Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

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

Ad

Degrande A, Yeptiet Siohdjie Y, Tsobeng A,
Asaah E, Takoutsing B, Mbosso C, Sado T,
     Tchoundjeu Z and Tchouamo I
     ...

Ad

 Agricultural extension in a historical perspective
 Dissemination of agroforestry innovations in
  Cameroon and why inv...

Ad

Importance of agricultural extension:

 Strengthening the agricultural sector in order to:
   improve access to nutritio...

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Ad

Check these out next

1 of 26 Ad
1 of 26 Ad

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

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.

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

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

Advertisement
Advertisement

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

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2.  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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. ‘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 many sources; public extension is only one and not necessarily most effective Feder et al. 2010
  5. 5.  More pluralistic  Demand-driven  Cost effective  Efficient  Sustainable (Feder et al., 2010) => But effect on productivity, poverty and financial sustainability of is not known
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7.  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
  8. 8. Agroforestry ICRAF-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
  9. 9. Demonstration Capacity Building Training ; F I Instit support Techn assistance A C R R R M O A Feedback Feedback E F R S • Government extension services • NGOs • Farmer groups • Other change agents
  10. 10. Tree nursery training hall and offices Agroforestry demonstration plots
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. External factors Favourable Unfavourable Internal 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
  14. 14.  Human resources Cat RO Total Number Highest Staff number of trained in qualification of trained in staff farmer AF staff gender organisation issues Cat I APADER 7 4 MSc agribusiness No RIBA 3 3 Agric technician No Cat II ADEAC 6 6 Agric technician No FONJAK 8 6 Agric engineer Yes Cat III FOEPSUD 5 5 Agric technician No PIPAD 18 2 Agric technician No Cat IV GICAL 1 1 Secondary No School SAGED 6 3 Secondary Yes School
  15. 15.  Material resources Cat RO offices library meetin compu printer interne motorb vehicle g room ter t key ike Cat I APADE 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 0 R RIBA 14 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Cat II ADEAC 5 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 FONJA 6 0 1 6 1 0 1 3 K Cat III FOEPS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UD PIPAD 9 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 Cat IV GICAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAGED 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0
  16. 16.  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)
  17. 17. 1. Overall,ROs studied were successfully diffusing agroforestry innovations to farmer groups  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
  18. 18. 2. Differences in performances of ROs not easily explained by external or internal factors, but ROs that operate in areas with relatively good road and communication networks and opportunities for agroforestry, and also have adequate internal human, material and financial capacity seemingly performed better => indications of type of support that might be required to further strengthen these relay organisations and increase their extension capacity
  19. 19.  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
  20. 20. a.degrande@cgiar.org

×