University of HohenheimFaculty of Agricultural Sciences

“Homework”Module: Rural Communication and Extension (4301-430)

Topic: “Farmer-to-farmer extension”

Supervisor: Dr. Maria Gerster-BentayaInstitute for Social Sciences in Agriculture

Department: Rural Sociology

WS 2015/16

Chiranjeevi Allalasandra RajannaMSc Agricultural Economics

Matrikel Nr: 617781

Table of contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Definition and Concept ........................................................................................... 2

2 Extension approach ........................................................................................................ 4

2.1 Clients groups and their problems ........................................................................... 4

2.2 Philosophy, principles and working program........................................................... 5

2.3 Method and extension aids ...................................................................................... 5

3 Motivation ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.1 Extension agencies/workers (Franzel, 2012)............................................................ 6

3.2 Farmers (Simpson et al., 2015)................................................................................ 6

4 Suitability ...................................................................................................................... 7

5 Prospects of the approach............................................................................................... 7

5.1 Benefits................................................................................................................... 7

5.2 Challenges .............................................................................................................. 8

6 Suitable factors for the sustainability of the approach..................................................... 8

7 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 8

References ............................................................................................................................ 9

List of figures

Figure 1 Brief structure of Farmer-to-farmer extension approach .......................................... 2

Figure 2 Outline of an extension approach............................................................................. 4

1

1 Introduction

Agriculture is still a prime enterprise for people around the world especially in

developing countries, as they reckon it as a way of life for them and not just as a financial

mean. Over the last few years, agriculture is being expressed by four predominant concepts

like sustainability, stability, diversification and commercialization (Kokate, Kharde, Patil, &

Deshmukh, 2009). In this context, farmers also witnessed many changes in the production of

agriculture produce and their marketing. Even though farmers are coping up with these

changes, agriculture is still outlined by low productivity and low marketing prices (Kokate et

al., 2009)

Agriculture extension is an effective process in creating awareness among farmers

about the agricultural technologies (on-farm and off-farm), to access the required information

and adopting the appropriate technologies and to overcome the challenges (Suranga &

Jayathilake, 2011). The system found many disparate approaches in achieving the objectives,

supported by the various actors of the society; Public, Private companies and NGOs. Out of

these approaches, only few succeeded in ensuring benefits out of it for the farmers, while

others failed in overcoming the identified challenges. Extension approaches failure is also

one of the key rationales for the backdrops in agriculture.

Many developing countries approved the fact that agriculture extension is an

important factor in agricultural development (Kokate et al., 2009) and showed interest to

bring immediate reforms to the system to make it more appropriate. Many researchers

supported the involvement of farmers in the extension services as an element of change.

Rhodes and Booth (as cited in Anandajayasekeram, Puskur, Workneh, & Hoekstra, 2008)

states that farmers are the prime source of information. Farmers are also stamped with

characters of community-driven, culturally attached and capability of knowledge

transformation in a more convenient manner (Bachmann, Rist, & Hoffmann, n.d.).

Farmer-to-farmer extension approach is one such approach which emphasizes the role

of farmers in the extension model. Farmers are not only stands at receiving end of the

approach but works for the formation of it. The paper presents detailed information about the

approach and analyses it in comparison with the “elements of extension approach”.

2

1.1 Definition and Concept

In the words of Scarborough et al., (1997), farmer-to-famer extension is described as

“the provision of training by farmers to farmers, often through the creation of a structure of

farmer promoters and farmer trainers” (Simpson, Franzel, Degrande, Kundhlande, &

Tsafack, 2015).

The involvement of the working stakeholders in the process of any reform; it may be

in any sector, is of foremost requisite. “If agriculture is to be sustainable, it must be based on

the ecology of the specific agro ecosystem (…), and it must evolve from the social structures

and cultures in which the system itself is embedded” (HOLT-GIMÉNEZ 2006 as cited in

Bachmann, Rist, & Hoffmann, n.d.). This is the underline concept of the farmer-to-farmer

extension approach.

The approach will nurture the tacit knowledge of the farming community such as

agriculture methods, tools and geographically bounded skills, thus creating or improvising

the farming techniques in accordance with the ecological, social and economic conditions of

the community and ultimately resulting in the augmentation of productivity (Bachmann et al.,

n.d.).

Figure 1 Brief structure of Farmer-to-farmer extension approach

Source: (Ssemakula & Mutimba, 2011)

3

The structure primarily embodies the Public/Private Organizations, NGOs and Farmer

Extensionists (the initiative farmers are often referred with many different names, but in this

paper “lead farmer” is used as a general term for them). The process is predominantly divided

into four important steps.

i. Initiative of the process by the Institution through external intervention: Every

farming community can be bounded with the everyday arising agriculture problems.

The supportive NGOs works along with the concerned organisations forms a planned

structure, first to understand the underlying problems of the community and the

approaches to be followed to solve it.

ii. Selection of the Lead farmers: The next step is to select farmers for the role of lead

farmers (the people who put efforts to make the initiative to reach the community).

The selection of farmers not only just depends on age and sex (only which will often

results in biasness), the farmer must be the one from the community itself, should

have good agricultural background, basic literacy, communicative skills, trustworthy,

actively participate in trainings and reachable to every stakeholder (Simpson et al.,

2015)

iii. Farmer-to-farmer extension methods: Lead farmers get training about the

approach, the initiative (technology/tools/methods), and various extension methods.

They are the first to experiment the approach on their field first. Further, they transfer

the knowledge and skills to other farmers of the community through modal farms,

community networks, practical trainings, etc., (Ssemakula & Mutimba, 2011).

iv. Effectiveness testing: The effectiveness of the approach in a specific community will

depend on its compatibility with the fiscal and political policies (Ssemakula &

Mutimba, 2011). It can be measured by scaling the efficiency of working of

stakeholders and the extent to which objectives achieved. Later adoption of the

approach by the community, augmentation in the production and productivity level

and initiative towards new innovations and experimentations are also considered as

parameters to measure effectiveness (Ssemakula & Mutimba, 2011). If the approach

lacks behind in these parameters, then adjustments or re-planning of the approach will

be done in order to achieve the objectives.

4

2 Extension approach

Figure 2 Outline of an extension approach

Source: (Hoffmann et al., 2009)

The identification of existing approach or formation of the new one for the extension

services requires a lot of research and answerable to the needful questions. The questions that

arise usually during this process are whether the approach is directed towards the needs and

problems of the target groups? Is it the best-suited for the situation? Do objectives are well

defined? Is it open for the active involvement of the target group in all the aspects of the

approach? Comparing the extension approach to the well-defined structure of an extension

approach will explain whether the selected approach is appropriate to the problem.

Comparison will not completely explain all the elements of the extension approach or the

complexities inside the system but provides an overview to the decision makers to know-how

the approach better. (Hoffmann et al., 2009). The farmer-to-farmer extension approach is

explained in comparison with the Hoffmann’s problem solving extension approach

(translated from Hoffmann, 1992, 271).

2.1 Clients groups and their problems

The pre-conditions that exist in the farming community resulted in the rise of the

farmer-to-farmer extension approach. The conditions are listed by the (Shrestha, 2013) are as

follows

i. Absence of local level functionaries to understand the existing conditions

5

ii. Insufficient number of extension workers

iii. Urban migration of agriculture labours

iv. Less interest on the needs of farmers during the formulation of a project/ program

v. Weak linkages between various stakeholders

vi. Neglect of the weaker sections during the planning and allotment of the benefits

2.2 Philosophy, principles and working program

The following are the few philosophies or principles the approach believed in; for the

better and accessible extension services in the words of (Franzel et al., 2015).

i. Rights of selection of the needy program and objectives to farmers and local institutions.

ii. Lead farmers are from the “community”

iii. Skills and interest to share knowledge are main criteria in selection of the lead farmers

iv. Strong linkages with the development agents

Lead farmers are compliment to extension system and not the substitute; they join hands with institutions for making extension services readily accessible to community and not entirely responsible for the extension service.

v. Proactive in gender balance

vi. Usage of simple and appropriate reference materials to make the training and

extension more community friendly.

2.3 Method and extension aids

The NGOs, institutions gives training to Lead farmers about the

tools/technologies/methods and subsequently explains the various extension services through

which the information is shared with farming community. The following points shows few

methods used in the approach (Franzel et al., 2015).

i. Needs training in both technical aspect and communication

ii. Residential training

6

iii. Field activities (e.g. demonstrations)

iv. Field tours

v. Periodic training

vi. Mobile technology to access information

3 Motivation

There are numerous number of extension approaches in the practice, so it is very

important for the extension agencies and farmers to believe in the specific approach and

implement it at the ground level. These are the few influential factors determining the

agencies and farmers interest.

3.1 Extension agencies/workers (Franzel, 2012)

i. Services are easily reachable to the larger population

ii. Cost-effective

iii. Farmers needs is well understandable

iv. “Farmers learn best from peers” (Feder & Savastano, 2006)

v. Empowerment of women as gender balance is given utmost importance.

3.2 Farmers (Simpson et al., 2015)

i. Gain knowledge at the minimal cost and high benefits

ii. Social status will be high due to unique knowledge and skills among the community

iii. Increase in social networking

iv. Financial benefits from the institutions and some time from the community

v. Additional income generation through better knowledge

vi. Early access to new technology

vii. Altruism: “feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness” (Merriam-Webster, n.d.)

“Seeing other farmers in the community improve their productivity as a result of my training gives me satisfaction. It makes me feel good,” (Simpson, Franzel, Degrande, & Tsafack, 2014) words of one of the lead farmers from Mweiga, Kieni West District in Kenya

7

4 Suitability

There is no one extension approach fits for all the conditions or community. The

successful approaches are also confined to specific boundary. The suitability of the farmer-to-

farmers extension approach is explained in accordance with the following factors (Franzel et

al., 2015).

i. Target groups?

Best suited for all (women, poor, youth) High rate of women farmers as lead farmers [about one-third of lead farmers were

women in the East African Dairy Development Programme in Uganda compared to women extension workers (Franzel et al.,)].

ii. Innovations?

Not appropriate for high-risk and very technical practices, technologies in which cost

of an error is high.

iii. Ecological and Institutional settings?

Less suitable to high-income, commercial systems (high opportunity cost of capital)

and with less population areas.

5 Prospects of the approach

The overview of the pros and cons of the farmer-to-farmer extension approach are as

follows (Simpson et al., 2015):

5.1 Benefits

i. Capacity building at its best

ii. Farmers role is emphasized at every aspect of the approach

iii. Low cost

iv. Increased adoption level from the farming community as it comes from itself.

v. Increased coverage of the approach

8

5.2 Challenges

i. Conflicts within the farmers of the community

ii. High drop-out rates due to over-expectations from the community

iii. Lack of efficient training from the NGOs in some cases

iv. Limited budget

v. Expectation from lead farmers; financial benefits from NGOs and community

vi. Lack of sustainability due to institution failure and high drop-out rates.

6 Suitable factors for the sustainability of the approach

Though the extension approach finds a solution for the community problem, often the

approach will not last after it. The initiative from all the stakeholders is very important to

make the approach to be sustainable (Franzel et al., 2015).

i. Long term support from the local authorities to the NGOs and lead farmers to expand the approach to different technologies.

ii. Understanding lead farmers and providing low-cost incentives to motivate them to stay in the approach

iii. Government support for lead farmers

iv. Long term training to lead farmers on various technologies/tools/methods.

7 Conclusion

The farmer-to-farmer extension approach found to be farmer-friendly and successful.

The adoption of the approach resulted in greater benefits for all the sections of the

community. Biasness, misconception and lack of sustainability are the common problems for

any type of extension approach and even farmer-to-farmer extension approach is not

different. Making changes in accordance with the specific conditions and overcome of the

cons will make the approach to reach more farming community. \

9

References

Anandajayasekeram, P., Puskur, R., Workneh, S., & Hoekstra, D. (2008). Concepts and practices in agricultural extension in developing countries: A source book, 267. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ScVyEphv15EC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=Concepts+and+practices+in+agricultural+extension+in+developing+countries+:+A+source+book&ots=A8kDcGzngm&sig=NpuHflls8MLbfmOW5QNbp60j1XY

Bachmann, F., Rist, S., & Hoffmann, V. (n.d.). Self-help extension : Farmer-to-farmer extension, 76–83.

Franzel, S. (2012). Farmer to farmer extension (FTFE): Lessons from extension providers and farmer trainers. Retrieved from http://www.pim.cgiar.org/files/2013/07/Session-2_Farmer-to-farmer-extension_Steve-Franzel.pdf

Franzel, S., Degrande, A., Kiptot, E., Kirui, J., Kugonza, J., Preissing, J., & Simpson, B. (2015). Farmer-to-Farmer Extension, (182), 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAAahUKEwim1evT5pzJAhUEhg8KHe11D2g&url=http://www.g-fras.org/en/download.html?download=339:ggp-note-7-farmer-to-farmer-extension&usg=AFQjCNHhGdkZZ0rhWB

Hoffmann et al. (2009). Approaches to extension, 1.

Kokate, K. D., Kharde, P. B., Patil, S. S., & Deshmukh, B. a. (2009). Farmers ’ - Led Extension : Experiences and Road Ahead, 9(May), 18–21.

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Altruism. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism

Shrestha, S. K. (2013). Decentralizing the farmer-to-farmer extension approach to the local level. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llrELjHvnnM

Simpson, B. M., Franzel, S., Degrande, A., Kundhlande, G., & Tsafack, S. (2015). Farmer-to-Farmer Extension: Issues in Planning and Implementation, (May). Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bWVhcy1leHRlbnNpb24ub3JnfHB1YmxpY3xneDpjNzVkMjQ5MGU5MGY4ODU

Simpson, B. M., Franzel, S., Degrande, A., & Tsafack, S. (2014). farmer to farmer extension in cameroon. Retrieved November 16, 2015, from http://es.slideshare.net/agroforestry/session-63-farmer-to-farmer-extension-in-cameroon-31375290/13

Ssemakula, E., & Mutimba, J. K. (2011). Effectiveness of the Farmer-To-Farmer Extension Model in Increasing Technology Uptake in Masaka and Tororo Districts of Uganda, 39(2), 30–46. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajae/v39n2/03.pdf