Grp3 research on rural advisory services
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Grp3 research on rural advisory services

on

  • 1,193 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,193
Views on SlideShare
1,193
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

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

Grp3 research on rural advisory services Grp3 research on rural advisory services Presentation Transcript

  • Research on rural advisory services: recent findings from our work on farmer to farmer dissemination and the way forward for ICRAF Steven Franzel
    • Punchline: Farmer to farmer dissemination is largely ignored in the literature, yet our findings, in Kenya at least, are that
      • it is very important in spreading innovation, and
      • Volunteer farmer trainers, supported by outside agencies, can effectively spread the use of new practices
    • Why research on rural advisory services
    • Some recent findings
      • Farmer to farmer dissemination (2 studies)
      • Analytical framework for assessing costs and benefits of a volunteer farmer trainer program
      • Our volunteer farmer trainer program in EADD: assessing effectiveness
    • GRP3’s new theme: Assessing innovative extension approaches for fostering entrepreneur ship and innovation
    • The way forward (discussion)
  • Why should ICRAF be interested in research on rural advisory services
    • Rural advisory services a key impact pathway linking our research to improving livelihoods
    • AF practices are knowledge intensive; rural advisory services for promoting them are more important than for other practices (eg maize varieties)
      • knowledge intensive because:
        • New practices involved (eg nurseries, pruning)
        • Training needs to take place over time
        • Many practices are complex, in that they involve intercropping or more than one component (eg, crops and livestock)
    • Two other reasons…
    • Relative to other CG centers, we have a comparative advantage in research on rural advisory services
    • High demand for evidence based recommendations on rural advisory services but few CG centers or research institutes interested in this subject
  • Farmer to farmer dissemination: Why so critical?
    • Decline of national extension services
    • Little research available on how farmers spread information and materials
    • Aim: understand farmer to farmer dissemination so we can best understand how to promote it
  • 1. Farmer-to-farmer dissemination of fodder shrubs in central Kenya (Franzel et al., 2006)
    • Study objective: find out degree to which farmer adopters disseminate fodder shrubs
      • Characterize the F-F process:
        • Who disseminates to whom
        • What factors are associated with F-F dissemination?
    • Methods: Surveys of
      • 94 adopters 3 years after planting, and
      • 55 “recipients” who received planting material from adopters
  • Key findings
    • Farmer to farmer dissemination is widespread and effective
    • In Kenya, 3 years after planting, 53% of farmers who adopted gave
    • seed, seedlings, or wildings to other farmers
    • To how many farmers? Disseminators give out seedlings, on
    • average, to 6.3 other farmers.
    • Who are the recipients?
      • 46% from village, 54% from outside
      • 50% friends, 31% relatives, 19% other
    • Do recipients plant?
      • 90% of “recipients” successful in planting fodder shrubs.
      • But 42% had fewer than 20 shrubs.
  • Factors associated with the giving out of seeds and seedlings (NS= not significant, **=p<0.05 *=p<0.1) Variables Model 1 Logistic regression: Model 2: Truncated linear regression: Dependent variable Disseminate: yes or no No. of farmers given seed/seedlings Age NS ** Education NS NS Wealth NS NS Gender NS NS Have nursery NS ** No. fodder shrubs ** NS No. extension visits * NS Knowledge NS ** but negative! No. cases 94 52 Adjusted r2 0.20 0.17
  • Dissemination of fodder shrubs highly concentrated
    • 5% of farmers accounted for 66% of dissemination
    • The 8 “master disseminators (those disseminating to 12 or more farmers) were a varied group
    • 5 men, 3 women
    • 4 were group officials, 3 were ordinary members
    • Education level, farm size similar to other adopters
  • Conclusions
    • A few farmers responsible for most of the dissemination! Can a project identify these people and support them in their volunteer dissemination activities?
    • Disseminators appear to be difficult to characterize except that they are motivated to disseminate (a personality characteristic?)
    • Few barriers to becoming a disseminator: wealth, gender, education do not present barriers
  • 2. Characteristics of experts, innovators and disseminators of fodder shrubs, central Kenya (Tutui et al. 2007)
    • Background: Most extension services choose “master farmers” on the basis of their expertise
    • Objectives:
      • Assess degree to which experts are also good disseminators and innovators
      • Determine motivation for disseminating
    • Methods: Develop indices for the above and score 111 adopters across the criteria
  • Criteria for indices Expert Innovator Disseminator Knowledge of fodder shrub practices No. of experiments conducted/new practices tested No. of farmers given seeds/seedlings No. of fodder shrubs No. of years experimenting No. of farmers given information Have nursery Creativity of innovation No. of dissemination methods used No. years practicing Source of innovation
    • Implications
    • 19 (40%) of the 48 experts are not good disseminators
    • An extension program recruiting farmer experts may not be very effective in dissemination
    Persons who were neither experts, innovators, nor disseminators 48
  • Motivation for disseminating
    • Help others (90%)
    • Social status (33%)
    • Financial benefits (13%)
    • If I don’t help them, people will come to me for food and money”
    • Avoid “jealousy”
  • 3. Cost-benefit analysis of a volunteer farmer trainer program in Kenya: Can trainers cover their extension costs by selling inputs and services? (Franzel et al., 2009)
    • In a project with Farm Africa, we chose volunteer farmer trainers to help farmers start or improve their dairy goat enterprises
    • Trainers chosen not because they were experts but because they were good networkers/ communicators:
    • Study objectives:
    • Develop analytical framework of a farmer trainer program for assessing costs and benefits
    • Assess costs and benefits
    • Determine extent to which farmer trainers can cover costs of their extension activities
  • Analytical framework: Benefits and costs of a Farmer Trainer Programme from the perspective of different stakeholders * denotes the benefits and costs that were measured in monetary terms in this study. ** denotes the non-monetary aspects assessed in the study Stakeholders Item 1. Project 2. Farmer Trainers 3. Trainees Bene-fits 1. Benefits to farmers acquiring dairy goats or improving management 1. Empowerment, knowledge, which helps them increase economic benefits from their own enterprises. 1. Increased benefits from dairy goat enterprise in terms of increased herd size and value, goat sales, milk and manure . 2. Benefits to economy of increased income and employment 2. Higher social status 2. Empowerment, knowledge that farmers use in improving other enterprises. 3. Lessons learned, knowledge generated international public goods 3. Economic benefits from extension activities (e.g., Sale of seed) 3. Enhanced social capital provides benefits to group members in other enterprises 4. Enhanced food and nutritional security and health of beneficiaries 4. Economic benefits to members of their groups(from sale of group-owned seed) 5. New contacts with other institutions
  • Item 1. Project 2. Farmer Trainers 3. Trainees Costs 1. Training Farmer Trainers 1. Time spent being trained, including travel 1. Costs associated with having a goat or improving goat management 2. Monitoring Farmer Trainers 2. Time spent conducting training, including travel 3. Managing project 3. Time spent linking with other projects/institutions
  • Results
    • High returns to all three stakeholders (project, trainers, trainees)
    • Volunteer farmer trainers trained 16 (s.d. 9.1) farmers/month. Range was 3-33
    • High incentives for entrepreneurs to become farmer trainers. Incentives highest for animal health workers as they need only 2 customers/month to cover their extension costs. Buck keepers need 7 and seed vendors need 20.
    • Social benefits are critical incentives for farmer trainers
  • 4. Our Farmer trainer program in BMGF-funded East Africa Dairy Development Program: Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda
    • ICRAF leads the feeding systems component of the project
    • We employ 7 “dissemination facilitators” across Kenya, Rwanda, and Uganda
    • We have 400 volunteer farmer trainers (40% women) across project sites
    • Over 40% are women
    • Farmer trainers host demo plots of high value feeds
    • Assessments of effectiveness and impact underway
  • Assessing effectiveness of farmer trainer program Lukuyu, Kiptot, Place, Franzel
    • Current (tentative) objectives of study of EADD farmer trainers
    • Assess
    • 1. the flow of knowledge, information and materials (e.g., seed) from farmer trainers to group and community members and uptake of practices
    • 2. the extent to which women and other disadvantaged groups benefit,
    • 3. Whether farmer trainers can cover their extension costs
    • 4. the degree to which the approach builds capacities of communities to access information, innovate and solve problems.
    • 5. the sustainability of the approach, that is, how feasible it is for communities and local institutions to manage the approach once donors depart
    • On the sustainability issue: Ben Lukuyu recently completed an assessment of two farmer trainer programs in western Kenya and found that several years after the projects ended, the trainers were still active disseminators
  • GRP3 and rural advisory services GRP3 has 4 themes: value chain and sub-sector analysis, quality assurance standards, enterprise development and innovative extension approaches
    • Research questions
    • How can innovative extension approaches foster entrepreneurship and innovation?
    • i. What are key factors affecting the impact and sustainability of innovative extension approaches such as volunteer farmer extension programs and rural resource centers.
    • ii.. How does the impact of innovative extension approaches vary by commodity, by land use system, by social setting and by region?
  • Our way forward
    • Key partners we are in contact with:
      • Global Forum on Rural Advisory Services
      • World Bank ARD
      • CTA
      • Donors: Gates, USAID
    • Proposals
      • MTT Finland, Innovative extension approaches
      • SCAN (UNCTAD-IISD) Training needs assessment
  • Discussion points
    • Innovative extension approaches or scaling up approaches
    • Since all GRPs are interested in these issues, how do we best coordinate our efforts?
    • Action research: When do we implement an extension approach and when do we instead involve others (NGOs) to do that?