• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Degrande - Disseminating Agroforestry Innovations in Cameroon: Are Relay Organisations Effective?
 

Degrande - Disseminating Agroforestry Innovations in Cameroon: Are Relay Organisations Effective?

on

  • 2,881 views

Presentation delivered at the CIALCA international conference 'Challenges and Opportunities to the agricultural intensification of the humid highland systems of sub-Saharan Africa'. Kigali, Rwanda, ...

Presentation delivered at the CIALCA international conference 'Challenges and Opportunities to the agricultural intensification of the humid highland systems of sub-Saharan Africa'. Kigali, Rwanda, October 24-27 2011.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,881
Views on SlideShare
1,169
Embed Views
1,712

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

3 Embeds 1,712

http://cialcaconference.org 1702
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 9
http://www.docseek.net 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Degrande - Disseminating Agroforestry Innovations in Cameroon: Are Relay Organisations Effective? Degrande - Disseminating Agroforestry Innovations in Cameroon: Are Relay Organisations Effective? Presentation Transcript

    • Degrande A, Yeptiet Siohdjie Y, Tsobeng A,Asaah E, Takoutsing B, Mbosso C, Sado T, Tchoundjeu Z and Tchouamo I World Agroforestry Centre ICRAF-West and Central Africa
    •  Agricultural extension in a historical perspective Dissemination of agroforestry innovations in Cameroon and why involve community-based organisations? Assessing performance of relay organisations in dissemination of agroforestry innovations  Research framework  Performance indicators  Hypotheses  Results Concluding remarks
    • Importance of agricultural extension: Strengthening the agricultural sector in order to:  improve access to nutritious food,  reduce rural poverty (at least twice as much than investment in any other sector ; FAO 2011). Agricultural extension has a key role to play
    • ‘60-’70: heavy government investment in agric extension ‘80-’90: structural adjustments => drastic decline in investments ‘00-’10: renewed interest in agricultural extension=> Role of agriculture in pro-poor development=> Awareness that farmers get information from manysources; public extension is only one and not necessarilymost effective Feder et al. 2010
    •  More pluralistic Demand-driven Cost effective Efficient Sustainable(Feder et al., 2010)=> But effect on productivity,poverty and financialsustainability of is notknown
    • Staggering Production & Poor LivelihoodsLow 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
    •  Not all extension services  Not all aspects of need to be organised or extension are pure public executed by government goods agencies  PRIVATISATION DECENTRALISATION  FEE-FOR-SERVICE INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC PROVISION PLURALISM EMPOVERMENT PARTICIPATORY Public sector finance APPROACHES essential in countries with many subsistence farmers
    • AgroforestryICRAF-WCA has been innovations experimenting with - Tree improvement & the concept of relay integration in organisations and rural agricultural landscape resource centres for the dissemination of - Soil fertility agroforestry management with shrubs innovations for the last and trees 5 years in Cameroon, DRC and Nigeria. - Strategies for marketing of AFTPs
    • Demonstration Capacity Building Training ; FI Instit support Techn assistance AC R RR M OA Feedback Feedback EF R S • Government extension services • NGOs • Farmer groups • Other change agents
    • Tree nurserytraining hall and offices Agroforestry demonstration plots
    • 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
    • Indicators: Factors likely to influence  Number of groups performance supported and farmers  External: reached  Policy & institutional  Increase of farmers’ environment knowledge on and mastery  Farming systems & market of agroforestry access  Rate of diffusion (how  Community aspects many innovations have been disseminated)  Internal:  adoption of agroforestry  Capacity and management innovations  Advisory methods  Farmers’ perception of performance
    • External factors Favourable UnfavourableInternal Favourable PROAGRO (2000) FONJAK (2000)* factors RIBA (2002)* ADEAC (2003)* APADER (2004)* CAMECO (2005) MIFACIG (1998) II I Unfavourable RAGAF (2008) GICAL (2000)* PIPAD (2008)* APED (2008) AJPCEDES (2008) SAGED (2008)* FOEPSUD (2005)* CAFT (2004) CIMAR (2009) CANADEL (2010) FEPROFCAO (2009) III IV
    •  Human resourcesCat RO Total Number Highest Staff number of trained in qualification of trained in staff farmer AF staff gender organisation issuesCat I APADER 7 4 MSc agribusiness No RIBA 3 3 Agric technician NoCat II ADEAC 6 6 Agric technician No FONJAK 8 6 Agric engineer YesCat III FOEPSUD 5 5 Agric technician No PIPAD 18 2 Agric technician NoCat IV GICAL 1 1 Secondary No School SAGED 6 3 Secondary Yes School
    •  Material resourcesCat RO offices library meetin compu printer interne motorb vehicle g room ter t key ikeCat I APADE 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 0 R RIBA 14 1 1 2 1 1 1 1Cat II ADEAC 5 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 FONJA 6 0 1 6 1 0 1 3 KCat III FOEPS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UD PIPAD 9 1 2 3 1 1 1 3Cat IV GICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAGED 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
    •  Role of ROs in development and dissemination of AF innovations  75% satisfied with interactions with ICRAF  All felt their feedback was valued, but only 25% (those with RRC) identified their involvement in participatory research as a distinctive role  Combination of methods used: theoretical and practical training, demonstration plots, open door events, RRC (2 cases)
    • 1. Overall,ROs studied were successfullydiffusing agroforestry innovations to farmergroups 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
    • 2. Differences in performances of ROs noteasily explained by external or internalfactors, but ROs that operate in areas with relativelygood road and communication networks andopportunities for agroforestry, and also have adequateinternal human, material and financial capacityseemingly performed better=> indications of type of support that might be required tofurther strengthen these relay organisations and increasetheir extension capacity
    •  technical expertise of RO staff Quality of the messages delivered => role of continuous training and coaching difficulty of cost recovery => More research on financial viability and sustainability of the approach No clarity about factors that affect performance most => in-depth studies involving more relay organisations to increase our understanding of what factors affect performance most
    • a.degrande@cgiar.org