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
Increased Improved
capacity of capacity of extension
farmers systems

Farmers’ Extension
capacity to
DEMAND systems’
articulate capacity to
demand and deliver
integrate new appropriate
knowledge and SUPPLY tech, info and
practices 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
5
actors / service providers
 Reach of community & district farmer groups
Illustrative estimates from selected African countries

% farming
households
reached by
farmer
groups

Kenya: >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 25 national associations >2 million
network
Farmer Field School network in Africa 12 countries, since 1995 >500,000
(2000 in Kenya alone)
African Network of Cotton Producers 10 countries Majority of African cotton
producers
APESS: Association for the Promotion of Livestock 10 countries in the Sahel region > 6,000
Breeding in the Savanna region and in the Sahel)
Landcare Africa District groups in Kenya, Uganda, >500,000
Tanzania, Rwanda, South Africa

EAFF: East African Farmers Federation Regional network of national farmer > 2 million
federations in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda,
Rwanda, Eastern Congo
ROPPA : West Africa Rural Producers Organization Regional network of farmer federations in > 4 million
10 countries
SACAU: Southern Africa Confederation of Agricultural Regional umbrella of ~10 national farmer > 4 million
Unions federations and commodity organizations

Africa FairTrade Producers Network 164 Fairtrade Certified Producer >20,000

Organizations across 24 countries of Africa

Organic movements in Africa National organizations in 9 countries >35,000

Community-based Natural Resources Management Numerous multi-country networks of > 5 million

Networks farmer organizations working on
watershed, rangeland and forest
management
7
 FBE: Current Challenges, Gaps and Barriers
Major Barriers prevent farmers receiving the Knowledge gaps on existing
Challenges
diverse support they need to enhance capacity and impacts of FBE
agricultural productivity & incomes limit further investment

Sustainable Institutions I. Limited capacity of farmer groups to reach and Reach, costs & Impacts of FBE:
that support farmer-driven represent smallholder farmers:
agricultural innovation at Inadequate monitoring & assessment of
the district- & community- Limited abundance of self-sustaining community-farmer long-term costs & impacts of FBE at
level are limited. groups with the institutional capacity to support farmers with scale
the services they need.
Poor documentation of existing
Farmer needs for diverse, Weak linkages (federation) between farmer groups at the capacity, services and reach of farmers
integrated solutions to community-, district- and national-levels. groups & networks at community-,
support agricultural district- and national-levels.
innovation require Limited capacity of community-farmer groups to reach and
agricultural service equitably represent farming households within their Lack of disaggregated data on relative
providers to be co- community. impacts of FBE on socially
ordinated & responsive. marginalized, including women & rural
II. Weak interface between supply & demand for poor.
Effective agricultural agricultural information, knowledge & technology
extension requires
information & Relevance:
interventions to be locally Lack of infrastructure & incentives to coordinate agricultural
contextualized, owned extension service provision by multiple actors. Limited comparative data on relative
and adapted effectiveness of different extension &
Weak capacity of farmers groups to demand services & knowledge-sharing tools within
Farmers learn from negotiate relationships with service providers. pluralistic extension systems.
diverse sources of
information and Inadequate support for farmers to trail new agricultural Lack of long-term assessment on costs,
knowledge, and place technologies, innovate or share their knowledge. impacts and effectiveness of district-
high value on knowledge and community-level information &
acquired from their peers. Limited recognition of role farmer-farmer knowledge and service provision models, relative to
information networks play in enhancing dissemination and national extension programs.
adoption of agricultural knowledge & technologies.
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 District farmer assoc.
groups Regional research institute

District gov’t Agribusiness buyer

- Share knowledge
Farmer - Conduct cross-visits
groups
- Set district priorities
- Extension materials
Soil, water,
- Coordinate activities natural resource
Farmer - Identify and fill gaps conservation
Landcare service
Network
- Invest jointly
- Conduct joint training
NGO extension Ministry of Ag extension
(local, national service
and international)

10
 Farmer Innovation Cycle:
Strengthen capacities
community-based farmer Services & Investments required Facilitate knowledge
organizations flows between
Support services to develop skills in :
from a Platform farmers
-Facilitating farmer needs assessments
Peer-peer learning exchanges
-Leadership
Study tours
-Facilitation
Farmer field schools
-Negotiation support & conflict resolution
-Business planning & financial
Codify/ Farm Demonstration sites
document Locally-based facilitators
management
Self-help associations
-(Multi-institutional) governance experience and Community knowledge centers
processes
innovation Farmer-led research &
monitoring

Learn and
Generate Improve inputs
adapt by
doing practices, Improved locally-appropriate
ideas seed varieties
Local seed banks
Seedling nurseries
Fertilizers (organic,
inorganic)
Support farmer innovation &
experiential learning Reflect collectively
Technical training and support services to on concepts, context, Locally-adapted Information
develop skills in :
-On-farm agricultural practices*
and observations services provided through
-Landscape restoration & management* diverse ICTs:
-Enterprise and market development*
Mobile phones
Innovation funds to support: Farm & community radio
- Farmer trials of new technologies Video documentation of farmer knowledge
- Farmer demonstration sites Printed materials
- Farm & community-level business planning
- Enterprise & product development
*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
% of districts
within the
country with a
platform
High degree of external
(Estimated) investment in platform
establishment.

Platforms
established by
local farmers
groups to meet
needs. Low
external
investment

Cost (USD)/hh/year

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 Activities
function
Priority- Mapping of capacities & reach of 16 key actors identified. Key actors represented on Steering Committee include:
setting & existing agricultural service Community- and district- farmers groups;
providers District network of agricultural-focused NGOs (Monduli District NGO network); District and
coordination, National Government agencies – incl. public sector research and extension;
based on Steering Committee operational Local politicians;
farmer- support Private sector actors
demand
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 Collaborative planning

planning by multiple platform Formal cooperation agreements between local farmer networks and platform members
actors Contracting of public extension services by district-farmer groups

ICT & information systems to Unknown

support platform services

Coordinated Institutional strengthening of Business development skills, including farm-level book- and record-keeping; contractual
service community farmer-groups engagement of service providers; advocacy.
provision ,
responsive to
farmer Processes to support Demonstration-sites/study-tours;
demand knowledge-flows between local Exchange visits;
users Trade-fairs;
Farmer-farmer information-sharing networks, facilitated by locally-based facilitator.
Improved inputs

Information provision Community radio

Support for innovation & Specifically tailored trainings on production interventions (crops, vegetables, livestock, apiculture)
13
Experiential learning
 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  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

Situation 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)
 Mainly USAID funded
Cost  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)
Agricultural  14% continued increase of staple food crops (rice, cassava, maize) in 2007
benefits  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)

Co-benefits  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

 Women’s group based innovation in western Kenya, initiated by CARE and the Kenya Forest Department
Situation 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  10,000 subsistence farmers in 520 groups

Source: Literature search

 Case 2. Networked Community-based Farmer Groups: CARE Agroforesty Extension
Project (2 of 2)

Cost  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
Agricultural
farm = 474 kgs, yet fell short of meeting year-round food security needs
benefits
 Products, farm inputs and cash income from 800,000-1,000,000 trees planted per year from 1992-
1999 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.

Co-benefits
 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

Source: Literature search

 Case 3. Community-farmer group support program: Leadership for Green Agriculture and
Community Well-Being in Rwanda (1 of 2)

Location
 Rwandese Health Environment Project Initiative (2004-2008), Kabarore, Kagitumba, Kabuga and Gako
Districts, Eastern Province. Kayonza and Gatsibo Districts, Southern Province (formerly Gitarama).
Situation
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.
Initiative details
 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.

Reach  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

Source: Literature search

 Case 3. Community-farmer group support program: Leadership for Green Agriculture and
Community Well-Being in Rwanda (2 of 2)

Training -- $125/farmer leader

Cost 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
Agricultural
benefits  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  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)
Situation 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?
______________________________________________________________________

Initiative details  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)
 Madagascar – from few hundred to 200,000 farmers adopting btwn 2000-2005 (and increasing)
Reach
 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
Cost 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
Agricultural manual labor, thus productivity per unit capital, labor and water increased > 50%.
benefits  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
Co-benefits conventional production methods.

Source: Cornell International Instittue for Food, Agriculture and Development (CIIFAD).
 Annex 2: Priority farmer needs for technical expertise
On-farm Ecological crop production practices (Conservation agriculture, organic): Crop selection,
agricultural mix and rotation
Soil conservation strategies (Soil cover, moisture preservation etc); Soil quality analysis
skills 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 Landscape resource mapping and analysis (incl GIS mapping techniques)
manage- Facilitation of participatory development of collaborative resource management plans
Collaborative management strategies: Community forests, rangeland, wetlands
ment skills 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 Marketing and supply chain value addition for ag products
develop- Cost and revenue- sharing systems established for fruit, timber, seedlings
Collective action for community enterprise development (e.g., community beekeeping;
ment skills livestock raising; tree nurseries; fish farming; nature-based crafts)
23
 Annex 3A: Functions of community-based farmer groups
Type of Membership Function: Support Community members in
Community-
Agricultural Production Financing & Info & Research & Advocacy
based group
Marketing Knowl’ge Innovations
Services
Local Farmer/ Smallholder farmers; Input supply & sharing Enhanced capacity to Peer-peer Opportunity to Strengthened
Producer Support Av. ~20-30 Seeds access markets & farming support farmer-led capacity to
Groups members/group Fertilizers (in/organic) demand good prices learning; research articulate local
Irrigation technologies Sharing of needs to
Locally-sourced technically advice Joint venture to enable inputs & [May be formed as potential service
Local Producer Enhanced production volume through higher returns on innovations; extension providers
co-operatives collective action; products Trade Fairs; contract/farmer-
-Milk trail groups]
-Crops, Fruit Credit & saving schemes
-Vegetables
[Membership fees can
act as safety nets for
poorer groups]

Community Smallholder farmers – Address NRM challenges required to Joint marketing Improvement Rights and
Resource-user within broader range enhance on-farm productivity through of resource access
associations for: of community collective action: Market development management
representatives whose Irrigation support practices
-Water/irrigation livelihoods depend on Rainwater harvesting
-Grazing/livestock addressing NRM Watershed management, including
-Agro-forestry challenges (community soil & water management;
-Pastoralists water supply; soil Restoration of degraded farm- and
-Forests quality; grazing land; grazing-lands
-Watershed fuel wood etc. Apiculture
-Fishers Tree nursery management

Micro-finance/ ~40 members/group Harvest help Long-/short-term seed Forum for

Self-help groups (May be gender mixed funds or loans for capital information
or women specific) inputs, incl. agricultural sharing on local
technology; emergency socio-economic
loans for crop-failure issues

Community/Village Broad community Agricultural production goals May be eligible to access Advocate with
development representation addressed to the extent that it a public funds state and nat’l
committees community development priority gov’t agencies

24
 Annex 3B: Functions of networked farmer groups at
district, national & international levels
Organization Member- Function: Support Farmer- and Community-Based Groups In:
ship
Agricultural Financing Marketing Info & Knowledge Research & Advocacy
Production Services Innovations
District level CBOs Input supply & sharing Ability to help Identify market Promote peer-to- Close links District
farmer -Seeds farmers take opportunities peer exchanges with research policy input
associations and -Fertilizers (in/organic) account of and link and extension
informal networks -Irrigation technologies NRM producers with Organize farmer to enhance ag.
-Locally-sourced potential knowledge centers growth over
technically advice buyers time

District/sub- CBOs Technical advice Credit Regional Access specialized National ag

regional producer Input supply facilities depots for tech and market policy
cooperatives products and knowledge
inputs
Farmer training
Sorting facilities

National farmer District Technical advice Mobilize Development of Train the trainer Mobilize Representa
federations , CBO Input supply banking, product programs farmer input to tion in
unions , representati national standards research national-
cooperatives ves agency and Market information agenda level policy
donor Facilitate links services for ag
investment to agro-
and credit enterprises
National
farm trade
policy
International National Influence Global trends Mobilize Internationa
farmer CBO national and analysis research l Farm trade
federations network donor funds investment policy
representati for agriculture Info synthesis
25
ves
 Annex 4: Farmer group abundance: Examples from E. Africa
Country Local, Community-based District Associations & Co- National Associations and Networks
Groups operatives
Ethiopia Borana Livestock production groups Oromia Coffee Farmer Cooperative Union Ethiopian Agricultural Research Centres financing of
>65 Farmer Research Groups established, (OCFCU) farmer-research-extension advisory committees
average of 18 farmers per group (commodity
based, thematic – crop breeding, social
fertility; seed production)
Kenya Estimated >40 000 CBOs – ranging from village level user organizations, district level farmer or Kenya National Federation of Agricultural Producers
commodity organizations to national level networks of CBOs [2006 National data] (KENFAP): >140 district branch members; federation
of many diverse CBOs & NGOs engaged in
>4500 farmer- and community-groups >140 district farmers organizations. agricultural value changes from production to
supporting soil & water conservation consumption
>185 organic farming groups Marsabit regional pastoralist support network
>300 local women’s groups in over 40 districts (~11,000 pastoralists) Farmer field school network: 2000FFS;
engaged in a variety of livelihood activities: >50,000 farmers trained
poultry, livestock (zero-grazing), bee-keeping, 2 District Landcare Groups (~50,000 farmers
tree nurseries, horticulture, milling, water reached/district) Kenya Agroforestry Network
harvesting/irrigation
~600 local women’s agroforestry groups National Greenbelt Movement, connecting community
>60 community Greenbelt groups managing Greenbelt networks
~6000 tree nurseries
Self-help movements, incl. Harambee movement
Rwanda Initiation of Rwanda District Landcare Union of Agriculturalists and Stockholders
Programs; Syndicat Rwandais des Agriculteurs Eleveurs
Tanzania 50-60 village contact groups per district for at District level farmers associations, incl: National Network of Farmers (MVIWATA) -covers 120
least 12 districts under T&V system (Lema et Tanganyika Farmers Association local farmer networks, ~1,000 affiliated farmer groups
al 2003) Ward and District Farmer Fora (~50.000-70,000 households over 82 districts)
(National Ag’l Services Support Program)
~12 farmer district-level research groups Tanzania Federation of Co-operatives
Dairy producer/marketing associations –
Seed growers associations
Uganda 32,026 community-level farmer groups Each of 80 district has district farmers Uganda National Farmers’ Federation (UNFFE):
identified via NAADs (2006). [NAADs currnetly association – network of farmer groups & other >500,000 Uganda farmers represented
working with ~21,270 groups in 49 districts – commodity based associations.
total of 384,000 farming households. (~1000 farmers members from district) Ugandan Coffee Farmers Association; Uganda Co-
operative Alliance; National Organic Agricultural
No.s of CBOs (incl. resource users 3 district-level Landcare groups Movement of Uganda (NOGAMU)
associations) estimated to be at least 96,000. (each of ~8 local CBOs). Reach >40,000
Estimated >500 village level community farmers per district
associations/district (Kabla, Kisoro & Kayunga
districts). Av. Membership of village level District co-operatives: Kaweri Coffee Farmers
26
associations=40. Alliance (~2500 members)
 Annex 4: Farmer group abundance: Examples from W. Africa
Country Local, District and sub-National Associations & Co- National Associations and Networks
Community- operatives
based Groups
Burkina Almost every village Pag La Yir women's association (11,000 members) in the region of Coordination Nationale des Chambres Régionales
has at least 1 Farmer Zabré d'Agriculture;
Faso group, with >61% of National Federation of Rural Women (FENAFER/B);
rural households a National Federation of Naam Groups (FNGN): 700,000
member members
National Federation of Cotton Producers (UNPCB);
~3000 farmer-water 6600 groups– 90% of cotton producers
harvesting groups
Came- Union des GIC de Planteurs de Cacao et Café de Mbanga Association Camerounaise des Femmes Ingenieurs
(ACAFIA);
roon
SALMA - Salma Farmers Association
Association des Producterus por le Developement
Association for Integral Development of Farmers from the Central (BINUM)
Region: 552 members; Focus on Cocoa; Palm Oil; Bananas)

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 National Union of Cotton & Food Crop Proders
representing Cotton (SYCOV); Association des
Producers Organisations Professionalles Paysannes Baabahuu
JICI (Wheat Producers association)
Niger Coordination Nationale de le Plate Farme Paysanne du
Niger (CNPFP/N); National Federation of Young
Farmers; Fédération des Coopératives Maraîchères du
Niger
Nigeria Community forest user Joint ventures by farmer co-ops in Nigeria (WB reference). All Farmers Apex Association of Nigeria Farmers
groups NGO-Coalition from the environment ~20NGO and CBOs Development Union (FADU); Union of Small & 27 Media
working within Cross River State Scale Farmers of Nigeria; Forest Peoples’ Consortium
 Annex 4: Farmer group abundance:
Examples of Africa regional farmer networks
Focus Regional Associations and Networks
Cotton African Network of 10 Sub-Saharan African national cotton producer organizations from Senegal; Mali; Burkino
Cotton Producers Faso; Cote d’Ivoire; Benin; Cameroon; Chad; Zimbabwe and Madagascar. Members
collectively supply large proportion of cotton supplied from sub-Saharan Africa.

Ecological Various African Conservation Tillage network

Agriculture
ANDEA - African Network on Development of Ecological Agriculture

Livestock APESS (Association Operates in 10 countries in the Sahel region, and has around 6000 members organized in
for the promotion of 56 so-called “regions” and 400 “zones”.
livestock breeding in
the Savanna region
and in the Sahel)

Collective action Landcare Africa Africa-wide movement of Landcare groups spanning Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda,
of Farmer-groups South Africa

Multi-commodity ROPPA : West Network structured at regional level in W Africa: Rural Producer Organizations and
farmers Africa Rural Platforms from Benin, Burkino Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea, Mali, Niger, Senegal
association Producers and Togo
Organisation

Fair Trade Africa FairTrade 164 Fairtrade Certified Producer Organizations and 43 FLO-CERT registered organizations
Certified Producers Network in 24 countries of Africa.
Production

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 Community- Total: US$115 million Direct program activities in 3,000 of ~5 million person/days of training in
Driven Development Program Burkina’s 8,000 villages. building local capacity

-Includes 250 demand-driven -US$66.7 million from World Bank Half of Burkina’s villages have established Investment in establishment
agricultural extension sub- - Co-investment from International village committees and built local capacity /strengthening of village committees in
projects. Fund for Agricultural Development for planning, implementation and ~50% of Burkina’s villages.
(IFAD); Netherlands & Danish monitoring.
-Initial investments from World Government; Local district- Village-level decision making and
Bank; government to fund expansion to more 75,000 'manure sinks' producing an average association financing of community-
villages of around 370,000 tons of organic fertilizer level micro-projects.
per year; anti-erosion measures established
- 5 year time span -Of total, US$39 million was on >28,000 hectares of agricultural land.
distributed to community-level Establishment of 302 rural communes.
investment (through micro-projects)

12,000 agricultural focused micro-

projects developed at community level
– including on irrigation, fertilizer
production & landscape-level
interventions to address soil erosion &
associated agricultural productivity
decline.

Central Kenya Dry Area Total: US$18.1 million Anticipated reach: 36,400 households in -Strengthening local institutions &
Smallholder and Community IFAD loan: US$10.9 million Central Kenya (Districts of Kirinyaga, promoting participation through
Services Development Project Belgian Survival Fund- US$4.1 million Maragwa, Nyandarua, Nyeri and Thika) investment in strengthening institutional
capacity of the district to plan,
2001-2009 Raising food production and income, and implement and monitor beneficiaries’
improving living conditions through participation in the planning and
increased agricultural production and development of district services;
productivity through promotion of drought-
resistant crop & livestock innovations

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 Total: US$60.0 million (2041- Directly benefiting: more than Investments in strengthening community-based
Development Program: 2009) 450,000 poor pastoral and development planning linked to a community investment
IFAD loan: US$20.0 million agropastoral households over 30 fund:
2001-2009 districts.  
Focused on herders in arid- and Promote and facilitate participatory programming,
semi-arid lowlands in the Anticipated impacts: included implementation and monitoring through investment in
regions of: Afar, Somali and enhanced traditional social structures at village and district level.
Oromiya regions and the household incomes, complemented
Southern Nations, Nationalities to enhanced access to social Mobile support teams working with beneficiaries and sub-
and People’s region. services. district staff in participatory situation analysis and priority
identification. Beneficiaries to articulate needs and set
priorities.

Beneficiaries to undertake Cost-benefit analysis of micro-

porjects 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 Hypothesize is true- based on What we Don’t Know…
& quantitative evidence good evidence from a large
number of cases
The majority of community-based group members in Africa The numbers of community-groups
depend primarily on farming for their livelihoods (even within currently active in promoting improved
groups primarily organized to address other community priorities. farming practices among their members
[vs. a ‘paper CBO’ that is registered but
not active].
There are high numbers of farmer and community-based These groups are more effective when federated, The relative proportion of community-
organizations that operate at the community- and district-level and well-linked. Farmer/community organization based farmer groups with capacity to
networks and coalitions can mobilize significantly support their members with the full range
greater production and marketing changes by their of services needed for sustainable, highly
members than local farmer groups working alone productive farming and farm enterprises
Most community-based farmer groups will require support and The poorest of the poor are typically not linked to
incentives to broaden inclusion for poorer households, women, existing formal organizations, but often have
and ethnic minorities) informal “invisible’ social networks that can be
supported.
Farmers organized self-governing groups are better able to To be effective drivers of technical/market change in The relative number of
articulate their needs, access and benefit from market agriculture, farmer/CBO require particular internal farmer-/community groups that self-
opportunities, test and adapt innovations, negotiate contracts, characteristics (e.g., legitimate and responsive organized, vs. organized as a consequence
demand government services, articulate research needs, and governance, trust of members, financial of external interests/interventions.
provide effective support to their members accountability, concrete value-added to members)
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/in- Aggregated data on membership fee
kind are more active and effective 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
31
members
 Annex 7: What we know about the Farmer-led
agricultural extension (1 of 2)

With relatively strong comparative and Hypothesize is True- based What we Don’t Know…
quantitative evidence on good evidence from a
large number of cases
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 Benefits of community-driven agricultural

agriculture in terms of sustainability, farmer interest, effective farmer development for agricultural productivity
mobilization, and livelihood benefits, defined in terms of farmer self- (piecemeal quantitative data)
perceived well-being, empowerment (Qualitative & quantitative data_
A lot of existing agricultural technology and innovations that will The systematic use of facilitated peer- Aggregated data on the % of NGOs
significantly raise productivity and incomes, food & livelihood security knowledge-sharing methods can more rapidly currently working with farmer groups to
are implemented by some farmers and communities within the farming and effectively move the adoption of support and facilitate farmer-led model,
landscape – but are not currently accessible to other farmers. In these agricultural innovations to scale, both those relative to those providing only technical
circumstances, investment in horizontal sharing can be highly effective introduced by external actors and those training
without further involvement of external technical experts/ extensionists. learned from other farmers or developed by
farmers [more than relying upon NGO or Aggregated, comparative data / evidence
government-led direct training or model on the relative effectiveness of different
farmer approaches] 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 Hypothesize is True- based What we Don’t Know…
quantitative evidence on good evidence from a
large number of cases
It is critical to link production investments with farm-level and often When priority needs for farmer-led research / The institutional mechanisms that
landscape-level resource management for it to be sustainable and not support services are articulated, farmers’ genuinely achieve effective community
damaging. Thus even highly targeted agricultural initiatives need to be initial requests are for priority observable participation in priority articulation,
contextualized by both local people and diverse external service system components (e.g., declining crop especially women’s full participation.
providers yields, water quality. As they become [Mixed data on success of institutional
engaged in addressing those element, they provisions specifically made to ensure
increasingly address issues that underpin equitable participation, especially
those problems (such as restoring poor soil women)
quality and improving watershed
management)
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: The relative effectiveness of different
- Farmers place high value/confidence in knowledge learned from extension and knowledge-sharing tools
neighbors & other farmers they perceive to be like themselves within different contexts [for example,
- Farmers learn from diverse sources, and thus benefit most from having the added value of investing in
complementary information available through diverse media. community video techniques if a
-Farmers relate to, learn from and therefore are most likely to adopt community radio station and peer-peer
information and innovations that have been adapted to their local knowledge sharing mechanisms are
conditions. already in place].
-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)
33
 Annex 8: Factors affecting performance of Networked Farmer Groups
National/District Tend to be strong when… Tend to be weak when…
Farmer Groups
Support for Agricultural Offer diverse support services Single commodity support only, when
Production i) For multiple commodities capacity for diverse production options;
(and broader range of inputs ii) For multiple stages of the production chain: (Credit, input supply, technical OR Endeavors to take on multiple support
and skills required by information, marketing) functions; but lacks clear focus and/or inst’l
farmers) ii) For business/financial planning capacity to deliver.
iv) Micro-credit loan/savings
v) NRM challenges impacting productivity (soil, water, watershed degradation
challenges)
vi) Social functions: Training, education, self-help; facilitation
Degree of federation / Strong degree of organization and federation, complemented Small, disparate, unorganized groups
participation in broader Horizontal networks with other farmer- and community- groups to support
networks knowledge sharing & enhanced lobby capacity
[layered, clearly linked structures from grassroots to national and int’l level]
Driver of Formation Founded on common interests Group formation driven by external
Emerged autonomously in response to need (eg price drop, resource interests (Public extension, incl. T&V;
degradation) NGO; donor funded programs). Risk of
Based on customary community structures group remaining dependent & instrumental,
with lack of ownership of activities.
Relationships with Research Able to challenge public service providers to respond to farmer demand; - Research/extension workers dominate
and Extension Service Establish contractual partnerships with public sector service providers; systems & are ineffective enabling
Providers Can self-generate funds to pay for research & technical services demand-led service provision
Raise sufficient resources to purchase services; - Farmer groups created specifically to
Establish strong farmer representation on research & extension priority-setting serve externally-driven issues rather than
& decision-marking bodies building on existing community institutions

Policy and Markets National Policies guarantee freedom of association; - Weak policy recognition of role of farmers
National policies explicitly recognize the roles of farmer organizations organizations in the economy
- Insufficient strength of internal
Able to coordinate policy-level actions that defend members interests organization & inadequate negotiating
Able to facilitate linkages to agro-enterprises capacity
Financing Financial autonomy, with diverse sources of funding Long-term dependency on external support
Willingness of members to co-/finance activities to be sustained
[Indicator: Free flowing membership fees of members]
Governance Traditional modes of organisations
Respected, agreed social rules; Legally recognized rules 34
 Annex 9: Ensuring gender equity in FBE: Lessons learned
Opportunities Challenges
Income - Enhanced women’s participation in self-help groups, - Cultural norms regarding role of women within
micro-credit schemes the household, including management of
generation/ - Enhanced service provision tailored by demands of household finances
Livelihood women smallholders, and responsive to their information
security needs / learning strengths

Participation - Provisions for 50:50 female: male representation in local Overall, current evidence indicative of low rates
council elections (Timor-Lester; Kerela State Gov. case of female engagement in participatory
in decision- studies) community-development processes
making - Designated seats for women on community/village
council committees - Operational procedures for including women
- Provisions for balanced women: men participation in in community decision-making forums
community-development strategies insufficient to ensure meaningful participation &
- Rules for joint women and men signatories on community equal decision-making authority/legitimacy.
development contracts/ strategies. - Cultural norms and policies preventing women
- Timing and location of meetings to accommodate from meaningful participation in meetings –
women’s constraints to participation (incl. transport to Local politics closed to women’s participation
attend)

Capacity - Specific capacity development services tailored to female - Women’s self-perception of a lack of
members of community building upon differentiated roles leadership ability due to inferior education
development of males & females in community (Kakar 2005)
- Gender training for men and women – including - Lack of incentives relative to (social/economic)
Initiatives that mobilize men to support women, use of costs of participation
local gender facilitators - Limited freedom/availability of women to
- Convening of separate women’s meetings to prepare for invest time in participating in multi-day peer-
presentations to broader community peer learning and knowledge-sharing processes

Monitoring & - Strong gender M&E component in process, with gender

specific indicators and women central in evaluation process
Evaluation - Collection of disaggregated data 35