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: a.degrande@cgiar.org