Transcript Farmer-Based Extension for SLM in Africa

Farmer-Based
Extension for SLM in Africa
Sara J. Scherr, Claire Rhodes, Louise Buck, Cosmas Ochieng, Robin Marsh, and Jenny Nelson
Ecoagriculture Partners
Produced with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and TerrAfrica
April 2008
1
Contents
0
Farmer-based extension: Opportunities and challenges
ANNEXES
1.
Cases Illustrating Farmer-based Extension (FBE):
* Kolo Harenas, Madagascar
* CARE Agroforestry Extension Project, Kenya
* Leadership for Green Agriculture and Community Well-Being, Rwanda
* Global farmer networks for System of Rice Intensification
2. Priority farmer needs for technical expertise
3. Functions of farmer groups
4.
Illustrations of farmer group abundance from Africa
5. Expenditures and # of farmers supported in selected large-scale investments
in farmer-driven agricultural development in Africa
6.
What we know about the current institutional capacity of farmers groups
7.
What we know about the farmer-led agricultural extension
8.
Factors affecting performance of Networked Farmer Groups
9.
Ensuring gender equity in FBE- Lessons learned
2
Farmer-Based Extension
Systems (FBE):
Opportunities and Challenges
3
Problem Statement Summary
Improved
capacity of extension
systems
Increased
capacity of
farmers
Farmers’
capacity to
articulate
demand and
integrate new
knowledge and
practices
DEMAND
SUPPLY
Extension
systems’
capacity to
deliver
appropriate
tech, info and
services
Current extension systems are failing to:
 Link supply with demand
 Co-ordinate service provision to meet diverse farmer needs for information, technology & support services
 Enable farmers to articulate their needs
 Recognize and build upon farmers’ knowledge
 Support farmer innovation
 Invest in farmers groups as proactive leaders and service providers, not beneficiaries
 Recognize the role of farmer-farmer networks in accelerating knowledge flows
 Invest in locally-adapted and owned information and knowledge services
 Capitalize on efficiencies of scale through collective action
4
Defining Farmer-Based Extension Systems (FBE)
Indicators of farmer-drivenness
(Ref. Neuchatel Initiative)
Farmers:
- Have access to a choice of diverse advisory services, supplied via diverse information channels
- Have increased capacity to formulate & articulate demand, individually & through organizations
- Are offered a balance between facilitation and technical services
- Contribute to advisory service costs
- Play a key role in quality assurance / performance appraisals for service provision
- Have enhanced motivation to demand, use and apply services
Diverse service providers:
- Are competent at responding to farmer demand
- Co-ordinate a range of service options in response to demand, drawing on different roles & strengths
- Offer information and resources through a range of communication & knowledge sharing tools
- Balance the need to achieve concrete results (technical change achieved) with investing time in
listening to farmers, learning about complex situations & supporting unanticipated initiatives
- Are directly accountable to service users
Policies and Donor Investments:
- Earmark funding for subsidizing service provision costs
- Channel a significant % of public extension funding through local user groups
- Invest in capacity building and backstopping institutions/organizations for farmers and advisors
- Invest in processes & institutions that support co-ordination and joint action between multiple
actors / service providers
- Support the emergence of locally-driven extension & knowledge-sharing processes
5
Reach of community & district farmer groups
Illustrative estimates from selected African countries
80
70
% farming
households
reached by
farmer
groups
60
50
% hh reached by communitybased farmers groups
40
30
% hh reached by district-level
farmers groups
20
10
0
Kenya
Kenya:
Tanzania
Uganda
Burkina
Faso
Senegal
>8000 community-based farmers groups, >140 district-farmers groups reaching ~1 million farming hh’s
Tanzania: >1000 community-based farmer groups, >120 district-level farmers groups reaching >600,000 farming hh’s
Uganda: >32,000 community-based farmer groups, district-level farmers groups reaching >800,000 farming hh's
Burkina Faso: >62% of rural/farming households members of a community-based farmer group
Reach of Regional Farmer Federations & Networks in Africa
Illustrative estimates from selected African countries
Network
No of Farmer Groups In Africa
Number of Farming
Households Involved
(Africa-wide)
International Federation of Agricultural Producers-Africa
network
Farmer Field School network in Africa
25 national associations
>2 million
12 countries, since 1995
(2000 in Kenya alone)
>500,000
African Network of Cotton Producers
10 countries
Majority of African cotton
producers
APESS: Association for the Promotion of Livestock Breeding
in the Savanna region and in the Sahel)
10 countries in the Sahel region
> 6,000
Landcare Africa
District groups in Kenya, Uganda,
Tanzania, Rwanda, South Africa
>500,000
EAFF: East African Farmers Federation
Regional network of national farmer
federations in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda,
Rwanda, Eastern Congo
Regional network of farmer federations in
10 countries
> 2 million
SACAU: Southern Africa Confederation of Agricultural
Unions
Regional umbrella of ~10 national farmer
federations and commodity organizations
> 4 million
Africa FairTrade Producers Network
164 Fairtrade Certified Producer
Organizations across 24 countries of Africa
>20,000
Organic movements in Africa
National organizations in 9 countries
>35,000
Community-based Natural Resources Management
Networks
Numerous multi-country networks of farmer
organizations working on watershed,
rangeland and forest management
> 5 million
ROPPA : West Africa Rural Producers Organization
> 4 million
7
FBE: Current Challenges, Gaps and Barriers
Challenges
Major Barriers prevent farmers receiving the
diverse support they need to enhance
agricultural productivity & incomes
Sustainable Institutions
that support farmer-driven
agricultural innovation at
the district- & communitylevel are limited.
I. Limited capacity of farmer groups to reach and
represent smallholder farmers:
Farmer needs for diverse,
integrated solutions to
support agricultural
innovation require
agricultural service
providers to be coordinated & responsive.
Weak linkages (federation) between farmer groups at the
community-, district- and national-levels.
Effective agricultural
extension requires
information &
interventions to be locally
contextualized, owned
and adapted
Farmers learn from
diverse sources of
information and
knowledge, and place
high value on knowledge
acquired from their peers.
Limited abundance of self-sustaining community-farmer
groups with the institutional capacity to support farmers with
the services they need.
Limited capacity of community-farmer groups to reach and
equitably represent farming households within their
community.
II. Weak interface between supply & demand for
agricultural information, knowledge & technology
Knowledge gaps on existing
capacity and impacts of FBE
limit further investment
Reach, costs & Impacts of FBE:
Inadequate monitoring & assessment of
long-term costs & impacts of FBE at
scale
Poor documentation of existing
capacity, services and reach of farmers
groups & networks at community-,
district- and national-levels.
Lack of disaggregated data on relative
impacts of FBE on socially
marginalized, including women & rural
poor.
Relevance:
Lack of infrastructure & incentives to coordinate agricultural
extension service provision by multiple actors.
Weak capacity of farmers groups to demand services &
negotiate relationships with service providers.
Inadequate support for farmers to trail new agricultural
technologies, innovate or share their knowledge.
Limited recognition of role farmer-farmer knowledge and
information networks play in enhancing dissemination and
adoption of agricultural knowledge & technologies.
Limited comparative data on relative
effectiveness of different extension &
knowledge-sharing tools within
pluralistic extension systems.
Lack of long-term assessment on costs,
impacts and effectiveness of districtand community-level information &
service provision models, relative to
national extension programs.
8
Solution 2: District-level Farmer Innovation Platforms provide an
coordinated interface between demand and supply
9
Multi-stakeholder, district-level
farmer innovation platform
Farmer
groups
District farmer assoc.
District gov’t
Farmer
groups
Farmer
Landcare
Network
NGO extension
(local, national
and international)
Regional research institute
Agribusiness buyer
- Share knowledge
- Conduct cross-visits
- Set district priorities
- Extension materials
- Coordinate activities
- Identify and fill gaps
- Invest jointly
- Conduct joint training
Soil, water,
natural resource
conservation
service
Ministry of Ag extension
service
10
Strengthen capacities
community-based farmer
organizations
Support services to develop skills in :
-Facilitating farmer needs assessments
-Leadership
-Facilitation
-Negotiation support & conflict resolution
-Business planning & financial
management
-(Multi-institutional) governance
processes
Farmer Innovation Cycle:
Services & Investments required
from a Platform
Support farmer innovation &
experiential learning
Technical training and support services to
develop skills in :
-On-farm agricultural practices*
-Landscape restoration & management*
-Enterprise and market development*
Innovation funds to support:
- Farmer trials of new technologies
- Farmer demonstration sites
- Farm & community-level business planning
- Enterprise & product development
Peer-peer learning exchanges
Study tours
Farmer field schools
Farm Demonstration sites
Locally-based facilitators
Self-help associations
Community knowledge centers
Farmer-led research &
monitoring
Codify/
document
experience and
innovation
Learn and
adapt by
doing
Generate
practices,
ideas
Reflect collectively
on concepts, context,
and observations
Facilitate knowledge
flows between
farmers
Improve inputs
Improved locally-appropriate
seed varieties
Local seed banks
Seedling nurseries
Fertilizers (organic,
inorganic)
Locally-adapted Information
services provided through
diverse ICTs:
Mobile phones
Farm & community radio
Video documentation of farmer knowledge
Printed materials
*For further details on farmer priorities for technical support services, see Annex 2
11
Reach of existing farmer innovation platforms
Illustrative examples from selected African countries
100
% of districts
within the
country with a
platform
(Estimated)
Tanzania District
Farmer Platforms
Reach:
~2,500hh/platform
80
Uganda District Multistakeholder Forums
Reach:
~10,000hh/platform
60
Platforms
established by
local farmers
groups to meet
needs. Low
external
investment
High degree of external
investment in platform
establishment.
40
Burkina Faso Regional
Producer Organization
Forums
Reach:
~20,000hh/platform
Kenya Smallholder
Farmers Forums
Reach:
~10,000hh/platform
20
Guinea Village-based
Platforms
Reach:
~8,000hh/platform
Cost (USD)/hh/year
0
-5
5
15
25
35
45
55
65
75
85
95
A diverse range of district- and village-level platforms exist within Africa. Key variables include reach; single-vs. multi-commodity
focus; relative contribution of external financing & membership fees to platform establishment and operational costs.
Burkina Faso: 47.4 million USD invested over 6 years through World Bank
Guinea: Investment of >100 million USD over 5 years (2000-2005) from European Union, World Bank and IFAD
Kenya: Established and run primarily on farmer membership fees (~2500USD/platform/year). Minimal external investment.
Tanzania: Diverse financing based: International NGOs (incl. Agriterra); European Commission; Individual membership fees (See example)
Uganda: 8 million USD over 5 years through NAADs.
Example: MVIWAMO farmer innovation platform, Tanzania
Implementer: MVIWAMO – Moduli District Farmers Association, Tanzania
Supported by: MVIWATA-Tanzanian National Farmers Organization, European Commission, private donations and local membership
fees.
Dates:
Ongoing since 2004
Reach:
2,500 farm hh’s within District (>70% of farming households), through 75 community-level farming groups
Platform
function
Activities
Prioritysetting &
coordination,
based on
farmerdemand
Mapping of capacities & reach of
existing agricultural service
providers
Coordinated
service
provision ,
responsive to
farmer
demand
Steering Committee operational
support
16 key actors identified. Key actors represented on Steering Committee include:
Community- and district- farmers groups;
District network of agricultural-focused NGOs (Monduli District NGO network); District and
National Government agencies – incl. public sector research and extension;
Local politicians;
Private sector actors
Farmer-needs assessment
Participatory needs assessment undertaken by community- and district-level farmer groups in
collaboration with the local university (Cooperative College of Moshi)
Investment in collaborative
planning by multiple platform
actors
Collaborative planning
Formal cooperation agreements between local farmer networks and platform members
Contracting of public extension services by district-farmer groups
ICT & information systems to
support platform services
Unknown
Institutional strengthening of
community farmer-groups
Business development skills, including farm-level book- and record-keeping; contractual
engagement of service providers; advocacy.
Processes to support
knowledge-flows between local
users
Demonstration-sites/study-tours;
Exchange visits;
Trade-fairs;
Farmer-farmer information-sharing networks, facilitated by locally-based facilitator.
Improved inputs
Information provision
Community radio
Support for innovation &
Experiential learning
Specifically tailored trainings on production interventions (crops, vegetables, livestock, apiculture)
13
Annex 1: Cases illustrating
Farmer-Based Extension
Case 1: Networked farmer groups in multistakeholder coalition for
agricultural intensification - Kolo Harenas, Madagascar
Case 2: Networked Community-based Farmer Groups - CARE
Agroforesty Extension Project, Kenya
Case 3: Community-farmer group support program - Leadership for
Green Agriculture and Community Well-Being in Rwanda
Case 4: Global networks of diverse actors rely on farmer-to-farmer
extension to promote System of Rice Intensification
14
Case 1: Networked farmer groups in multistakeholder coalition for
agricultural intensification - Kolo Harenas, Madagascar (1 of 2)
Location
Situation
 Madagascar
 Well established in 2 Provinces (Toamasina and Fianarantsoa) and newly established in Mahajanga
 Associations of farmers catalyzed to develop a market-responsive, intensive agriculture that would
improve productivity and profitability, eliminate the use of burning, restore soil fertility and conserve
water and forest resources.
Initiative details
 Link local and external knowledge in CB innovation systems to invent sustainable cropping systems
using biological fertility management
 Create technical training centers where farmers meet to experiment with other farmers
 Cascade training: extension agents appointed by their community share techniques with others
 Build local capacity (technical and management) and formalize structure for long-term sustainability
and eventual autonomy
Reach
 1,333 KH organizations formed in two provinces
 16,411 farmer members in two provinces
Source: Literature search
Case 1: Networked farmer groups in multistakeholder coalition for
agricultural intensification - Kolo Harenas, Madagascar (2 of 2)
Cost
Agricultural
benefits
Co-benefits
 Mainly USAID funded
 25% funds (~$200,000 per province) invested in on-ground projects: 40% to expand commodity
streams (e.g., coffee, rice, jatropha) and 20% to increase rural institutional capacity building (e.g., KH
can hire professional agricultural technicians and pay farmer outreach/extension workers)
 $10-25/hh/year
 47% increase in staple crop (rice) production in 2 years; 28% increase in manioc (cassava)
 14% continued increase of staple food crops (rice, cassava, maize) in 2007
 New rice technology yields 2-4 fold higher than traditional methodologies in 2007
 10% increase in KH revenues 2005-2006
 34% increase in KH revenues 2006-2007
 Food security significantly increased: food insecure weeks dropped from 24 to 19 from 2004 to 2007
 Expanded production of cash crops led to rapid productivity gains and market development need
 CB producer groups led to eco-enterprise development through access to investment capital,
management training and market information
 Avg 61% and 25% adoption of new rice production techniques in respective provinces (2005-2007)
 Rural capacity building through trained farmer extension and outreach agents who are paid by KHs
 Reduced deforestation in provinces
 Kolo Harena organizations mobilized by government environmental programs to develop ecoregional
development and conservation plans
 Partnership with state agency created a trained Malagasy workforce that fills NRM extension role
 KH access to micro-credit increasing: 49% (Toamasina) and 28% (Fianarantsoa) borrowed in 2007
Source: Literature search
Case 2. Networked Community-based Farmer Groups: CARE Agroforesty Extension
Project (1 of 2)
Location
 Western Kenya: Siaya and South Nyanza districts
Situation
 Women’s group based innovation in western Kenya, initiated by CARE and the Kenya Forest Department
in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture in 1984 to help poor farmers overcome soil fertility
degradation in subsistence farming systems and woodfuel and fodder shortages
 Evolved into food security project 1991-99
Initiative details
 Menu-based approach to agroforestry choice, emphasis on native species
 Participatory technology generation approach to local adaptation linked with agroforestry research
community
 Dual level extension teams included pairs of external advisors from Ministries of Agriculture and
Environment, and mixed gender pairs of local facilitators selected by their communities
 Intensive training in participatory agroforestry design included country-wide visits to innovators
 Widely dispersed nursery hubs for farming system diagnosis and design, social learning,
demonstration, farmer experimentation
 Research support from Kenya Forestry Research Insititute
 Focus of intervention on women’s groups, to create and manage multi-purpose tree nursery
enterprises, and on schools to educate youth and create productive assets
Reach
Source: Literature search
 10,000 subsistence farmers in 520 groups
Case 2. Networked Community-based Farmer Groups: CARE Agroforesty Extension
Project (2 of 2)
Cost
Agricultural
benefits
Co-benefits
Source: Literature search
 Investment of $5.7 M by CARE International for total project (of which ~ half for extension, thus
$38/household/year)
 Funded by CIDA
 High unspecified co-financing by community groups
 Yields of major food crops (maize, sorghum, kale, pulses, oil seeds) doubled – average increase per
farm = 474 kgs, yet fell short of meeting year-round food security needs
 Products, farm inputs and cash income from 800,000-1,000,000 trees planted per year from 19921999 contributed to food security increases
 Hundreds of women’s groups raised cash income through collectively managed tree nurseries




Community-based extension methodology and system instituted.
Major increase in tree cover in project districts
Reduced pressure on natural forests by creating on-farm fuel, pole and fodder resources
Conservation of indigenous tree species on farms
Case 3. Community-farmer group support program: Leadership for Green Agriculture
and Community Well-Being in Rwanda (1 of 2)
Location
Situation
Initiative details
Reach
Source: Literature search
 Rwandese Health Environment Project Initiative (2004-2008), Kabarore, Kagitumba, Kabuga and Gako
Districts, Eastern Province. Kayonza and Gatsibo Districts, Southern Province (formerly Gitarama).
Cyclical famines due to food insecurity, high poverty level, malnutrition in children, very low ag technology
knowledge level, severe soil erosion, labor shortage due to war and HIV/AIDs.
 Trained farmer leaders (at least 50% women) who multiply adoption to neighbor farmers.
 Established formal training center (Gitarama, Southern Province) and farm/home based
demonstration and training sites (Kagitumba/Eastern Province).
 Promoted package of new technologies (kitchen gardens , organic fertilizers/dung, improved stoves,
zero grazing, terracing, agroforestry, gravity-based rain harvesting)
 Built capacity in “leadership for green agriculture”, focus on conflict management, collective action
and gender sensitivity.
 Training and extension evolved from core technologies to meet diverse demand-driven rural priorities
(marketing, schools/school gardens, micro-finance).
 Women farmers (most of whom are widows) empowered through leadership role in training,
technology adoption, school committees, and collective action.
 40,000 farmers (2004-2008): 1,000 contact farmers trained per year x 10 neighbor farmer leaders =
10,000 farmer families per year
 Expanding to new districts in 2008
Case 3. Community-farmer group support program: Leadership for Green Agriculture
and Community Well-Being in Rwanda (2 of 2)
Cost
Agricultural
benefits
Training -- $125/farmer leader
Staff follow up visits = $10/farmer/day
Study visits/field days = $98/farmer
Improved stoves = $55/family
Tree seeds = $20/100 seedlings/farmer
Water tank = $350/tank of 2500 lts
Biogas digester = $1,650/farmer leader
 100% of target farmers learned to grow new crops, esp vegetables, reducing famine and illness
 90% of target farmers use organic fertilizers, dung, and mulch, resulting in improved soil fertility and
yields.
 80% of target farmers use improved seed provided by research centers partnering with RHEPI
 25% of target farmers use simple micro-irrigation for vegetables
 50% of farmers use zero tillage
 Reduced soil erosion on hilly farms.
 Poverty and food insecurity cycle turned into virtuous cycle of restored natural resources (soil, water),
improved maize/bean/sorghum and vegetable yields, and milk production, for year-round supply of
food for family.
Co-benefits
 Fuel cook stoves adopted by 90% reduced respiratory disease in women and children.
 Malnutrition in children reduced by 70% in target areas.
 Conflict among genocide victims and perpetrators reduced as neighbors are trained in collaboration
and lead collective action in their communities.
 Recovery of watershed functions through collective tree planting.
Source: Literature search
Case 4. Global networks of diverse actors rely on farmer-to-farmer
extension to promote System of Rice Intensification (1 of 2)
Locations
Situation
Initiative details
 Twenty-four countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East where rice is an important food and cash crop
for the poor.
 The agroecologically-based methods of rice production known as the System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
was documented in Madagascar to increase yields by 50-400% with less water applications, reduced or
no agrochemical inputs and less cost of production, greatly raising household net incomes. How could
knowledge of the practice be spread cost-effectively to reach poor farmers throughout the world?
______________________________________________________________________
 Building multi-sectoral local, national and transnational alliances that promote, test and adjust the
SRI methodology, including NGOs, universities, research institutes, farmer or community
organizations, private sector, conservation groups and diverse government offices including public
works, water and agriculture.
 Committed global knowledge brokers through articles, visits, international conferences and personal
follow-up with partners.
 Emergence of ‘champions’, individuals and organizations, working on volunteer basis.
 Emergence of farmer activists who promote SRI among peers, reinforced by anti-poverty and
environmentally-conscious organizations.
 Series of national and local workshops for experience and information sharing facilitate formation of
national networks that link diverse individuals and organizations vertically and horizontally to adapt
and spread the SRI methodology.
 Transnational knowledge network, operating through linked websites, email and 7 global and
national listservs.
 Farmer to farmer extension methods most effective.
Source:Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD): N. Uphoff, L.Fisher, O. Vent
Case 4. Global networks of diverse actors rely on farmer-to-farmer
extension to promote System of Rice Intensification (2 of 2)
Reach
Cost
Agricultural
benefits
Co-benefits




Madagascar – from few hundred to 200,000 farmers adopting btwn 2000-2005 (and increasing)
Tripura, India – from 44 to 72,000 farmers adopting btwm 2002-2007
Cambodia – from 28 to 60,000 farmers adopting btwn 2000-2006
Nyanmar – from 5,000 to 50,000 farmers adopting over 3 years using farmer field school methods.
 Gov’t of India investing $40m in dissemination of SRI methods to reach 5m hectares under new
National Food Security Mission = $8.00/ha. Yield increase of at least 1 ton/ha.= 15:1 benefit/cost
ratio. Assuming rising market price for rice the B:C ratio can rise to 20 or 30:1
 CIIFAD global knowledge brokers spend $95,000/yr. salary and travel; benefit from comparable
volunteer time and partner contributions.
 No systematic data on costs of investment in SRI extension to date.
 Extension cost-effectiveness best achieved by supporting groups successfully working with farmers
regardless of specific approach.
_________________________________________________________________
 Productivity changes: In Tamil Nadu, India yields per unit land > 50% with less seed, water and
manual labor, thus productivity per unit capital, labor and water increased > 50%.
 Water use often halved, thus 50% increase in output = 100% increase in crop per drop.
_______________________________________________________________
 Net income changes: Review of 11 analyses in 8 countries found average income increases 128%.
 In Myanmar using Farmer Field Schools, 8-fold increase in farm HH net benefit from SRI over
conventional production methods.
Source: Cornell International Instittue for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD).
Annex 2: Priority farmer needs for technical expertise
On-farm
agricultural
skills
Ecological crop production practices (Conservation agriculture, organic): Crop selection, mix
and rotation
Soil conservation strategies (Soil cover, moisture preservation etc); Soil quality analysis
techniques
Irrigation strategies; Rainwater harvesting techniques
Water conservation strategies: Gully rehabilitation; Vegetative barriers; Passive & Active
Terracing
On-farm forestry and fruit tree practices: Timber and fruit tree establishment; Windbreaks
Precision input technologies and management (fertilser, pesticides)
Integrated pest management strategies
Integrated crop and livestock strategies
Improved fallows
Landscape
management skills
Landscape resource mapping and analysis (incl GIS mapping techniques)
Facilitation of participatory development of collaborative resource management plans
Collaborative management strategies: Community forests, rangeland, wetlands
Re-vegetation/rehabilitation strategies
Community-based water supply, conservation and sharing approaches [Community water
havesting, management and irrigation systems; well construction; shallow well
construction)
Enterprise
development skills
Marketing and supply chain value addition for ag products
Cost and revenue- sharing systems established for fruit, timber, seedlings
Collective action for community enterprise development (e.g., community beekeeping;
livestock raising; tree nurseries; fish farming; nature-based crafts)
23
Annex 3A: Functions of community-based farmer groups
Type of
Communitybased group
Membership
Local Farmer/
Producer Support
Groups
Smallholder farmers;
Av. ~20-30
members/group
Local Producer
co-operatives
-Milk
-Crops, Fruit
-Vegetables
Community
Resource-user
associations for:
Function: Support Community members in
Agricultural Production
Financing &
Marketing
Info &
Knowl’ge
Services
Research &
Innovations
Advocacy
Input supply & sharing
Seeds
Fertilizers (in/organic)
Irrigation technologies
Locally-sourced technically advice
Enhanced production volume through
collective action;
Enhanced capacity to
access markets &
demand good prices
Peer-peer
farming
learning;
Sharing of
inputs &
innovations;
Trade Fairs;
Opportunity to
support farmerled research
Strengthened
capacity to
articulate local
needs to
potential service
providers
Joint venture to enable
higher returns on
products
Credit & saving schemes
[Membership fees can
act as safety nets for
poorer groups]
Smallholder farmers –
within broader range
of community
representatives whose
livelihoods depend on
addressing NRM
challenges (community
water supply; soil
quality; grazing land;
fuel wood etc.
Address NRM challenges required to
enhance on-farm productivity through
collective action:
Irrigation support
Rainwater harvesting
Watershed management, including
soil & water management;
Restoration of degraded farm- and
grazing-lands
Apiculture
Tree nursery management
Joint marketing
Micro-finance/
Self-help groups
~40 members/group
(May be gender mixed
or women specific)
Harvest help
Long-/short-term seed
funds or loans for capital
inputs, incl. agricultural
technology; emergency
loans for crop-failure
Community/Village
development
committees
Broad community
representation
Agricultural production goals
addressed to the extent that it a
community development priority
May be eligible to access
public funds
-Water/irrigation
-Grazing/livestock
-Agro-forestry
-Pastoralists
-Forests
-Watershed
-Fishers
[May be formed as
extension
contract/farmertrail groups]
Market development
Improvement
of
management
practices
Rights and
resource access
Forum for
information
sharing on local
socio-economic
issues
Advocate with
state and nat’l
gov’t agencies
24
Annex 3B: Functions of networked farmer groups at
district, national & international levels
Organization
Membership
District level
farmer
associations and
informal networks
CBOs
District/subregional producer
cooperatives
CBOs
Function: Support Farmer- and Community-Based Groups In:
Agricultural
Production
Financing
Marketing
Info & Knowledge
Services
Research &
Innovations
Advocacy
Input supply & sharing
-Seeds
-Fertilizers (in/organic)
-Irrigation technologies
-Locally-sourced
technically advice
Ability to help
farmers take
account of
NRM
Identify market
opportunities
and link
producers with
potential
buyers
Promote peer-topeer exchanges
Close links
with research
and extension
to enhance ag.
growth over
time
District
policy input
Technical advice
Input supply
Credit
facilities
Regional
depots for
products and
inputs
Access specialized
tech and market
knowledge
Organize farmer
knowledge centers
National ag
policy
Farmer training
Sorting
facilities
National farmer
federations ,
unions ,
cooperatives
District
CBO
representati
ves
Technical advice
Input supply
Mobilize
banking,
national
agency and
donor
investment
and credit
Development
of product
standards
Facilitate links
to agroenterprises
Train the trainer
programs
Market information
services
Mobilize
farmer input to
research
agenda
Representa
tion in
nationallevel policy
for ag
National
farm trade
policy
International
farmer
federations
National
CBO
network
representati
ves
Influence
national and
donor funds
for agriculture
Global trends
analysis
Info synthesis
Mobilize
research
investment
Internationa
l Farm trade
policy
25
Annex 4: Farmer group abundance: Examples from E. Africa
Country
Local, Community-based
Groups
Ethiopia
Borana Livestock production groups
Oromia Coffee Farmer Cooperative Union
>65 Farmer Research Groups established,
(OCFCU)
average of 18 farmers per group (commodity
based, thematic – crop breeding, social fertility;
seed production)
Estimated >40 000 CBOs – ranging from village level user organizations, district level farmer or
commodity organizations to national level networks of CBOs [2006 National data]
Kenya
>4500 farmer- and community-groups
supporting soil & water conservation
>185 organic farming groups
>300 local women’s groups in over 40 districts
engaged in a variety of livelihood activities:
poultry, livestock (zero-grazing), bee-keeping,
tree nurseries, horticulture, milling, water
harvesting/irrigation
~600 local women’s agroforestry groups
>60 community Greenbelt groups managing
~6000 tree nurseries
Rwanda
Tanzania
Uganda
District Associations & Cooperatives
32,026 community-level farmer groups
identified via NAADs (2006). [NAADs currnetly
working with ~21,270 groups in 49 districts –
total of 384,000 farming households.
No.s of CBOs (incl. resource users
associations) estimated to be at least 96,000.
Estimated >500 village level community
associations/district (Kabla, Kisoro & Kayunga
districts). Av. Membership of village level
associations=40.
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Centres financing of
farmer-research-extension advisory committees
>140 district farmers organizations.
Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers
(KENFAP): >140 district branch members; federation
of many diverse CBOs & NGOs engaged in agricultural
value changes from production to consumption
Marsabit regional pastoralist support network
(~11,000 pastoralists)
Farmer field school network: 2000FFS;
>50,000 farmers trained
2 District Landcare Groups (~50,000 farmers
reached/district)
Kenya Agroforestry Network
National Greenbelt Movement, connecting community
Greenbelt networks
Initiation of Rwanda District Landcare
Programs;
50-60 village contact groups per district for at
least 12 districts under T&V system (Lema et
al 2003)
National Associations and Networks
District level farmers associations, incl:
Tanganyika Farmers Association
Ward and District Farmer Fora
(National Ag’l Services Support Program)
~12 farmer district-level research groups
Dairy producer/marketing associations –
Seed growers associations
Each of 80 district has district farmers
association – network of farmer groups & other
commodity based associations.
(~1000 farmers members from district)
3 district-level Landcare groups
(each of ~8 local CBOs). Reach >40,000
farmers per district
District co-operatives: Kaweri Coffee Farmers
Alliance (~2500 members)
Self-help movements, incl. Harambee movement
Union of Agriculturalists and Stockholders
Syndicat Rwandais des Agriculteurs Eleveurs
National Network of Farmers (MVIWATA) -covers 120
local farmer networks, ~1,000 affiliated farmer groups
(~50.000-70,000 households over 82 districts)
Tanzania Federation of Co-operatives
Uganda National Farmers’ Federation (UNFFE):
>500,000 Uganda farmers represented
Ugandan Coffee Farmers Association; Uganda Cooperative Alliance; National Organic Agricultural
Movement of Uganda (NOGAMU)
26
Annex 4: Farmer group abundance: Examples from W. Africa
Country
Local,
Communitybased Groups
District and sub-National Associations & Cooperatives
National Associations and Networks
Burkina
Faso
Almost every village has
at least 1 Farmer group,
with >61% of rural
households a member
Pag La Yir women's association (11,000 members) in the region of
Zabré
Coordination Nationale des Chambres Régionales
d'Agriculture;
National Federation of Rural Women (FENAFER/B);
National Federation of Naam Groups (FNGN): 700,000
members
National Federation of Cotton Producers (UNPCB);
6600 groups– 90% of cotton producers
Union des GIC de Planteurs de Cacao et Café de Mbanga
Association Camerounaise des Femmes Ingenieurs
(ACAFIA);
~3000 farmer-water
harvesting groups
Cameroon
SALMA - Salma Farmers Association
Association for Integral Development of Farmers from the Central
Region: 552 members; Focus on Cocoa; Palm Oil; Bananas)
Association des Producterus por le Developement
(BINUM)
Association of small producers from the Western Region (BINUM);
1307 members – crop-specific production network support
Northwest farmers’ organisation: crop & livestock support
Reg’l Council for Farmers Organisations (CROPSEC) – issue
focussed (women, microfinance, marketing; micro-credit network)
Ghana
Apex Farmers Organisation of Ghana; Development
Acction Association; Farmers Organisation Network
(FONG); Ghana Organic Agriculture Network (GOAN)
Guinea
Federation des Paysans du Fonta Djallon
Mali
Village Associations
representing Cotton
Producers
Niger
Nigeria
Community forest user
groups
Joint ventures by farmer co-ops in Nigeria (WB reference).
NGO-Coalition from the environment ~20NGO and CBOs working
within Cross River State
National Union of Cotton & Food Crop Proders
(SYCOV);
Association des
Organisations Professionalles Paysannes Baabahuu
JICI (Wheat Producers association)
Coordination Nationale de le Plate Farme Paysanne du
Niger (CNPFP/N);
National Federation of Young
Farmers; Fédération des Coopératives Maraîchères du
Niger
All Farmers Apex Association of Nigeria Farmers
27
Development Union (FADU); Union of Small & Media
Scale Farmers of Nigeria; Forest Peoples’ Consortium
Annex 4: Farmer group abundance:
Examples of Africa regional farmer networks
Focus
Cotton
Ecological
Agriculture
Regional Associations and Networks
African Network of
Cotton Producers
10 Sub-Saharan African national cotton producer organizations from Senegal; Mali; Burkino
Faso; Cote d’Ivoire; Benin; Cameroon; Chad; Zimbabwe and Madagascar. Members
collectively supply large proportion of cotton supplied from sub-Saharan Africa.
Various
African Conservation Tillage network
ANDEA - African Network on Development of Ecological Agriculture
Livestock
APESS (Association
for the promotion of
livestock breeding in
the Savanna region
and in the Sahel)
Collective action of Landcare Africa
Farmer-groups
Operates in 10 countries in the Sahel region, and has around 6000 members organized in
56 so-called “regions” and 400 “zones”.
Africa-wide movement of Landcare groups spanning Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda,
South Africa
Multi-commodity
farmers
association
ROPPA : West
Africa Rural
Producers
Organisation
Network structured at regional level in W Africa: Rural Producer Organizations and
Platforms from Benin, Burkino Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Senegal
and Togo
Fair Trade
Certified
Production
Africa FairTrade
Producers Network
164 Fairtrade Certified Producer Organizations and 43 FLO-CERT registered organizations
in 24 countries of Africa.
28
Annex 5: Expenditures and # of farmers supported in
selected large-scale investments in Farmer-Driven
Agricultural Development in Africa (1 of 2)
Program
Investments
Impact/Reach
Interventions
Burkina Faso CommunityDriven Development Program
Total: US$115 million
Direct program activities in 3,000 of
Burkina’s 8,000 villages.
~5 million person/days of training in
building local capacity
-Includes 250 demand-driven
agricultural extension subprojects.
-US$66.7 million from World Bank
- Co-investment from International
Fund for Agricultural Development
(IFAD); Netherlands & Danish
Government; Local district-government
to fund expansion to more villages
Half of Burkina’s villages have established
village committees and built local capacity
for planning, implementation and monitoring.
Investment in establishment
/strengthening of village committees in
~50% of Burkina’s villages.
75,000 'manure sinks' producing an average
of around 370,000 tons of organic fertilizer
per year; anti-erosion measures established
on >28,000 hectares of agricultural land.
Village-level decision making and
association financing of communitylevel micro-projects.
-Initial investments from World
Bank;
- 5 year time span
-Of total, US$39 million was distributed
to community-level investment
(through micro-projects)
Establishment of 302 rural communes.
12,000 agricultural focused microprojects developed at community level
– including on irrigation, fertilizer
production & landscape-level
interventions to address soil erosion &
associated agricultural productivity
decline.
Central Kenya Dry Area
Smallholder and Community
Services Development Project
2001-2009
Total: US$18.1 million
IFAD loan: US$10.9 million
Belgian Survival Fund- US$4.1 million
Anticipated reach: 36,400 households in
Central Kenya (Districts of Kirinyaga,
Maragwa, Nyandarua, Nyeri and Thika)
Raising food production and income, and
improving living conditions through
increased agricultural production and
productivity through promotion of droughtresistant crop & livestock innovations
-Strengthening local institutions &
promoting participation through
investment in strengthening institutional
capacity of the district to plan,
implement and monitor beneficiaries’
participation in the planning and
development of district services;
29
Annex 5: Expenditures and # of farmers supported in
selected large-scale investments in Farmer-Driven
Agricultural Development in Africa (2 of 2)
Program
Investments
Impact/Reach
Interventions
Pastoralist Community
Development Program:
Total: US$60.0 million (20412009)
IFAD loan: US$20.0 million
Directly benefiting: more than
450,000 poor pastoral and
agropastoral households over 30
districts.
Investments in strengthening community-based development
planning linked to a community investment fund:
2001-2009
Focused on herders in arid- and
semi-arid lowlands in the
regions of: Afar, Somali and
Oromiya regions and the
Southern Nations, Nationalities
and People’s region.
Anticipated impacts: included
enhanced
household incomes, complemented
to enhanced access to social
services.
Promote and facilitate participatory programming,
implementation and monitoring through investment in
traditional social structures at village and district level.
Mobile support teams working with beneficiaries and subdistrict staff in participatory situation analysis and priority
identification. Beneficiaries to articulate needs and set
priorities.
Beneficiaries to undertake Cost-benefit analysis of microporjects to be financed under Community Investment Funds.
Monitoring, assigning roles and responsibilities – and
performance monitoring integral to learning by doing.
- Forums for policy dialogue and advocacy among key
stakeholders at federal level
-Improvements in delivery of support services in agricultural
research, extension, marketing and rural finance.
-Establishment of warning systems to enhance pastoralist
resilience and ability of cope with drought impact.
30
Annex 6: What we know about the current institutional
capacity of Farmer Groups
Know with relatively strong comparative
& quantitative evidence
Hypothesize is true- based on
good evidence from a large
number of cases
The majority of community-based group members in Africa
depend primarily on farming for their livelihoods (even within
groups primarily organized to address other community priorities.
What we Don’t Know…
The numbers of community-groups
currently active in promoting improved
farming practices among their members
[vs. a ‘paper CBO’ that is registered but
not active].
There are high numbers of farmer and community-based
organizations that operate at the community- and district-level
These groups are more effective when federated,
and well-linked. Farmer/community organization
networks and coalitions can mobilize significantly
greater production and marketing changes by their
members than local farmer groups working alone
Most community-based farmer groups will require support and
incentives to broaden inclusion for poorer households, women,
and ethnic minorities)
The poorest of the poor are typically not linked to
existing formal organizations, but often have
informal “invisible’ social networks that can be
supported.
Farmers organized self-governing groups are better able to
articulate their needs, access and benefit from market
opportunities, test and adapt innovations, negotiate contracts,
demand government services, articulate research needs, and
provide effective support to their members
To be effective drivers of technical/market change
in agriculture, farmer/CBO require particular
internal characteristics (e.g., legitimate and
responsive governance, trust of members, financial
accountability, concrete value-added to members)
The relative proportion of communitybased farmer groups with capacity to
support their members with the full range
of services needed for sustainable, highly
productive farming and farm enterprises
The relative number of farmer/community groups that self-organized,
vs. organized as a consequence of
external interests/interventions.
Farmer organizations are more effective in accessing and utilization
extension information when public or NGO extension providers are
structured to see them as principal clients
Farmer organizations whose members contribute financially/inkind are more active and effective
Aggregated data on membership fee
contributions
Farmer organizations are highly constrained in their access to
funding
Building of farmer organizations requires long-term support – with
significant co-financing contributed by the organisation and its
members
31
Annex 7: What we know about the Farmer-led
agricultural extension (1 of 2)
With relatively strong comparative and
quantitative evidence
Hypothesize is True- based
on good evidence from a
large number of cases
What we Don’t Know…
The benefits/returns that can be achieved from large-scale investment in
community-driven development programs which each address a broad
range of development challenges (incl. agriculture, health, nutrition,
NRM, finance)
The benefits of investment in community-driven development for
agriculture in terms of sustainability, farmer interest, effective farmer
mobilization, and livelihood benefits, defined in terms of farmer selfperceived well-being, empowerment (Qualitative & quantitative data_
Benefits of community-driven agricultural
development for agricultural productivity
(piecemeal quantitative data)
A lot of existing agricultural technology and innovations that will
significantly raise productivity and incomes, food & livelihood security
are implemented by some farmers and communities within the farming
landscape – but are not currently accessible to other farmers. In these
circumstances, investment in horizontal sharing can be highly effective
without further involvement of external technical experts/ extensionists.
The systematic use of facilitated peerknowledge-sharing methods can more rapidly
and effectively move the adoption of
agricultural innovations to scale, both those
introduced by external actors and those
learned from other farmers or developed by
farmers [more than relying upon NGO or
government-led direct training or model
farmer approaches]
Aggregated data on the % of NGOs
currently working with farmer groups to
support and facilitate farmer-led model,
relative to those providing only technical
training
Aggregated, comparative data / evidence
on the relative effectiveness of different
CBO networking and coalition models in
disseminating innovation at scale
32
Annex 7: What we know about the Farmer-led
agricultural extension (2 of 2)
With relatively strong comparative and
quantitative evidence
Hypothesize is True- based
on good evidence from a
large number of cases
What we Don’t Know…
It is critical to link production investments with farm-level and often
landscape-level resource management for it to be sustainable and not
damaging. Thus even highly targeted agricultural initiatives need to be
contextualized by both local people and diverse external service
providers
When priority needs for farmer-led research /
support services are articulated, farmers’
initial requests are for priority observable
system components (e.g., declining crop
yields, water quality. As they become
engaged in addressing those element, they
increasingly address issues that underpin
those problems (such as restoring poor soil
quality and improving watershed
management)
The institutional mechanisms that
genuinely achieve effective community
participation in priority articulation,
especially women’s full participation.
[Mixed data on success of institutional
provisions specifically made to ensure
equitable participation, especially
women)
Farmers can as individuals effectively integrate technical innovations
related to inputs that simply reflect a qualitative change in the input
(e.g., new seed varieties for farmers already using varieties of the same
crop species, or substitute better-performing fertilizer for less effective
fertilizers). However it is ineffective to train farmers and provide them
with information about new practices or significant management
changes if they can’t access adequate technical support and financing to
innovate on their own farmers (e.g., new soil management practices,
agroforestry, conservation agriculture, new micro-irrigation, livestock
management for new products)
Farmer learning from extension methodologies:
- Farmers place high value/confidence in knowledge learned from
neighbors & other farmers they perceive to be like themselves
- Farmers learn from diverse sources, and thus benefit most from having
complementary information available through diverse media.
-Farmers relate to, learn from and therefore are most likely to adopt
information and innovations that have been adapted to their local
conditions.
-Farmers learn most effectively through face-to-face interaction an the
opportunity to discuss and observe together their hands-on experience
(adult theory, participatory research)
The relative effectiveness of different
extension and knowledge-sharing tools
within different contexts [for example,
the added value of investing in
community video techniques if a
community radio station and peer-peer
knowledge sharing mechanisms are
already in place].
33
Annex 8: Factors affecting performance of Networked Farmer Groups
National/District
Farmer Groups
Support for Agricultural
Production
(and broader range of inputs
and skills required by
farmers)
Degree of federation /
participation in broader
networks
Driver of Formation
Tend to be strong when…
Tend to be weak when…
Offer diverse support services
i) For multiple commodities
ii) For multiple stages of the production chain: (Credit, input supply, technical
information, marketing)
ii) For business/financial planning
iv) Micro-credit loan/savings
v) NRM challenges impacting productivity (soil, water, watershed degradation
challenges)
vi) Social functions: Training, education, self-help; facilitation
Strong degree of organization and federation, complemented
Horizontal networks with other farmer- and community- groups to support
knowledge sharing & enhanced lobby capacity
[layered, clearly linked structures from grassroots to national and int’l level]
Founded on common interests
Emerged autonomously in response to need (eg price drop, resource
degradation)
Based on customary community structures
Single commodity support only, when
capacity for diverse production options;
OR Endeavors to take on multiple support
functions; but lacks clear focus and/or inst’l
capacity to deliver.
Relationships with Research
and Extension Service
Providers
Able to challenge public service providers to respond to farmer demand;
Establish contractual partnerships with public sector service providers;
Can self-generate funds to pay for research & technical services
Raise sufficient resources to purchase services;
Establish strong farmer representation on research & extension priority-setting
& decision-marking bodies
Policy and Markets
National Policies guarantee freedom of association;
National policies explicitly recognize the roles of farmer organizations
Financing
Governance
Able to coordinate policy-level actions that defend members interests
Able to facilitate linkages to agro-enterprises
Financial autonomy, with diverse sources of funding
Willingness of members to co-/finance activities
[Indicator: Free flowing membership fees of members]
Traditional modes of organisations
Respected, agreed social rules; Legally recognized rules
Small, disparate, unorganized groups
Group formation driven by external
interests (Public extension, incl. T&V;
NGO; donor funded programs). Risk of
group remaining dependent & instrumental,
with lack of ownership of activities.
- Research/extension workers dominate
systems & are ineffective enabling
demand-led service provision
- Farmer groups created specifically to
serve externally-driven issues rather than
building on existing community institutions
- Weak policy recognition of role of farmers
organizations in the economy
- Insufficient strength of internal
organization & inadequate negotiating
capacity
Long-term dependency on external support
to be sustained
34
Annex 9: Ensuring gender equity in FBE: Lessons learned
Opportunities
Challenges
Income
generation/
Livelihood
security
- Enhanced women’s participation in self-help groups,
micro-credit schemes
- Enhanced service provision tailored by demands of
women smallholders, and responsive to their information
needs / learning strengths
- Cultural norms regarding role of women within
the household, including management of
household finances
Participation
in decisionmaking
- Provisions for 50:50 female: male representation in local
council elections (Timor-Lester; Kerela State Gov. case
studies)
- Designated seats for women on community/village council
committees
- Provisions for balanced women: men participation in
community-development strategies
- Rules for joint women and men signatories on community
development contracts/ strategies.
- Timing and location of meetings to accommodate
women’s constraints to participation (incl. transport to
attend)
Overall, current evidence indicative of low rates
of female engagement in participatory
community-development processes
Capacity
development
- Specific capacity development services tailored to female
members of community building upon differentiated roles
of males & females in community
- Gender training for men and women – including Initiatives
that mobilize men to support women, use of local gender
facilitators
- Convening of separate women’s meetings to prepare for
presentations to broader community
- Women’s self-perception of a lack of leadership
ability due to inferior education (Kakar 2005)
- Lack of incentives relative to (social/economic)
costs of participation
- Limited freedom/availability of women to
invest time in participating in multi-day peerpeer learning and knowledge-sharing processes
Monitoring &
Evaluation
- Strong gender M&E component in process, with gender
specific indicators and women central in evaluation process
- Collection of disaggregated data
- Operational procedures for including women in
community decision-making forums insufficient
to ensure meaningful participation & equal
decision-making authority/legitimacy.
- Cultural norms and policies preventing women
from meaningful participation in meetings –
Local politics closed to women’s participation
35