ICRAF Ann Degrande, Lea Eboutou and Sygnola Tsafack

1. The benefits of
rural resource centres and
farmer-to-farmer extension;
experiences from Cameroon
Ann Degrande, Lea Eboutou and
Sygnola Tsafack

2. Why ICRAF invests in research on extension approaches?
Staggering Production &
Poor Livelihoods
Low adoption of agricultural innovations
Ineffective dissemination methods
Innovative and low cost ways of
disseminating agricultural innovations
Particularly true for
:
@ Complex
@ Knowledge intensive
@ Long term benefits

3. Why involve Community-Based
organisations in agricultural extension?
• Not all extension
services need to be
organised or executed
by government
agencies
 DECENTRALISATION
 INSTITUTIONAL
PLURALISM
 EMPOWERMENT
 PARTICIPATORY
APPROACHES
• Not all aspects of
extension are pure
public goods
PRIVATISATION
FEE-FOR-SERVICE
PUBLIC PROVISION
Public sector finance
essential in countries with
many subsistence farmers

4. Sources of information on agroforestry
40
35
% of respondents
30
project village
25
witness village
20
15
10
5
0
Source of agroforestry information
Source: Degrande et al., 2013. Adoption Survey
Community-Based
Organisations are
main source of
information on
agroforestry

5. 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

6. The
concept of
Rural
Resource
Centres
6

7. Differences with the classical
agricultural extension approach
More scope for joint
research, adaptation, training, sh
aring and diffusion of good
practices and technologies
Efforts to be selfsustaining
Gradual
development
Better partnership
between research, civil
society organisations
and farmers
More flexibility in
activities, room for
testing and adaptation

8. Infrastructure
Tree nursery
training hall and
offices
Small library
Agroforestry demonstration plots

9. Activities
Learning from each other during study
visits
Exchanging planting material
between resource centres
Experimenting together with farmers
vegetative propagation techniques on
species prioritised by communities

10. Location RRCs in Cameroon

11. Cost/Benefit Analysis of RRC:
example from
APADER, Bangangte – West
Cameroon

12. Millions
40
35
30
FCFA
25
20
15
operational costs
10
Initial investment
5
0
Millions
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
FCFA
year
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
25
20
15
Gifts and subventions
10
service provision
5
sales of products
0
year
BENEFITS
Source: Mefo, 2011. Viabilité des CR au Cameroun
12

13. Millions
25
20
15
Net Benefits
FCFA
10
5
Benefits (not taking
investment into account)
-5
Benefits (not taking
investment into account
and without gifts and
subventions)
-10
-15
-20
year
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
13

14. 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

15. Role of RRCs: farmers’ perspectives
Men: Train/Inform/Sensitise &
produce planting material
Women: Accompany/Backstop
Adults: Train/Inform/Sensitise
Youths: Accompany/Backstop
60
50
50
40
30
20
Men
10
Proportion of respondents (%)
Proportion of respondents (%)
60
40
30
20
Adults
10
Youths
Women
0
-
Roles of RRC
Roles of RRC
15

16. Efficiency criteria: farmers’ perspectives
Youths:
• Practical training/innovativeness
• Competency
Women:
• Regular follow-up
• Competency
35
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Men
0
Women
Efficiency criteria
Proportion of respondents (%)
Proportion of respondents (%)
40
30
25
20
15
10
5
Adults
0
Youths
Efficiency criteria
16

17. Farmers’ satisfaction about RRCs
> 50% of respondents
satisfied with:
Information
Training
Technical backstopping
Other material supply
services provided by RRCs
seedling supply
Seed supply
Information
Technical backstopping
Training
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Proportion of satisfied respondents (%)
17

18. Adoption of agroforestry
especially for the more recently
introduced practices:
• tree propagation,
• integration of improved
plants
• post-harvest and marketing
of AFTPs
45
40
% of households practicing
The proportion of households
practising different agroforestry
techniques is higher in villages
served by RRCs than in
witness villages,
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Project villages
0
witness villages
Agroforestry Practices
Source: Degrande et al. (2013) Adoption Survey
18

19. Rating of RRC approach by farmers
compared to other extension approaches
Complementarity with other
extension approaches
Accountability
sustainability
As efficient
More efficient
cost-effectiveness
Much more efficient
Allowing women and youths to
acces benefits
Increased flux of information and
material
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100

20. Sum up Rural Resource Centres
Overall, 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

21. FARMER-TO-FARMER (F2F)
EXTENSION
21

22. 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
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
1 LF for:
± 4 groups/communities;
training and advising ± 48 farmers
=> 50% weekly visits

23. Who is lead farmer?
Different names used in F2F
extension
Criteria to select lead farmers
Hard working/role…
Good…
Local
animator, f
acilitator, t
echnician,
Resource
person
24%
Good communicator
Lead
Farmer
32%
Availability
Able to read and…
Interested
Capacity to learn
Contact
farmer
4%
Locally
based
trainer, far
mer trainer
28%
Resident farmer
Model
Farmer
8% Village
Based
Program
Promoter
4%
Past…
Educated
0
5
10
15
Number of organisations
20

24. What are LF
doing?
1. Train farmers
2. Conduct follow-up visits
3. Mobilise communities for
meetings and
demonstrations
4. Provide technical advise
What support
are LF getting?
• 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

25. 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
According to
organisations
According to
lead farmers
1. Altruism
1. Early access to
new technology
1. Altruism
2. Job benefits
2. Income
generating
potential
1. Income
generating
potential
2. Job benefits
2. Job benefits
3. Early access to
new technology
3. Early access to
new technology
3. Income
generating
potential
3. Altruism

26. Advantages of F2F extension approach
Overall performance appreciation : 7.5/10
90
80
% of responses
70
60
50
40
30
20
Institutional perspective
10
Lead farmer perspective
0
Advantages of F2F approach

27. 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

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