Farmer-to-farmer extension: a viable option to enhance

agricultural dissemination? Evidence from Cameroon

Ann Degrande, Sygnola Tsafack, Steven Franzel and Brent Simpson

World Congress on AgroforestryDelhi, 10-13 February 2014

INTRODUCTION

2

Staggering Production, Declining Resource Base & Enduring Poverty

Low adoption of agricultural innovations

Ineffective dissemination methods

Effective and low cost ways of disseminating agricultural innovations

Why growing interest in research on extension approaches?

Underfunded national agric

extension services

Little knowledge on how farmers access and spread information and material

Why involve Community-Based organisations in agricultural extension?

• Not all extension services need to be organised or executed by government agencies

DECENTRALISATION AND DEMAND-DRIVEN

ORGANISATIONAL PLURALISM

EMPOWERMENT PARTICIPATORY

APPROACHES

• Not all aspects of extension are pure public goods

PRIVATISATIONFEE-FOR-SERVICE

PUBLIC PROVISION

Public sector finance essential in countries with many subsistence farmers

ICRAF

Other Rese

arch O

rganisa

tion

Govern

ment e

xtensio

n agen

t

NGO/CIG/ f

armer

group

Fello

w farm

er in vi

llage

Fello

w farm

er outsi

de villa

ge

Media

Relay O

rganisa

tion0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

project village

witness village

Source of agroforestry information

% o

f res

pond

ents

Sources of information on agroforestry

Wide range of sources of information

Fellow farmers and farmer groups are important

sources of information

Source: Degrande et al., 2013. Adoption Survey

METHODOLOGY

6

ObjectivesTo characterise and assess farmer-to-farmer

extension approaches in Cameroon and determine which practices are most effective under varying

circumstances

– Assess experience of different types of extension services in using F2F extension

– Determine perceived effectiveness of F2F extension– Determine motivation of lead farmers involved– Identify benefits and challenges

Organisations surveyedIdentified as potential

151

Contacted 119

Using F2F 47

Selected 31

Interviewed 25= 53%

RESULTS

9

Importance of F2F extension in Cameroon

government agricultural extension in Cameroon (2009 FAO data)

• Total economic active population in agriculture: 3,568,000

• Government extension staff: 1651

Þ 1 extension worker for 2161 farmers

Farmer-to-farmer extension (study done by ICRAF in 2013)

• 47 organisations involved with F2F extension in 7 regions– 60% national/local NGOs– 24% international NGOs – 16% Farmer Organisations– 0% Governmental Organisations– 0 % private sector

• 388 lead farmers/farmer trainers; => 1/3 women

=> 1 field staff for ± 17 LF=> 1 LF for:

± 4 groups/communities + indiv farmers training and advising ± 220 farmers

=> 50% of them do weekly visits

Who is lead farmer?

Lead Farmer32%

Model Farmer

8%

Village Based

Program Promoter

4%

Locally based

trainer, farmer trainer

28%

Contact farmer

4%

Local an-imator, facilita-

tor, techni-

cian, Re-source person

24%

Different names used in F2F extension

Educated

Past performance, honest

Resident farmer

Capacity to learn

Interested

Able to read and write

Availability

Good communicator

Good behaviour, trustworthy

Hard working/role model

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Criteria to select lead farmers

Number of organisations

What are LF doing?

1. Train farmers2. Conduct follow-up

visits3. Mobilise communities

for meetings and demonstrations

4. Provide technical advise

• Training– Initial training– In-service training– External learning opportunities

• Extension material: brochures, posters, leaflets, …

• Inputs for demonstration: seeds, fertilisers, nursery material, …

• Transport (29%) and communication (37%)

• Reimbursement of expenses incurred to attend meetings and trainings organised by organisations

What support are LF getting?

Motivation of lead farmers

Main reasons to BECOME a lead farmer

Main reasons to REMAIN a lead farmer

According to organisations

According to lead farmers

1. Altruism 1. Early access to new technology

2. Job benefits 2. Income generating potential

3. Income generating potential

3. Altruism

According to organisations

According to lead farmers

1. Income generating potential

1. Altruism

2. Job benefits 2. Job benefits

3. Early access to new technology

3. Early access to new technology

Advantages of F2F extension approach

Increase

d cove

rage

More su

stainab

le

Less

costl

y

Increase

d adoption of in

novations

Builds lo

cal c

apac

ity

Increase

d relev

ance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Institutional perspectiveLead farmer perspective

Advantages of F2F approach

% o

f res

pons

es

Overall performance appreciation : 7.5/10organisationsLead farmers

CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONS

15

• Lead farmers do a wonderful job, but their role is not sufficiently known/recognised/supported

• Major challenges:– Selecting lead farmers– Motivating lead farmers (financial and non-financial incentives)– Technical and logistical support to lead farmers– Approach is not institutionalised/harmonised; very few organisations

have written guidelines on their F2F extension approach– Record keeping and monitoring and evaluation of F2F– Identifying farmers’ training needs and designing appropriate

training modules and material for lead farmers to use– Creating synergies with other agricultural advisory services and

notably with government extension services

With thanks !For more information: a.degrande@cgiar.org