolution of the Users’ Perspectives With Agricultural Research and Development (UPWARD) program’s own participatory approach. As an Asian network supporting participatory root crop research and development, UPWARD has however adapted the basic PTD approach by locating this within two broad and complementary frameworks, i.e. 1) participatory agricultural research and development (R&D), and 2) livelihood systems of rural households.
PTD
in UPWARD’s Participatory R&D Framework
UPWARD views interventions in participatory R&D (Figure 1)
according to three key phases: 1) needs assessment and problem diagnosis, 2)
action research, and 3) facilitating local R&D (Campilan, 1997). PTD is
often associated with carrying out experiments to develop technologies, which
are activities that UPWARD refers to as part of action research. A prior
assessment and diagnostic phase helps ensure that these technologies correspond
to local needs and problems. Meanwhile, PTD needs to go beyond technology
development itself, but also sustaining innovation processes and products
through what can be considered as a phase of facilitating local R&D. Thus,
PTD is closely interwoven in the entire three-phase process in UPWARD’s participatory
R&D (Table
1).
Figure 1. UPWARD’s participatory
R&D framework.
Table
1. PTD in UPWARD’s participatory R&D framework.
|
Phase |
Feature |
PTD Principles Being Applied |
|
Assessment
and diagnosis |
Assessment
and prioritizing needs and opportunities, and diagnosis of problems and
constraints |
Formulating
a learning agenda based on local needs and problems |
|
Action
research |
Design and
implementation of experiments to develop/evaluate technological options that
address assessment and diagnostic outcomes |
Supporting
local experimentation and other learning processes |
|
Facilitating
local R&D |
Sustaining local R&D by
developing protocols for scaling up and introducing/strengthening support
mechanisms |
Promoting
farmer-to-farmer innovation dissemination and improving local capacity for
experimentation |
Participatory Technology Development (PTD) in the UPWARD
Program Framework
PTD
in UPWARD’s Livelihood Systems Framework
An R&D focus on livelihood puts emphasis on people and
their activities, the holistic nature of people’s activities, and the links
between the micro and macro (Farrington et al, 1999). UPWARD’s participatory
R&D efforts seek to introduce innovation aimed at improving agricultural
livelihood systems. UPWARD experiences indicate that while PTD serves as a key
means in developing various technological innovations, its effective role is
enhanced by defining the livelihood systems to which it contributes to
(Campilan, 1999). Within a livelihood systems framework, UPWARD R&D
projects: 1) set the livelihood context of Pad’s experimental efforts and
validate the comparative advantages of root crop livelihood, 2) help identify
the key user groups (i.e. including but not limited to farmers) to be involved
in PTD, 3) determine the relevant PTD agenda for each particular user group, 4)
specify the technological products that PTD is expected to yield, and 5)
evaluate the concrete contributions of PTD products to livelihood systems
improvement (Table
2).
Table
2. Value added by adopting a livelihood systems framework in PTD.
|
Components |
Key guide question |
Inputs to PTD |
|
Livelihoods |
What are
the dominant livelihood systems of local people? |
Understanding
the livelihood context of PTD |
|
Actors |
Who are
the key actors in local livelihood systems? |
Identifying
relevant groups to do PTD with |
|
Learning
agenda |
What
livelihood needs/opportunities and problems/constraints need to be addressed?
|
Determining
the relevance of PTD to local livelihoods |
|
Innovation |
What
technological options can potentially help improve these livelihood systems? |
Identifying
the desired key products of PTD |
|
Impact |
How will these
technological options contribute to the improvement of livelihood systems? |
Evaluating
the expected contributions of PTD products to livelihood systems improvement |
To illustrate UPWARD experiences in enhancing the PTD approach through a broader framework of participatory livelihood systems R&D, the case of sweet potato livelihood in Central Luzon, Philippines is described and analyzed in this paper.
Participatory Technology Development (PTD) in the UPWARD
Program Framework
Overview
of the Case Project
Central Luzon is a key agricultural region located in
northern Philippines; it covers 635,345 hectares of which 40% are devoted to
agriculture. Although traditionally considered as the rice bowl of the
country, the 1991 volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo has severely altered the
region’s agro-ecological landscape, consequently leading to declining rice
productivity.
Because of their proximity to Mt. Pinatubo, provinces on
the western side of Central Luzon (i.e. Bataan, Pampanga, Tarlac and Zambales)
have been the most seriously affected by the ecological disaster. Aside from
the consequent long-term disastrous effects on soil, water and climatic
conditions, agricultural areas in these provinces are still continuously
threatened by lahar flows especially during the rainy season.
Sweet potato is a post-rice crop in Central Luzon. In the
post-Pinatubo years however, the crop has achieved greater livelihood
importance for two main reasons: 1) the crop’s ability to survive under
marginal growing conditions compared to rice, and 2) increasing demand for the
crop both by fresh roots markets and food processing industries. In Tarlac
province alone, at least 50% of total agricultural area is devoted to sweet
potato.
An UPWARD project was initiated in 1998 in recognition of:
1) the need to develop an integrated crop management (ICM) approach suitable
for the changing growing conditions in Central Luzon, and 2) the unique
opportunity to enhance local livelihood through improved sweet potato
agriculture. The Sweet potato ICM and Livelihood Systems Project is an
UPWARD-facilitated inter-institutional effort involving a regional agricultural
university and college, government extension agency, local government units and
international research center (Table 3). The project works with various local groups
and communities to introduce ICM innovation for improving the sweet potato
livelihood system in Central Luzon. Operationally, it is a multi-phase project
that corresponds to the UPWARD framework as presented in Table 1. Project
experiences are presented in the succeeding sections according to these phases.
Table
3. Institutional and local actors in the case project.
|
Institutional partners |
Local partners |
|
Tarlac
College of Agriculture (TCA) |
Sweet potato
root growers |
|
Central
Luzon State University (CLSU) |
Producers
of sweet potato planting materials |
|
Department
of Agriculture Region 3 |
Traders
for fresh roots markets |
|
Municipal
and provincial government units |
Farmers’
cooperatives |
|
International
Potato Center (CIP) |
Sweet
potato starch factories and other commercial processing firms |
Assessment and Diagnosis
A three-part assessment and diagnostic study was
undertaken in 1998-99 focusing on: 1) the sweet potato livelihood system in
Central Luzon (Aguilar et al 2000), 2) sweet potato ICM needs and problems
(Aganon et al 1999), and 3) virus disease complex affecting production of
planting materials and roots (Laranang and Jayasinghe, 2000). This phase
combined a macro-level analysis for understanding the dynamics of the overall
sweet potato livelihood system for sweet potato, with a micro-level analysis to
identify specific technological needs and opportunities for integrated crop
management (ICM), particularly integrated disease management (IDM), in sweet
potato agriculture (Table
4).
Table
4. Assessment and diagnosis: findings and implications for PTD.
|
Assessment and Diagnostic Activities |
Methods |
Key Finding |
PTD Window of Opportunity |
|
Livelihood
systems assessment |
Participatory
rural appraisal |
Sweet
potato farming is a major component of local livelihood system, and its
contribution could be further enhanced through improved crop management |
Technology
development for ICM |
|
ICM needs
assessment |
Participatory
rural appraisal |
Sweet
potato crop management is constrained by low-quality planting materials, high
disease incidence, low soil fertility and lack of suitable varieties |
Development
and adaptation of sweet potato ICM in Central Luzon |
|
Technology
inventory |
ICM
component technologies are available but they require local adaptation in
Central Luzon |
||
|
IDM
diagnostic survey |
Participatory
rural appraisal |
Use of
low-quality planting materials is the key factor for poor crop performance
and yield |
Development
and adaptation of strategy for producing high-quality sweet potato planting
materials in Central Luzon |
|
Technical
monitoring |
Low-quality
planting materials are infected by a virus disease complex |
||
|
Technology
inventory |
Strategies
developed in other countries to produce high-quality planting materials
require local adaptation in Central Luzon |
Results of the livelihood systems assessment indicated that
sweet potato is a major source of cash income supporting the livelihood of a
wide range of households/groups – crop growers, planting materials producers,
traders and processors. They also revealed key technological and market
constraints affecting sweepotato livelihood. The assessment resulted in the
identification of windows of opportunities for PTD by seeking to address
four technological constraints: high incidence of virus disease complex,
low-quality planting materials, low soil fertility and lack of suitable
varieties. While non-technological in nature, market-related constraints were
likewise addressed in subsequent phases by developing capacity of farming
households to cope with the dynamics of markets and prices. In addition, the
findings helped identify the two main groups with whom the project needs to
work with in PTD: 1) farming households specialized in commercial propagation
of planting materials, and 2) farming households cultivating sweet potato for
root production (Table
5).
Table
5. Key constraints faced by households engaged in sweet potato livelihood.
|
Constraints |
Planting Materials Producers |
Root Producers |
Traders |
Processors |
A. Technological |
||||
|
1. High incidence
of virus disease complex |
X |
X |
|
|
|
2.
Low-quality planting materials |
X |
X |
|
|
|
3. Low
soil fertility |
|
X |
|
|
|
4. Lack of
suitable varieties |
X |
X |
|
X |
|
B. Market-related |
||||
|
1.
Seasonal market demand |
|
X |
X |
X |
|
2. Price
fluctuations |
|
X |
X |
X |
In summary, the assessment and diagnostic phase has helped the R&D process by: 1) setting and validating the R&D agenda for PTD, 2) sensitizing local people to the R&D process, 3) identifying interest groups and selecting appropriate location for subsequent R&D phases, and 4) building the initial framework for inter-institutional R&D collaboration.
Action
Research
The subsequent action research phase consisted of
knowledge-generating activities to fill in the specific technology gaps
identified during the assessment and diagnosis. The inter-agency project worked
with two farming groups earlier identified to play a critical role in
introducing technological improvements in the local sweet potato livelihood
system (Table
6). For the action research phase, a pilot village was identified in
Bataan province since the local community both had groups engaged in the
production of sweet potato planting materials and roots.
Table
6. Resources contributed by the project’s collaborating institutions and local
participants.
|
External R&D Institutions |
Local Government Units |
Farmers’ Groups |
|
Staff time Travel
expenses Meeting
hall Office
supplies Materials
for experiments Communication
expenses Facilities
and equipment for food preparation |
Staff time Meeting
hall Materials
for experiments |
Time Land Working
animals Facilities
and equipment for food preparation |
The project chose to employ farmer field school (FFS) as
platform for farmer experimentation since the nature of the sweet potato ICM
innovation being developed required a season-long, group learning methodology
(Laranang et al 2001; Aguilar et al, 2001). Two FFSs on sweet potato ICM were
organized to coincide with the 2000-2001 cropping seasons. The first FFS
focused on production of clean planting materials while the second FFS dealt
with production of roots. Table 7 lists the set of experiments that each
FFS group decided to carry out. Experimentation was characterized by the
following methodological features:
- Types of experiments
conducted by each group were decided through consensus-seeking meetings;
- Experimental design
consisted of simple treatments selected by participants (e.g. introduced
and local practices, different combinations of input application);
- Participants decided
that experiments should have agronomic and economic parameters (to
evaluate contribution of the learning process to human capital, change in
participants’ knowledge was also measured);
- Experimental plot was
located in a farm of one of the participants, but the experiment itself
was collectively managed;
- FFS participants were
subdivided and each group was assigned to take main responsibility for a
particular experiment,
- Monitoring of
experiments was undertaken during the weekly FFS sessions and
observational visits between the sessions;
- Efforts were exerted
to match topics discussed in the weekly FFS sessions with the stage of
crop growth and problem occurrence.
Table
7. Experiments in FFS learning/observation plots.
|
FFS on Planting Materials Production |
FFS on ICM for Root Production |
|
Crop
performance, yield and profit by comparing the use of disease-free versus
infected (farmers’) planting materials |
Crop
performance, yield and profit by comparing the use of disease-free versus
infected (farmers’) planting materials |
|
Crop
performance by comparing the use of net house versus open field |
Crop yield
and profit by comparing fertilization application through prior soil testing versus
farmers’ practice of routine fertilization |
|
Performance
of single-node cuttings by comparing different combinations of compost
and inorganic fertilizers |
Crop
performance, yield and profit by comparing different combinations of compost
and inorganic fertilizers |
|
Performance
of tissue-cultured planting materials
by comparing different combinations of compost and inorganic
fertilizers |
Crop
performance, yield, profit by comparing the use of single-node cuttings versus
conventional vine cuttings as planting materials |
|
Crop
performance by comparing cut shoot tips versus uncut shoot tips |
|
The two FFSs were conducted in sequence since the clean planting
materials produced in the first school was turned over to the second school, in
order for the latter to determine how these materials perform when planted for
root production in the next planting season. Seventeen and 20 participants
completed the first and second FFSs, respectively. Thirteen participants in the
first FFS participated in the subsequent one (Table 8).
Table 8. Profile of the pilot FFSs on sweepotato ICM
|
Features |
FFS on Planting Materials Production |
FFS on Root Production |
|
Number of
participants who completed (male/ female) |
17 (12/5) |
20 (11/9) |
|
Number of
dropouts (male/female) |
1 (1/0) |
8 (4/4) |
|
Composition
and background of FFS facilitation team |
6 members
with specialization in pathology, agronomy, soil science, economics and
extension |
8 members
with specialization in economics, soil science, rural development, pathology,
agronomy and extension |
|
Learning
materials/facilities used |
Net house,
tissue culture laboratory, field learning/ observation plots,
papers/cards/pens for mapping and diagramming |
Field
learning/observation plots, papers/cards/pens for mapping and diagramming |
|
Learning
methods used to support experiments |
Agroecosystem
analysis, role playing, cross-visit, games and group exercises, regular field
monitoring |
Agroecosystem
analysis, role playing, games and group exercises, regular field monitoring |
Through the experiences and results of experiments (Table 9),
participants learned of the value of using a net house in propagating
high-quality planting materials. They however noted that root production is
better in the field since high temperature in a net house hinders root growth
and development. Farmers also concluded that tissue-cultured planting materials
had lower performance in the field compared to farmers’ own planting materials,
since the latter are better acclimatized in the area. When planted in the
field, propagated-propagated planting materials yield higher when compared with
vine cuttings obtained from the field. Yield is further enhanced through
balance fertilization as determined by prior soil testing.
The agronomic data were later used by participants to undertake
cost-and-return analysis during the FFS sessions. Farmers learned the economic
benefits of producing and using high-quality planting materials particularly
through decreased cost of planting materials and fertilizer, as well as
increased net profit resulting from higher root yield and lower disease
incidence.
To determine the effectiveness of the participatory
R&D approach, the project also evaluated the contribution of
FFS-facilitated farmer experimentation to the development human and social
capital. Participants demonstrated an increase in knowledge and also indicated
its practical value to their sweet potato livelihood. The group learning
approach was cited as an important vehicle for strengthening an informal
network for continuous learning and experimentation in the community.
Table
9. Examples of results of farmer’s experimentation through FFS.
|
Parameters |
Key Results |
|
Agronomic |
Tissue-cultured
materials planted in the field had a survival rate of 9.4% less than farmers’
planting materials. |
|
Planting
inside the propagated increase plant survival by 36% |
|
|
Planting
inside the propagated decreased root yield by 9% |
|
|
Use of
high-quality planting materials in root production increased yield by 37% |
|
|
Balanced
fertilization increased yield by 76% |
|
|
Economic |
Cost of
producing high-quality planting materials was 20% cheaper |
|
Use of
high-quality planting materials resulted to increased net profit that was 218%
more than farmers’ average income for the same 3-month period |
|
|
Balanced
fertilization resulted in 943% increase in net profit |
|
|
Use of
single-node cuttings reduced cost of planting materials by 4% |
|
|
Change in Human/Social Capital |
Comparison
of pre- and post-test scores showed an increase of 57.39% 28.67% for the
first and second FFS, respectively |
|
Knowledge
on the use of propagated, simplified soil testing and single-node planting
materials were ranked as most important |
|
|
Experimentation
through the FFS helped strengthen an informal learning network in the
community |
|
|
Experimentation
through the FFS motivated participants to conduct follow-up experiments to
validate and replicate earlier results |
In summary, the action research phase (FFS as PTD platform) has enabled the project: 1) to help farmers generate and adapt knowledge to address technological constraints in the local sweet potato livelihood system, 2) to demonstrate how farmer experimentation can be integrated in a participatory training process, 3) to motivate farmers for continuous experimentation either to address new knowledge gaps or validate earlier results, and 4) to address non-technological constraints (e.g. marketing) by incorporating relevant learning sessions in the FFS curriculum.
Facilitating Local Research and Development
Scaling Up and Institutionalization in Central Luzon
As a constant source of innovation for rural livelihood, there is a need to help build a system of “local R&D” in which the experimental base within farming communities is linked to and supported by people’s organizations, NGOs and local offices of public sector change agencies. UPWARD considers time-bound project interventions as vehicles for facilitating local R&D by: 1) strengthening local capacity for continuous R&D, 2) promoting dissemination and scaling up of innovation, and 3) integrating participatory R&D in the programs/services of institutions supporting the local community. Towards this end, the Central Luzon project has undertaken the following:
Post-FFS R&D Activities
The conduct of PTD through FFS sensitized participants to the value of experimentation. Since the experiments were earlier conducted through a group learning mode, participants have decided to do validation trials in their respective farms. Five participants in the first FFS have set up their own experiments in larger plots. Their justification is that experiments in the previous season were done on a small plot and they would like to determine if similar results would be obtained on a larger-scale.
Participants in the second FFS decided to conduct follow-up experiments in the subsequent season (2001), explaining that results obtained after one season would not be sufficient basis to make definite conclusions about sweepotato ICM. Instead of organizing another FFS requiring weekly sessions, participants instead opted for a modified methodology, involving: 1) identification of experiments to be carried out, 2) selection of farms where these experiments were to be conducted, and 3) setting a series of field observations and discussion meetings throughout the season to coincide with key phases of crop growth (e.g. planting, disease emergence, harvesting).
Facilitating Local Research and Development
Scaling
Up and Institutionalization in Central Luzon
During the conduct of the FFSs, representatives from other
agencies in Central Luzon were invited to observe the activities and outputs.
Immediately after the first FFS, the Department of Agriculture (DA) in Central
Luzon negotiated with the project team to conduct similar activities for other
sweet potato growing communities, particularly in Tarlac. With full funding
from DA, eight FFSs were completed in other municipalities for 2000-2001.
Discussions are under way for another set of FFSs targeted in late 2001.
Extension workers from local government units served as
project team members during the two FFSs. These served as opportunities to
develop capacity of local institutions to sustain the R&D process beyond
the project life. In 2001, municipal agricultural units to carry out similar
PTD and FFS activities for rice have tapped these extension workers. With the
rice-sweet potato cropping system in the area, the project seeks to demonstrate
how an approach, which started, on a specific crop can also be expanded so that
it applies to the entire agricultural livelihood system. Meanwhile for the
sweet potato FFS efforts, an additional municipality has been selected as
expansion area, with the local government unit providing funds to cover
construction of net houses and also supplies needed for the FFS sessions. In
the previous municipality, the local extension workers have taken over the
leadership in the conduct of the FFS for the subsequent season. Through this
scheme, the project envisions that other local government units would also take
an interest in this process of institutionalization.
Facilitating Local Research and Development
Manual Development
Based on experiences in the previous phase, the project
team has developed two training manuals on participatory learning for sweet
potato integrated crop management (i.e. one on planting materials production
and another on root production). Each training manual is structured as a
prototype FFS curriculum consisting of two parts: a) set of learning guides
outlining objectives, methods, learning content and evaluation; and b) set of
technical guides containing technical support information.
The manuals have been prepared in order to have wider use
in other sweet potato growing areas in the Philippines. In preparing these
manuals, the team has been guided by similar manuals produced by the
International Potato Center (CIP) for Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Learning
content of the Philippine manuals were based on those from other countries,
experiences in Central Luzon, and from two other regions in the country where a
similar UPWARD project has been implemented.
Facilitating Local Research and Development
Training of Trainers
A training of trainers (TOT) is set to be conducted in
October 2001, which is designed for potential FFS facilitators (e.g.
extensionists, researchers and farmer leaders) in other sweet potato growing
areas of the Philippines. It will also serve as a piloting activity for the
manuals mentioned above. Feedback from
TOT participants will be used to refine the manuals before they are reproduced
and distributed.
As a precondition for accepting applicants from local
government units and other agencies, their heads of office must issue a letter
of commitment to support at least one FFS activity that will be organized when
the participant completes the TOT. To
date, 24 participants have already been confirmed. The TOT is co-organized by two key institutions in the country
with responsibility for root crop R&D and training – the Agricultural
Training Institute of the Department of Agriculture, and the Philippine
Rootcrop Research and Training Center.
The longer-term goal is for these institutions to take responsibility
for subsequent TOTs and R&D support.
Facilitating Local Research and Development
Lessons Learned and Continuing Challenges
Among the key
results and lessons derived from this case are:
- PTD efforts, while
focusing on specific technologies and often for particular crops, need to
be conducted in the context of the broader livelihood system managed by
farming households. This will enable projects to effectively link
technology options to potentials for contributing to overall livelihood
systems improvement.
- PTD could be combined
with other participatory research and development methodologies (e.g.
field schools), in order: 1) to promote group learning and wider
diffusion, b) to address technological and socioeconomic/marketing
constraints simultaneously, and c) to mobilize local resources necessary
to support
- Immediate effects of
PTD are mainly in terms of change in knowledge and practices by participating
farmers. On the other hand, achieving concrete impact on livelihood and
the general biophysical environment takes several seasons.
- The sustainability of
PTD and other participatory methodologies depends on how these are
effectively integrated in the program priorities and strategies of
research and extension institutions. Project efforts can best be seen as
opportunities to demonstrate a viable, alternative approach to be phased
over to these institutions.
Lessons Learned and Continuing Challenges
Questions for Debate
Building a local R&D
system
Future livelihood challenges can only be faced in the view the UPWARD paper if an adequate local system for agricultural innovation and R&D is built. What does such a system really consist of? Does one need creation of new structures of better linking existing ones? What are key strategic intervention areas that help build such local R&D capacity? How to ensure that local R&D system will be farmer-led, what mechanisms?
References
Aganon, C. and I. Adion. 1999. The emerging sweet
potato industry in Central Luzon, Philippines: the need for interdisciplinary
and inter-institutional R&D support. In: Learning to Manage Livelihoods: New Perspectives in Rootcrop R&D.
Los Banos: CIP-UPWARD. 25-37.
Aguilar, C., C. Aganon, I. Adion, J. Galindez, J.
Rodriguez, N. Manalastas and M. Vicente. 2001. Evaluation of farmer field
school approach in integrated crop management for improving sweet potato root
production in Bagac, Bataan. Project terminal report. Los Banos:
CIP-UPWARD.
Campilan, D. 1999. Introducing a
livelihood systems framework for participatory research. In: Learning to
Manage Livelihoods: New Perspectives in
Rootcrop R&D. Los Banos: CIP-UPWARD. 13-22.
Campilan, D. 1997. User
participation in agricultural R&D: turning the principle into practice.
In: Local R&D, Institutionalizing Innovations in Rootcrop Agriculture. Los
Banos: CIP-UPWARD. 13-25.
Farrington, J., D. Carney, C. Ashley and C. Turton. 1999. Sustainable
livelihoods in practice: early applications of concept in rural areas. ODI
Natural Resources Perspectives Series No. 42. London: ODI.
Jayasinghe, U. and L. Laranang. 1999. Etiology of “Camote
kulot” disease in Central Luzon, Philippines. UPWARD Fieldnotes 8(1): 7-8.
Laranang, L., J. Rodriguez, R. Mondala, C. Basilio, N.
Manalastas and M. Vicente. 2001. Farmer field schools for sweet potato
planting materials production. Project terminal report. Los Banos:
CIP-UPWARD.
Van Veldhuizen, L., A. Waters-Bayer and H. de Zeeuw. 1997.
Developing technology with farmers, a trainer’s guide for participatory
learning. London: Zed Books Limited.