How to establish partnerships for scale up

Summary and key action steps

A partnership is a negotiated relationship in which different actors work together to achieve a shared purpose.  In the context of capacity development partnerships are the means to bring together the complimentary knowledge, skills and resources of different actors to achieve a capacity goal. They are especially important mechanisms for scale up of successful initiatives. If established and managed appropriately partnerships also often prove to be a capacity development process in their own right for the organisations and individuals involved in them.

Action steps

• Think strategically about the types of partner you will need to about the partnerships you need to take a capacity development initiative to scale you would want to include:
  • Decision makers: Who can make the policy necessary decisions?
  • Resource providers: Who can provide the money and other necessary resources?
  • Experts: Who has the necessary knowledge and expertise? Note: When taking an initiative into new geographic areas it is essential to engage with involve local partners that can facilitate the of necessary adaptation to local context.
  • Implementers: who can do the do the activities?
  • Participants: in what way can participants contribute to extension of the work?
• Start with clarifying your own aims and objectives for forming a partnership. What do you want to achieve?
• Identify organisations that might have similar aims and objectives in relation to the capacity development goal. Use a range of methods to approach those organisations and explore the potential and common ground for working together.  This should include:
• The mandate, role, interests, approach, motivation, expectations and existing capacity of all the organisations that might join together in partnership
• Ask ‘What can we do together and how?’ to create a vision and shared agenda for action.
• Establish agreement about the purpose of working together, and the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Draw up a partnership document that covers core aspects of the agreement plus important operational factors such as: how power for decision making is to be distributed among the partners; partnership management and accountability; planning, monitoring and evaluation of activities; communication strategy; how to systematise learning; shared values that will underpin the work; and, mechanisms for regular and ongoing consultation between partners to review both how the work is progressing, and how well the partnership is working.

Some points to remember about partnerships

• Setting up a good partnership takes time: rushing or bypassing negotiations can result in many problems if essential aspects of the partnership have not been clarified at the start. This is especially true of scale up because it can be very complicated to get one organisation to understand and adopt content and process developed in another context, and adapt them to their own context.
• Shared working practices in partnerships can lead to some very big changes in each of the partner organisations.
• It may be necessary to set up specific mechanisms to support the partnership, for example a secretariat to facilitate the flow of communication and learning and other aspects of implementation.
• There will be no sustainable capacity development unless the target participants are appropriately involved in some aspects of the partnership arrangements. 

Explanation

Introduction

All capacity development initiatives have many different stakeholders, some of whom might work together throughout the life of the initiative, while others may be involved only for specific activities.  In the context of capacity development partnerships* are a way of bringing together the complimentary knowledge, skills and resources of different actors to achieve a capacity development goal. They are especially important for scale up of successful initiatives. The partners’ contribution can take many forms, depending on their mandate, interests and capacity. A partnership can be defined as a negotiated relationship in which different actors work together to achieve a shared purpose.  If established and managed appropriately partnerships also often prove to be a capacity development process in their own right for the organisations and individuals involved in them.

There is a lot of debate about the word partnership, which is often used to describe the relationships between funding agencies and entities or organisations to whom they give money. Often those relationships do not have the characteristics of equitable partnerships because the financial factor creates a heavy imbalance of power. This page does not address those issues and deals instead with partnerships as a positive opportunity for action to extend successful capacity development initiatives.  

* Words such as networks, alliances, allies, consortia and coalitions are also used to describe the relationship between different groups working together.  What follows can be applied to any of those arrangements, but for the sake of simplicity this page will call them all partnerships.

Who needs to be involved?

The case study below is from the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) about Farmer Field Schools in India. It is a very good example of how central and state governments, development partners and a range of other organisations and groups came together over more than a decade to scale up a successful capacity development initiative. At different times some or all of the following were involved in the work: policy makers in central government; the FAO and the European Union; policy makers and agriculture extension staff from state government; national and international scientists and agriculture experts; research institutes; non-government organisation staff; and, experts and facilitators in participatory approaches. In the later stages alumni farmers worked as facilitators and their alumni groups became an important resource for the extension support activities. As a result, across four states there are is now the capacity to train up to 100,000 a year in a proven integrated pest management methodology for cotton production. This example shows how a diverse range of actors can each contribute to the overall goal, even though they don’t all work directly together or at the same time. The partnerships operated in different ways for different needs and steps in the process.

Looking at the list it can be seen that the partners involved fell into some key groupings, namely: decision makers; funders; experts; implementers; and, participants. Sometimes one agency might fall into more than one of those categories, for example many funding agencies have their own experts who provide valuable knowledge and skills resources in addition to money. While this is not a fixed list that can be applied to every capacity development process, it is likely that over the life of any initiative you are involved in you will need partnerships with agencies in all of those groups, and maybe more. Another type of partner might be an ally: someone you do not work with directly, but with whom you share an agenda and are therefore able to give each other mutual support, information exchange and so on.

Thinking strategically about the partnerships you need to take a capacity development initiative to scale you would want to consider:

• Who can make the necessary policy decisions? Having started an initiative at local level, you might need to next engage provincial or national level policy and decision makers in order to go to scale. You need to find out who they are and how they can best be engaged.
• Who can provide the resources? Those who funded the initial activities might not be in a position to fund more extensive implementation, but they might be best placed to talk to other development partners about forming a support partnership.
• Who has the necessary knowledge and expertise? Taking any initiative to scale will present new challenges to be solved, and emerging learning about what happens when the methods are introduced in new contexts.  You might therefore need the support of several different types of expertise to support the process, make appropriate adaptations, and ensure that new learning is applied to ongoing implementation. Note: When taking an initiative into new geographic areas that might have very different conditions and cultures to the original activity area it is essential to find and involve local partners that can facilitate the of necessary adaptation to local conditions.
• Who can implement? Whether a national or local government department or some other type of agency was involved in initial implementation they are unlikely to have the mandate and or resources to go to scale, perhaps in different parts of the country.  You will therefore need to find new partners to work with for the implementation of activities.  This will require first orienting new implementing partners to the work.
• In what way can participants become involved in extension of the work? The FAO case study is a very good example of working creatively with participants to involve them in extension. Interested farmers who had successfully completed the training as participants were later trained as facilitators in order that they could deliver the curriculum to other farmers.  Peer to peer work of this type has many advantages over training delivered by others.

If you are in the lead agency driving the capacity development process then you will probably need an established and working relationship with all of the partners. However not all the partners need to be in partnership with each other, for example the implementers do not need to be in partnership with the policy makers, or experts with policy makers. It would probably be helpful for you to map out which actors need to be directly connected to each other in order to support the capacity development initiative.

A visual way to think about what partnerships you need to scale up might be to create a spider web type diagram.  Start with the successful work at the centre of the web and then draw lines out for each of the types of support you will need in new areas – policy, resources, implementers, etc.  Along the lines identify agencies at both national and local levels that could support outward spread by becoming connection and anchor points in the web. Then draw lines between the different anchor points to show who would need to be in partnerships together.

Establishing a partnership

Some partnerships will require formal agreements and contracts for how the agencies involved will work together. This is very often finalised in the form of a project based funding agreement, but generally this type of contract does not address some of the important considerations needed to make a partnership work well.  Other partnerships will not need to be set up under a formal contract, but the arrangements will still need time and attention if the partnership is to work to best effect and for the mutual benefit of everyone concerned. 

Some words and phrases in the definition above give guidance about what is needed to establish an effective partnership arrangement.  A good partnership needs to be negotiated between all the parties, as opposed to one party imposing the terms on others, or everyone assuming they know how it will work.  A good partnership also recognises and respects the difference between the parties and what they each bring to working together for the achievement of a shared purpose.  The critical aspects of partnership are about deciding together and acting together.  But this does not mean that all partners are involved in the same activities, it means that their contributions and actions are coordinated to create a cohesive whole.

Steps in the process

• Start with clarifying your own aims and objectives for forming a partnership. What do you want to achieve?
• Identify organisations that might have similar aims and objectives in relation to the capacity development goal.
• Use a range of methods to approach other agencies and explore the potential and common ground for working together.  This should include:
• Consideration of factors like the mandate, role, interests, approach and expectations of all the organisations that might join together in partnership
• The potential partner’s motivation for joining in partnership
• Whether the potential partner has sufficient existing capacity to make the necessary contribution to the overall process or if steps would first be needed to get that capacity in place.
• Asking question ‘What can we do together?’ can help to create a vision and shared agenda for action.
• Further questions to help explore the relevant issues include:
• What, if any, governance structure would this the partnership need?
• What can we do to ensure that as we work together we all grow and strengthen?
• How long will this partnership last and how will we bring it to a close when it is no longer needed?
• How can we monitor the impact the partnership has on each of the partners?
• What will be the agreed indicators of mutual trust and respect?
• What will we do to resolve conflicts?
• Establish agreement about the purpose of working together and the roles and responsibilities of each partner
• Draw up a partnership document that covers core aspects of the agreement plus important operational factors such as:
• How power for decision making is to be distributed among the partners
• Who will be accountable to whom for what
• The degree to which there will be autonomy or sharing of planning, monitoring and evaluation activities
• Who will need to be consulted about what
• The communication strategy: what information will need to be shared with whom and how it can best be shared
• How will learning be identified, shared and applied into activities
• The shared values that will underpin the work
• The mechanisms for regular and ongoing consultation between partners to review both how the work is progressing, and how well the partnership is working.

Some points to remember about partnerships

• Setting up a good partnership takes time.  Rushing negotiations or bypassing important steps in reaching agreement can result in many different problems because essential aspects of the partnership have not been clarified at the start. This is especially true of scale up because it can be very complicated to get one organisation to understand and adopt content and process developed by another organisation in another context, and adapt them to their own context. Apart from dealing with differences in the context the original organisation might be reluctant to see their process changed and the receiving organisations might want to make inappropriate changes to impose their own ideas.  All steps in the transfer therefore need careful management and monitoring.
• Shared working practices in partnerships can lead to some very big changes in each of the partner organisations.
• It may be necessary to set up specific mechanisms to support the partnership, for example, to facilitate the flow of communication and learning, and other aspects of implementation.
• There will be no sustainable capacity development unless the target participants are appropriately involved in some aspects of the partnership arrangements. 

This page is drawn from the following resources

• Big Lottery Fund Good Practice Guide: Working in partnership
• Capacity.org: Issue 30 – Partnerships for service delivery and Issue 27 - Partnerships and Networks
• http://www.improvementnetwork.gov.uk/imp/aio/11471
• WWF Partnership Toolbox available at http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/wwf_parthershiptoolboxartweb.pdf

Case study: Farmer Field Schools on Integrated Pest Management for Cotton in India

1. Context

India has the largest number of cotton growers in the world and ranks third in global cotton production after the USA and China. Much of India’s cotton is transformed into garments, one of India’s major agricultural exports. The Government of India (GoI) is strongly promoting these exports and seeking to find ways to expand production, reduce costs and implement economies of scale to meet internal needs and face the strong competition from other Asian countries such as China.

Agriculture in India, and the cotton sector in particular, is highly dependent on the use of pesticides, which creates serious environmental problems,[1] as well as health and economic problems, and contribute to reduced sustainability of agricultural production. The use of pesticides is also the result of farmers’ lack of adequate alternatives, access to information and educational services.

Since the 1980s, the government, through the state level departments of agriculture, has been supporting experimental approaches to bring innovation to its extension service to meet farmers’ needs.

In this context the FFS approach was introduced (Box 1) to train farmers in the ecological management of fields, i.e. Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

In order to develop capacity among the extensionists,[2] the first Training of Trainers (TOT) in FFS, at Chithambaram, was organized in Tamil Nadu during 1993 supported by the FAO-Intercountry Programme for IPM-Rice in Asia. Since then, the GoI and partners haveimplemented other projects[3] in FFS demonstrating the viability of IPM as a means to reduce dependency on chemical pesticides.

Based on these experiences and given the high interest of the Indian government in IPM, in 1999 FAO, in partnership with the European Union (EU), launched a five-year regional programme on IPM for cotton.[4]The programme was active in four states: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharastra and Tamil Nadu. Its aim was to contribute to the alleviation of rural poverty and to protect the environment and human health through the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices, through capacity development. The main objective was to reduce the use of chemical inputs by improving farmers’ field management skills.

2. Capacity development intervention

Capacity development was centred on a mix of modalities, i.e. training (facilitators’ training- ToF; and farmers’ training- Farmer Field Schools);field exchanges and study tours; farmers’ clubs and alumni groups; and national workshops and meetings for policy-makers.

2.1 Training

Training of facilitators

Training of facilitators was conducted by the project management team in collaboration with national staff from the Department of Agriculture trained in previous IPM programme for the whole crop season each year for 25-30 participants.

The training was designed to prepare mainly government extension staff, but also NGO staff and scientists, to develop their technical skills in IPM, enhance participatory training skills, and improve their management and experimental capabilities. Upon completion of the training, the participants could facilitate the FFS.

In 1999, a curriculum development workshop was held at the start of the programme. There were 25 participants, including national and international IPM experts, scientists, experienced facilitators and experts in participatory approaches. The workshop output was a curriculum with 20 weekly training schedules incorporating field experiments, field exercises and the topics for participatory discussion. The ToF and FFS curricula were revised on a regular basis, every crop season, based on the experience gained, on the local needs and on the recommendations of the yearly workshop organized by the programme. This helped to maintain the quality of training.

ToF participants were selected by FAO in collaboration with the state departments of agriculture and other national institutions. The aim was to create a gender-balanced[5] group of young, creative and motivated agents of change who could promote a paradigm shift in the approach to rural development from top-down technology transfer to farmers’ capacity building.

The content of the training consisted of ecosystem analysis, crop management, decision making, participatory processes, organizational planning, group dynamics and health hazards of pesticide exposure. It was a learning-by-doing approach: during the ToF course, participants directly facilitated the FFS for a full season. When the participants graduated, they would run a FFS under the supervision of expert facilitators at the state or provincial level, a mechanism that ensured on-the-job performance assessment and direct provision of guidance.

New facilitators were selected every year from the ToF graduates. At the start of every ToF, two–week regular refresher trainings were introduced to strengthen the individual capacities of the new ToF and update the experienced ones with new developments in cotton IPM.

Training of farmers

The FFS approach was used to educate farmers about IPM through a full crop season.

The school was organized in the fields of the participating farmers. About 25-30 participants met for half a day, each week for six months, from before planting until the harvest. 

The core exercise of FFS is the agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA). At each FFS meeting, the members were divided into small groups to make observations of the crop, field and environmental conditions of two study plots: an IPM plot and a Farmer Practice plot. These observations were recorded in drawings, discussed, compared and interpreted by the group, with assistance from the IPM facilitators. The aim was to help farmers become better decision-makers and encourage learning through discovery. 

FFScurriculum development and fine-tuning was undertaken as a joint effort of farmers, IPM facilitators, and experts who collaborated on field experiments linked to pilot FFSs to reflect locally-specific agronomic issues. 

2.2 Field exchanges and study tours

A number of activities such as exposure visits, field days and farmer gatherings were conducted to enrich the learning of participants, facilitate exchange of knowledge between farmers and support the dissemination of ecological agricultural practices.

Study tours to research institutes such as the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and Central Integrated Pest Management Centre (CIMPC) were organized during ToFs to expose participants to the latest research findings and the development activities concerned with IPM.

Two farmers’ congresses (700-800 farmers) were organized by the state departments in collaboration with the FFS groups to invite farmers from neighbouring villages to visit IPM plots and participate in an introductory session on the performance of field agro-ecological analysis (AESA).

2.3 Farmers’ clubs and alumni groups

The formation of FFS farmers’ associations and clubs was encouraged. These registered groups organised activities related to IPM from production of neem-based biopesticides to field research trials. Some were active in social works to support the more vulnerable farmers in the village. The project designed a system for FFS facilitators/monitors to follow up alumni groups and help them continue IPM activities. In 2003, this system was used to support 86 active FFS alumni groups. The state governments have adopted this system, and in 2004 they extended financial and technical support to 379 alumni groups (176 in Karnataka, 90 in Maharashtra and 113 in Andhra Pradesh).

2.4 National workshops and meetings for policy-makers

Workshops, seminars and national- and international-level meetings were held to sensitize policy-makers on the need to adopt educational programmes that would build farmers’ knowledge and skills to restore the economic viability and ecological sustainability of cotton production.

In every ToF, one- or two-day orientation programmes were organized for officials involved in agricultural extension activities. These programmes were especially intended to ensure that FFS facilitators received solid support from their official supervisors in charge of the programmes.

During the project, two national-level meetings were organized for policy-makers from central and state governments to review project progress, develop an action plan, streamline GoI funds for IPM work and have a final meeting to share achievements.

3. Results 

From 2000 to 2004, the FFS programme for IPM cotton in Asia created a cadre of IPM facilitators. Extension services, NGOs and several research institutions trained more than 50,000 farmers in the states involved and developed models for possible scaling-up.

Strengthening farmer knowledge and skills in ecological field management had an important impact in areas where the projects operated. Specifically, the use of highly toxic pesticides was drastically reduced, in some cases to a minimum amount of 250 ml active ingredient per hectare (a.i./ha) per season, from above 1000 ml a.i./ha. The reduction was obtained as a result of increased farmer understanding of and confidence in the use of biological control alternatives. Farmers’ exposure to toxic pesticides, in particular to the widely used organophosphates, was thereby minimized, resulting positive effects on human health. For instance, the incidence of acute pesticide poisoning among field workers was halved at some of the project sites. Environmental risks on field biodiversity were also contained. 

Moreover, through integrated production management, farmers obtained higher, more stable yield levels.

The number of facilitators directly trained under the supervision of the cotton IPM project, including farmer facilitators at the closure of the project, left the states with the capacity to conduct about 2,000 FFSs a year to train 100,000 farmers directly. 

During the last two years of FAO programmeimplementation, assistance was extended to state departments of agriculture to organize state-funded ToFs and to mainstream the FFS approach into regular governmental schemes. The central government gave permission to state governments to divert funds allocated for IPM demonstrations under Technology Mission in Cotton[6]in order to organize project model ToFs and FFSs. The Government of Maharashtra used this flexibility clause and organized 143 FFSs in chickpea in 2003, andn three ToFs and 248 FFSs/F2FSs in 2004. In addition, 90 FFS alumni groups were supported with these funds.

Under the State Work Plan Schemes, the Governments of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh committed US $492,000[7]for conducting ToFs, FFSs, F2FSs and for other IPM training activities in their States.

After 2004, the state of Andhra Pradesh renamed the FFS approach using the local name ‘Polam Badi’ and adopted it as the official approach to train farmers on sustainable field management practices. According to the official reports, during 2005-2007 6,947 Polam-badies were organized, and in 2006 alone 1,966 farmers served as facilitators in 983 villages.

In 2007, three years after the closure of the FAO programme, efforts to institutionalize the programme have been sustained in national programmes. For example, the guidelines and budget for the implementation of the Technology Mission in Cotton still include a provision for the organization of FFSs during 2005-06 and 2006-07. 

4. Critical factors leading to successful capacity development practices

The factors which contributed to the success of the FFS programme in India are the following:

Commitment and interest of the Indian government in piloting and scaling-up the FFS model

Since the 1990s, the GoI (national and/or state level)has shown willingness and commitment to piloting new approaches and to enhancing capacities of its extension service to meet farmers’ needs. Thus, for about ten years, in partnership with FAO, the government introduced the FFS approach to strengthen institutional and individual capacities for the ecological management of fields in various States of India. 

The programme contributed to the reorientation of the agricultural extension services and policies in the country. In 2007, the National Policy for Farmers was approved and represented an important step forward, as it officially acknowledged the need to invest in farmers’ education and in innovation.

Stable/strategic allocation of resources to ensure quality training and skilled facilitators

As previously mentioned, since 2002 the central government has given instructions to certain states to use funds from the Technology Mission in Cotton[8]national programme to conduct ToFs, FFSs, F2FSs and other IPM training activities. The states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh acted accordingly.  In Andhra Pradesh, FFS became the official approach to train farmers in improved management practices.

Pedagogical design and adequate matching of training length to content, and to the capacity development goals of individuals

The main modality of intervention was the training of individuals and institutions (farmers, extension service).

The pedagogic approach was particularly effective as it put the learner at the centre of the process and ensured adequate matching of training length to content and to individual capacity development goals. In fact, the farmers as well as the extension agents were put at the centre of the learning experience. They were actively engaged in the learning process, which was embedded in a biological cycle (a cropping season, one year). This approach meant that participants could gain practical experience and build confidence, refining their analytical and decision-making skills over a significant period of time.

Mix of modalities of intervention to sensitize policy makers

Moreover, international meetings, workshops and seminars, were organised as complementary instruments to sensitise policy-makers on the need to adopt educational programmes enhancing farmers’ knowledge.

Quality monitoring, backstopping and follow-up activities

The intervention also established a monitoring system to ensure quality in ToF and FFS. Expert facilitators were assigned to work closely with counterpart government officials to give support to the ToF. All three state governments appointed one officer each who exclusively provided support to ToF coordinators and assisted the programme expert in monitoring the quality of FFSs. For this purpose, periodic review workshops were also undertaken. The programme demonstrated that facilitating science with farmers through discovery learning requires experienced facilitators. Therefore, the success of the intervention was also due to the choice of good facilitators, highly committed to the field school, and able to animate and stimulate attendance.

FFS approach supporting collective action and empowerment

In addition, the community approach used in FFS supported group formation and empowerment.Many farmers’ clubs generated income through membership fees, and the production and sale of bio-pesticides.Alumni clubs embarked on socio-cultural activities for the benefit of the village such as income generation for single women.

FFS approach facilitating interactions between different stakeholders

Finally, the FFS programme has also facilitated interactions between scientific and research institutions (e.g. Indian Council of Agricultural Research) universities, and state and central policy-makers from the Ministry of Agriculture. These interactions have created effective partnerships for integrated strategies on rural development.

5. Lessons learned and opportunities

FFSs have been used as a capacity development approach in India, both by local governments and by other FAO projects, since the end of the FAO-EU IPM Cotton Programme in Asia.  However, the institutionalization process is facing challenges in maintaining the quality of training while expanding and extending the approach on a large-scale.

Among the practical constraints to scaling up the adoption of FFS have been the delayed releases of funds to support FFSs, the lack of coordination between stakeholders and the overload that FFS organization places on local extension officers. It seems that a higher integration of the rural development strategies could mitigate some of these problems.

To date, FFS programmes in India have focused on increasing farm productivity and reducing the cost of production. The present food price crisis is showing the need to support farmers beyond the farm gate to escape poverty. Improving agriculture productivity and resilience has not offered a way out of a subsistence livelihood for the majority of the poorest farmers. Low farm-gate prices and competition from large-scale producers threaten to keep small and marginal farmers trapped in poverty. The relaxation of the post-independence political instruments regulating domestic trade of national commodities has facilitated the entry of larger private companies into agri-businesses, which have rapidly established vegetable and cereal retail chains across the nation.However, small farmers are not directly linked to the market and are therefore unable to derive financial benefits from improved marketing arrangements.

New tools and specific FFS components are needed to address these issues. FFS programmes could be used explicitly to strengthen farmers’ capacity to organize them to meet market demand and should support pro-poor marketing approaches. FFSs should build more organizational capacity to enable farmers to add value to agro-products for local markets. They should also serve as platforms to link farmers’ organizations to big retail chains. In some limited areas and for specialized crops, they could also provide access to export opportunities.

An opportunity emerges: growing environmental concern has set an increasing domestic and global demand for ‘clean’ products. To date, IPM products, such as cotton, have been commercialized in local markets without any premium being paid. FFS could support the federations of small farmers’ organizations to develop niche products and microenterprises to capture this additional value.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

6.   Further reading and information

• Farmers Field Schools (FFS): A Group Extension Process Based on Adult Non-Formal Education Methods.Gallagher K., Global IPM Facility Secretariat.
• Kenmore, P., 1996. Integrated Pest Management in Rice. In: Persley, G. (Ed.), Biotechnology and Integrated Pest Management. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 76-97.
• A Global Survey and Review of Farmer Field School Experiences, Braun A., Jiggins J., Roling N., van den Berg H., and Snijders P., 2006. Nairobi: International Livestock Research Institute, and Wageningen: Endelea.
• Environmental Education for Poor Farmers. Ooi, P.A.C., Walter-Echols G., Weidong D., Morales-Abubakar A. L., Guan Soon L., Pachagounder P., Soomro M. H., Galvan C., Mancini F., Petersen R., Kamp K.. (eds). 2004. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
• Moving On: Farmer Education in IntegratedInsect Pest and Disease Management. Jiggins J. and Mancini F.. 2008, Peshin R., Dhawan A.K. (eds.), Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact, Springer C. , Science+Business Media B.V. 2008.
• Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cotton through farmer education in Andrha Pradesh. Mancini F., Thermorshuizen A., Jiggins J. and van Bruggen A. H. C, 2008., 2007, Agricultural Systems 96, 16-25.
• Evaluating Farmer Field School Outcomes using the Sustainable Livelihood Approach,Mancini F., van Bruggen A. H. C., Jiggins, J. L. S., 2007. Experimental Agriculture 43 (1).
• Acute pesticide poisoning among female and male cotton growers in India.Mancini F., Van Bruggen A. H. C., Jiggins J. L. S., Ambatipudi A., Murphy, H., 2005. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 11(3), 221-32.