The benefits of rural resource centres and farmer-to-farmer extension; experiences from Cameroon
-
Upload
pan-african-farmers-organization -
Category
Technology
-
view
390 -
download
1
description
Transcript of The benefits of rural resource centres and farmer-to-farmer extension; experiences from Cameroon
The benefits of rural resource centres and
farmer-to-farmer extension; experiences from Cameroon
Ann Degrande, Lea Eboutou and Sygnola Tsafack
Staggering Production & Poor Livelihoods
Low adoption of agricultural innovations
Ineffective dissemination methods
Innovative and low cost ways of disseminating agricultural innovations
Particularly true for AGROFORESTRY:
@ Complex@ Knowledge intensive@ Long term benefits
Why ICRAF invests in research on extension approaches?
Why involve Community-Based organisations in agricultural extension?
• Not all extension services need to be organised or executed by government agencies
DECENTRALISATION INSTITUTIONAL
PLURALISMEMPOWERMENTPARTICIPATORY
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
Community-Based Organisations are main source of information
on agroforestrySource: Degrande et al., 2013. Adoption Survey
Agroforestry innovations' dissemination
ICRAF-WCA has been experimenting with the concept of rural resource centres for the dissemination of agroforestry innovations for the last 7 years in Cameroon, DRC and Nigeria
Agroforestry innovations- Tree improvement &
integration in agricultural landscape
- Soil fertility management with shrubs and trees
- Strategies for marketing of AFTPs
The concept of Rural Resource Centres
6
Differences with the classical agricultural extension approach
More scope for joint research, adaptation, training, sharing and diffusion of good practices and
technologies
Better partnership between research, civil
society organisations and farmers
More flexibility in activities, room for
testing and adaptation
Gradual development
Efforts to be self-sustaining
Infrastructure
Tree nursery
training hall and offices
Agroforestry demonstration plotsSmall library
Experimenting together with farmers vegetative propagation techniques on species prioritised by communities
Exchanging planting material between resource centres
Learning from each other during study visits
Activities
Location RRCs in Cameroon
Cost/Benefit Analysis of RRC: example from APADER,
Bangangte – West Cameroon
12
20042005
20062007
20082009
20102011
20122013
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
30000000
35000000
40000000
operational costsInitial investment
year
FCFA
20042005
20062007
20082009
20102011
20122013
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
Gifts and subventionsservice provisionsales of products
year
FCFA
BENEFITS
Analysis of the costs of the RRC over 10 years shows major investments in 2010, 2011 and 2012, the years in which their training hall was finalised and lodging facilities were built; operational costs have remained more or less the same over the years
Analysis of the benefits of the RRC over 10 years shows increases in income from service provision and sales of products as from 2011, which suggests an increased production capacity and skills thanks to better infrastructure and trained staff
COSTS
Source: Mefo, 2011. Viabilité des CR au Cameroun
13
20042005
20062007
20082009
20102011
20122013
-20,000,000
-15,000,000
-10,000,000
-5,000,000
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
Net BenefitsBenefits (not taking investment into account)Benefits (not taking investment into account and without gifts and subventions)
year
FCFA
NET BENEFITS
Calculation of the net benefits (income – costs) of the RRC over a 10 year period shows: - Gradual increase in benefits from 2004 to 2012; ! these benefits were calculated
not taking investments into account - Same positive trend in benefits, but slightly lower, is obtained when income in the
form of gifts (e.g. development aid), grants and subventions (e.g. motorbike) is removed
- Negative net benefits in the first 3 years, an increase from 2006 to 2008, and very negative balance of 7/16 million FCFA in 2010/11 because of major investments, followed by a positive balance again in 2012
Implications for financing RRC• RRC can generate revenues of up to 5 – 10 million FCFA
(7500 – 15,000 €) per year • However, the set-up of a RRC requires major
investments upfront, which need an external source of capital that cannot be recovered before 10 years
• So far, the income of RRC comes from – 1/3 the sales of products (seedlings, medicinal plants, honey,
processing of food stuff, etc.), – 1/3 from service provision and – 1/3 from gifts and subventions.
Improved production capacity, skills, visibility and credibility can help increase their income
14
Role of RRCs: farmers’ perspectives
15
Train/In
form/Se
nsitise
Accompan
y/Back
stop
Provid
e inputs
Produce
planting m
ateria
l
Particip
ate in
rural
develo
pment
Exten
sion/Ex
chan
ge/M
arketi
ng
No idea
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
MenWomen
Roles of RRC
Prop
ortio
n of
resp
onde
nts (
%)
Train/In
form/Se
nsitise
Accompan
y/Back
stop
Provid
e inputs
Produce
planting m
ateria
l
Particip
ate in
rural
develo
pment
Exten
sion/Ex
chan
ge/M
arketi
ng
No idea
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Adults
Youths
Roles of RRC
Prop
ortio
n of
resp
onde
nts (
%)
Men: Train/Inform/Sensitise & produce planting materialWomen: Accompany/Backstop
Adults: Train/Inform/Sensitise Youths: Accompany/Backstop
Efficiency criteria: farmers’ perspectives
16
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MenWomen
Efficiency criteria
Prop
orti
on o
f res
pond
ents
(%)
Practical
train
ing/innova
tive
Good quality
of train
ing
Regular
and quali
ty follo
w-up/dyn
amism
Impact
on farm
ing prac
tices
Finan
cial a
utonomy
Competency
Infrastr
ucture
of good quali
ty
Good inform
ation/sa
tisfacti
on0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
AdultsYouths
Efficiency criteria
Prop
orti
on o
f res
pond
ents
(%)
Women: • Regular follow-up• Competency
Youths: • Practical training/innovativeness• Competency
Farmers’ satisfaction about RRCs
17
Training
Technical backstopping
Information
Seed supply
seedling supply
Other material supply
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Proportion of satisfied respondents (%)
serv
ices p
rovi
ded
by R
RCs
> 50% of respondents satisfied with: Information Training Technical backstop-ping
Adoption of agroforestry
18
Source: Degrande et al. (2013) Adoption Survey
Soil F
ertility
Man
agem
ent
Fodder
Trees/
Shru
bs
Tree P
ropag
ation
Integrati
on of Impro
ved Pro
pagules
Collecti
ve Acti
on in m
arketi
ng
Post-Harv
est of A
FTPs
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Project villageswitness villages
Agroforestry Practices
% o
f hou
seho
lds p
racti
cing
The proportion of households practising different agroforestry techniques is higher in villages served by RRCs than in witness villages,
especially for the more recently introduced practices: • tree propagation, • integration of improved
plants• post-harvest and marketing
of AFTPs
Rating of RRC approach by farmers compared to other extension approaches
Increased flux of information and material
Allowing women and youths to acces benefits
cost-effectiveness
sustainability
Accountability
Complementarity with other extension approaches
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
As efficientMore efficientMuch more efficient
Sum up Rural Resource CentresOverall, RRCs are successfully diffusing agroforestry innovations to farmer groups, because: • increased relevance of techniques• Better quality of services rendered to the beneficiaries (relatively high level
of satisfied farmers)• relatively high number of women and youths reached, often overlooked in
‘traditional’ extension systems• Better linkages and networking with other stakeholders
Performance is dependent on presence of qualified staff and infrastructure, therefore:• Need support for initial investments• Need partnerships for continuous training of staff• Need ‘clients’ (individuals, projects, NGOs, government) to whom they can
sell their services, in order to retain staff and upgrade
FARMER-TO-FARMER (F2F) EXTENSION
21
Importance of F2F extension in Cameroongovernment 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% int’l NGOs – 16% FO– 0% GO– 0 % private sector
• 388 lead farmers/farmer trainers; 1/3 women
Þ 1 LF for: ± 4 groups/communities; training and advising ± 48 farmers
=> 50% 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 101214161820
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 : 7.5/10
Sum up F2F extension• 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: [email protected]