IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Research article
erd

Significant Contribution of Farmer First in Farmer-Trainer
for Environmentally-Friendly Agriculture and Rural
Development
ELIZA C. AQUINO
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Email: elizacateloaquino@gmail.com

NINA NOCON-SHIMOGUCHI*
Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture,
Tokyo, Japan
Email: n3nocon@nodai.ac.jp

HIROKI INAIZUMIFaculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture,
Tokyo, Japan
Email: inaizumi@nodai.ac.jp
Received 30 December 2017

Accepted 12 May 2018(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract With the huge number of mouths to feed, problems and challenges on food safety
and sufficiency in terms of the decreasing number of new farmers and increasing number ofaging farmers arises in Japan and the Philippines. Young generations do not see farming asa lucrative career. In order to attract the youth to engage into farming, one of the potential
solutions is the farmer-trainer, which is a generic term used to address farmers that provides
and conducts training to farmers, and other actors in a community. As a farmer-trainer,
farmer also serves as an innovator and educator and promoter of indigenous knowledge thatare environmentally-friendly and safe. Prior to conducting research on farmer-trainer, thispaper initially aims to identify the stakeholders and their respective roles, and to review thedevelopment and contribution of farmer first movement that significantly affect the farmers
to invent, try, and share the new knowledge and innovations to other farmers and actors intheir respective communities since 1987. Upon reviewing related literatures on farmer firstand examining farmer-conducted trainings in the Philippines and Japan using case study
approach, it became clearer that farmer first movement still plays a very important role inextending agricultural knowledge and technologies that are environmentally-friendly andcontributes to rural development. This research highlights the importance of farmer firstmovement in boosting confidence of farmers to conduct their own trainings and to spreadsafe, environmentally-friendly agricultural systems especially for rural development
through the development of “theme-community”.
Keywords farmer-trainer, Farmer first, agricultural training, farmer-to-farmer

INTRODUCTION
With increasing population, demand on food and food production also increases. According to Asia
Population (2017), Asia accounts for 60% of the world population, and Japan with 126.89M and
the Philippines with 102.96M are respectively on the 6th and 7th place of the top 10 populated
countries in Asia. With the huge number of mouths to feed, problems and challenges on food safety
and food sufficiency in terms of the decreasing numbers of new farmers arise.
The shortage of farmers is one of the greatest factors limiting agricultural sustainability inJapan. This is due to lack of new farmers and aging of existing farmers, with an average age of 67
years old (Muramoto, et al., 2010 and MAFF Japan, 2016). The Philippines’ food security on theother hand, is also at risk, as millions of farmers and fishermen are getting too old with an averageⒸ ISERD

128

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

age of 57 years old. Younger generations are not keen on taking over the farm and do not see
farming as lucrative career (Alave, 2011).
To uplift the morale of farmers and persuade younger generations to farming, proper andeffective dissemination of technologies must be considered. Training for farmers has been provento generate variety of results. The study of Murshed-E-Jahan and Pemsl (2011) on Bangladeshi
small farmers concluded that building the capacity of farmers through training is more valuable
than the provision of financial support in terms of raising production and income.
Extension Agents (EA), researchers, and practitioners acknowledge the important role offarmers as scientists in the creation of agricultural technology and educators to disseminate suchinnovations. Indigenous knowledge has been accepted as valid and useful in agriculture, while
farmers have been increasingly recognized as innovators and experimenters (Chambers et al., 1989).
According to Rhoades (1989), farmers and scientists had much to learn from each other, andparticularly we had much to learn from farmers.
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to identify the stakeholders and their respective roles, and to review thedevelopment and contribution of farmer first movement that significantly affect the farmers toinvent, try, and share the new knowledge and innovations to other farmers and actors in theirrespective communities.
METHODOLOGYK FarmS FarmC FarmbaFig. 1 Map of the Philippines (a) and Japan (b) showing the location andthe distance of farms from each country’s capitalThis study is a type of qualitative and secondary research which utilized primary andsecondary data. The researchers identified the subject domain and acquired information regarding
the topic from unpublished and published reports, scientific journals, books, and articles. The
research also examined interviews and farmer-conducted trainings in Japan and the Philippines.
Farms in Japan were chosen as these farms are well-known to conduct trainings for decades whilein the Philippines, the farm is an accredited private extension service provider for the Agriculture
Training Institute (ATI) of the Department of Agriculture (DA). Through case study approach, a
total of three farms were visited to understand and observe training conducted by the ownerfarmer-trainer, specifically S Farm in Saitama Prefecture, Japan (located about 60km North-Westfrom the center of Tokyo) on 13 May 2017; K Farm in Tochigi Prefecture, Japan (located about
150km North from the center of Tokyo) on 3-5 August 2017; and C Farm in Majayjay Town,
Laguna Province, Philippines (located approximately 110km South of Metro Manila) on 23 August
2017. Figure 1 shows the location of the farms and its proximity to the capital in the Philippines
and Japan. Data from different sources were reviewed, compared, analyzed and interpreted.

Ⓒ ISERD

129

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Farmer First Movement
The idea of 'farmer first' was first introduced in 1987 when Chambers et al. (1989) compiled thework of several researchers that studied farmer participation in agricultural research. The concepts
started by identifying farmers' problems and going back to them with alternatives. The idea
proposed by social scientist in 1980s, was to involve farmers more systematically and actively inthe research process to take advantage of farmer skills to experiment.
Farmer first movement was a result of gathering of small minority social and biologicalscientists that collaborated with farmers to further understand the reason for non-adoption oftechnologies in 1980s. According to Chamber et al. (1989), non-adoption of technology was more
often attributed to ignorance of farmers that resulted to the prescription of extension education in
1950s to 1960s. On the other hand, non-adoption was ascribed to farm level constraints with thegaps in yield between research stations and farms that leads to a recommendation to modify andmake the farm more like a research station in 1970s. In 1980s, analysis about non-adoption wasinterpreted as neither the farmer nor the farm is the problem, but the technology and the faults oftechnology can be traced to the priorities and processes which generate it.
Unlike the conventional Transfer-of-Technology (TOT) model which greatly favors the largescale or resource-rich farmers whose conditions are the same to those research stations, the farmer
first prioritized farmers’ needs first. It aims to provide the appropriate technology for the needs andopportunities of resource-poor farmers.
Stakeholders and Their Roles
In Farmer first, farmers were the ones who detected and assessed their problems, needs, andpriorities in their farms. Upon evaluation of the needs and problems, farmers conducted their own
experiments in the farm. Successful innovations by farmers were transferred and spread to otherfarmers by farmer-to-farmer approach or by the “farmer-trainers” which is a generic term used toaddress farmers that provides and conducts research and training to farmers and other actors.
Contrasting to the farmer first, the scientists were the main responsible in the assessment ofproblems, needs, and priorities of farmers, and key experimenters in TOT. Moreover, researches
and innovations generated in research stations and laboratories were transmitted to farmers by EA.
Table 1 summarizes the difference between TOT and farmer first. This clearly conveys that farmers
were in the center in every activity and serve as the main actors or stakeholders in Farmer first.
Farmer-trainer does not rule out the need for scientific research, hence they open a new area of
research. Chambers (1989) stated that farmers must be empowered to learn, adapt and do better on
their own and on their farm field, outsiders such as scientists, EAs or NGOs should just assist andgive them principles, methods and technology choices. Moreover, Franzel et al. (2015)
acknowledged that farmer-trainer needs coaching and technical supervision and assistance fromscientists and EAs, otherwise they may perform poorly.
Table 1 Differences between Transfer-of-Technology and Farmer First
Activity Indicators
Problems, needs, priorities,
knowledge, and analysis(are determined by)Main location of technology or
action generation (are in the)Transfer of technology(are done by)Central experimenters

Transfer-of-Technology
Scientist/ Researchers

Farmer First
Farmers

Research Stations and Laboratories

Farm

Extension Agents

Farmers

Scientist/ Researchers

Farmers

Note: Compiled by author based on Chambers et al..(1989); Franzel et al. (2015); Hocde (1997); Rhoades (1989);
and Simpson et al. (2015)Ⓒ ISERD

130

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Farmer First in Farmers’ Innovation and Technology Dissemination
In experimentation, farmers are more prepared to take risk and go into the unknown thanconservative researchers. Chambers et al. (1989) discuss about the interest and involvement offarmers in experimentation in a holistic approach, wherein farmers seek interactions within thewhole farm system, rather than redesign the whole farm at once. This approach also includes
experimentation with solutions that lay within farmers’ own capacity than experimenting withconventional high-input solution. Experimenting farmers are starting to believe more in themselves,and in their ability and strengths. The experiments are theirs. Farmers are participating in theconstruction of something new and feeling happy and proud to discover new horizons, to broadcast
their work and teach their neighbors (Hocde, 1997).
The attitude of having the conviction that outsider knowledge has a universal validity andapplication which should override whatever the farmers know, prevent learning from farmers.
Reversals of attitude are essential complements of the farmer first method. Respect for farmers, asensitive interaction with them, a recognition of them as fellow professionals and colleagues werenecessary for them to maximize their potential (Chamber et al., 1989).
Farmers are driven to satisfy their thirst for knowledge hence, salaries and allowances are notneeded to motivate them to volunteer in serving as lead farmers or ‘farmer-trainer’ (Hocde, 1997
and Simpson, et al, 2015). Significantly, almost all traditional agriculture is a result of spontaneous
spread of innovation from one farmer to another, from one village to another and even clear acrosscontinents (Bunch, 1989).
Farmers experimenting and disseminating innovations is not a new approach. According toFranzel et al., (2015), farmer-to-farmer extension programs have been used significantly in thePhilippines since 1950s and in Central America since 1970s. In the Philippines, successful andoutstanding farmers with knowledge on innovations are recognized as Magsasaka Siyentista (MS)or Farmer-Scientist by the Department of Agriculture (DA). According to Qamar (2012), MS playvital roles in serving as researchers and EA in their respective areas by showcasing and promoting
indigenous and science and technology-based agriculture, forestry and natural resources
technologies based on their own farming experiences. These farmers are not only active
participants but also serves as facilitators and initiators of technology transfer process.
Table 2 shows the similarities and differences of the three farms selected in Japan and thePhilippines. C Farm was established in 2006 as a hobby farm of a former IT executive with noagriculture background. The farm has been performing and conducting experiments and trainings
on Organic Agriculture (OA) production management. Based on the observation of trainings andfarmer interview, C Farm performs modifications and experimentations of different innovations
that will suit their farm’s condition and needs. Dissemination of these innovations through trainings
are conducted in their own farm to their neighbors and other interested individuals and groups. As
part of the interview the Farmer-trainer said that “at first we just wanted to produce safe food forfamily consumption, we don’t want to feed our children toxic and chemicals”.
The farmer-trainer added, “When we started, it was very hard for us to do OA, we evenneeded to go abroad to attend trainings and to adopt different technologies, and a lot of Filipino
farmers does not have the capacity or means to study abroad and attend trainings”. Therefore,
farmer-trainers are very motivated to share the knowledge and innovations to others to promote thespread of OA for safe and healthy food and environment.
On the other hand, farmer-trainers of S Farm and K Farm were both from farming family andreceived formal education on agriculture in Japan. Established in 1971, S Farm conducts
experiments and trainings in Ogawa Town, Saitama Prefecture. The farmer-trainer delivers his
motivation and philosophy of OA, the development process and practices of his farm and how OA
transformed the community through the years. Training observation showed that the farmer-trainer
is really determined to encourage the community and other stakeholders; he offered the advantages
and positive effects of practicing OA. He also pointed out that it must be a community adoption
because it will be no effect if it is just one farm. Aside from conducting his own training in his farm,
the farmer-trainer supports different activities to promote OA not just in his community but in thewhole country.
Ⓒ ISERD

131

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Table 2 Similarities and differences between three farms evaluatedName of Farm
Ownership Type
Farming
background ofowner

C FarmFamily-owned
From a non-farming family
but attended trainings in
the country and abroad

Location

Majayjay, Laguna,Philippines
2006
OA
Zero-waste farming,
vermicomposting, farm
integration

Established Since
Farm Management
Modified/Innovations
Training Program/Training conductedTrainees

Lakbay aral tour, green
salad tour, and trainings
for days; Agri-tourism
workshop
Farmers, teachers,
students, government
workers, EA, businessmen,
and hobbyist

S FarmFamily-owned
From a farming family; but
in OA: develop thetechniques and methods
through trial and error
Ogawa Town, Saitama
Prefecture, Japan
1971
OA
Cycle-based organic
farming: plant, soil, andanimal nutrients,
circulating energy
One day seminar plus farmtour and farm stay
(6months-1 year)
Farmers, teachers,
students, government
workers, EA, businessmen,
and hobbyist

K FarmFamily-owned
Family graduated froman agricultural
university in Tokyo; in
OA: trial and error
Nakayama, Tochigi
Prefecture, Japan
1981
OA
Tunnel type plastic
houses; rejected crops
as feeds, and animal
dung for composting
One day seminar andtour; Farm stay, Field
works, once a weekmeeting (2-3 years)
Farmers, teachers,
students, hobbyist andthose who wants to do
and establish OF

Source: Farm visits and Farmer-trainer interviews, 2017

K Farm in Tochigi Prefecture was established in 1981. Participation, observation, andinterview revealed that the main objective and mission of the farm are to educate new farmers andassist them in putting up their own organic farm. The farmer-trainer delivered his short lecture
about the history of their farm and some data about the diseases, and nutritional contents of theirorganic crops. During the interview, he said that they are doing OA because it is safe for humans
and the environment, and they are involved in the Teikei system, wherein customers trust them toproduce safe foods. “There are many people who are interested to do OA, and they just needsomeone to assist them”, he added when asked about his motivation to conduct trainings.
Based on initial observations, successful farmers in Japan and the Philippines seem to play
important role as trainers in offering and conducting trainings to further disseminate innovations
and experiences regarding the success of their farms. Even if their farms are not easily accessible,
trainees are willing to travel all the way to their farms just to attend their trainings. These farmertrainers are proof that farmer and outside actors such as researchers and EA needs to work
complementarily. Farmer-trainers, assisted by researchers and EA have the confidence to do theirown innovation and share it to other farmers and beneficiaries. Therefore, farmer first still plays avery important role in farmer-trainers in experimenting and disseminating innovations.
Farmer First in Environmentally-Friendly Agriculture and Rural Development
As shown also in Table 2, all farmer-trainers practice OA and their agricultural innovations are
more for the conservation of the environment. Innovations include the zero-waste and cycle-based
farming. Based on the farm-interviews and observations, zero-waste farming can be defined byutilization of waste as the main ingredient for one of the inputs in the farm. It can be easily
understood by the observation done on the farmer-trainer at the C Farm in the Philippines, wherefarm waste such as trimmings, weeds, and animal dung were collected and used as the main
ingredient of compost for organic fertilizer in the farm. Similarly, the K Farm in Japan also utilizes
rejected crops as feeds and animal dung as compost. Cycle-based farming, on the other hand isclosely related to zero-waste farming, as it also follows the same concept of utilization of farm
waste and other farm inputs to produce natural fertilizers and pesticides. The farmer-trainer of S

Ⓒ ISERD

132

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Farm in Japan believes that in nature, everything is part of the cycle, and even without the help of
mankind, nature can maintain its own.
The three farmer-trainers’ common goal is to have self-sufficiency in the community andspread it nationwide. Self-sufficiency in a way that they can provide the needs and demands forfood of the current generation by utilizing indigenous knowledge, available resources andinnovations such as zero-waste and cycle-based farming, that place back nutrients to the soil.
Through this environmentally-friendly agriculture, the capability to produce of the future
generation is not at risk.
To achieve their goals, these farmer-trainers also acknowledge the importance of enhancementof “theme-community” for rural development. Their aims to bring people together who sharescommon interest, objectives, and passion motivates them to conduct trainings. Through thesetrainings, their passion, motivation, and experiences are being transferred and disseminated tosmall-scale farmers and other actors including younger generations in the community that will
eventually be persuaded to engage themselves in an environmentally-friendly agriculture that will
hopefully lead to rural development.
CONCLUSION
This research concludes that farmer first movement still plays a very significant role in boosting
confidence of farmer-trainers in Japan and in the Philippines to invent and modify innovations andconduct their own trainings as they are the main actor and center focus of the farm activities. In
addition, farmer-trainers are more motivated and passionate to spread safe, environmentallyfriendly agricultural systems using their innovations in organic agriculture.
Farmer-trainers also acknowledge the importance of enhancement of “theme-community” thatbrings people with common interest and passion together. Farmer-trainers’ passion, motivation, andexperiences are being disseminated to small-scale farmers and other actors including younger
generations in the community that will eventually be persuaded to engage themselves in anenvironmentally-friendly agriculture that will hopefully lead to rural development.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researchers would like to acknowledge the warm and sincere cooperation of the three farmertrainers and their farms in Japan and the Philippines, and Tokyo University of Agriculture
particularly the NODAI Research Institute and the Tokyo University of Agriculture Education
Support Association for funding the conference travel expenses.
REFERENCES
Alave, K. 2011, September 08. Philippines is running out of farmers. Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://business.inquirer.net/18611/philippines-is-running-out-of-farmers
Asia Population. 2017. Asia population. April 7, World Population, http://worldpopulationreview.com/
continents/asia-population/
Bunch, R. 1989. Encouraging farmers' experiments. In Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L.A. (Ed.),
Farmer First, Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, UK, Intermediate Technology Publications,Southamptonn Row, London, 55-60.
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L.A. 1989. Farmer first, Farmer innovation and agricultural research,
UK, Intermediate Technology Publications, Southampton Row, London.
Chambers, R. 1989. Reversals, institutions, and change. In Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L.A. (Ed.),
Farmer First, Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, UK, Intermediate Technology Publications,Southamptonn Row, London,181-195.
Franzel, S., Degrande, A., Kiptot, E., Kirui, J. and Kugonza, J. 2015. Farmer-to-farmer extension. Note 7,
GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services. Lindau, Switzerland, GFRAS.
Google Maps. 2018. Japan. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Tokyo/Ogawa,+Hiki+District,+Saitama+Prefecture/Tokyo+Station,+1+Chome+Marunouchi,+Chiyoda,+Tokyo/Nakayama,+NasukarasuyamⒸ ISERD

133

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-1

Google Maps. 2018. Philippines. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Manila,+Metro+Manila,+Philippines/
Gagalot+Laguna,+Philippines@12.7450676,109.6780015,6z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1
Hocde, H. 1997. Crazy but not mad. In Van Veldhuizen, L., Waters-Bayer, A., Ramirez, R., Johnson, D. andThompson, J. (Ed.), Farmers' Research in Practice, Lessons from the Field, UK, Intermediate Technology
Publications, Southampton Row, London,.49-66.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) Japan. 2016. FY2015 Annual report on food,agriculture and rural areas in Japan. http://www.maff.go.jp/e/data/publish/attach/pdf/index-35.pdf
Muramoto, J., Hidaka, K. and Mineta, T. 2010. Japan, Finding opportunities in the current crisis. In
Gliessman, S.A. (Ed.), The Conversion to Sustainable Agriculture, Principles, Process, and Practices,
CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, USA, 273-301.
Murshed-E-Jahan, K. and Pemsl, D.E. 2011. The impact of integrated aquaculture-agriculture on small-scale
farm sustainability and farmer's livelihoods, Experience from Bangaldesh. Agricultural Systems, 392-402.
Qamar, K. 2012, September. Global Forum for Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS). In Swanson, B.E. (Ed.),
http://www.g-fras.org/en/events/gfras-events/annual-meeting-australia-2017/94-world-wide-extensionstudy/asia/south-eastern-asia/316-philippines.html#ict
Rhoades, R. 1989. The role of farmers in the creation of agricultural technology. In Chambers, R., Pacey, A.
and Thrupp, L.A. (Ed.), Farmer First, Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research, UK, Intermediate
Technology Publications, Southamptonn Row, London, 3-9.
Simpson, B., Franzel, S., Degrande, A., Kundhlande, G. and Tsafack, S. 2015. Farmer-to-farmer extension,
Issues in planning and implementation. University of Illinois, Modernizing Extension and Advisory
Services (MEAS) Technical Note, USA.

Ⓒ ISERD

134