Farmer-to-farmer extension: opportunities for enhancing performance of volunteer farmer trainers in Kenya

Abstract

Farmer-to-farmer extension (FFE) is playing a complementary role to formal extension services in facilitating the spread of agricultural technologies and improving farmers’ capacities. The effectiveness and sustainability of such programmes depend on volunteer farmer trainers (VFTs) having technical skills and overcoming process-related challenges that hinder them from achieving the desired outcomes. This article uses quantitative and qualitative data collected from seven sites to explore the challenges experienced by VFTs as they share their knowledge on livestock feed innovations in a dairy development project in Kenya. Sustainable opportunities for enhancing VFTs’ performance are discussed.

La vulgarisation d'agriculteur à agriculteur (Farmer-to-farmer extension - FFE) joue un rôle qui complète les services formels de vulgarisation pour faciliter la diffusion des technologies agricoles et améliorer les capacités des agriculteurs. L'efficacité et la durabilité de ces programmes ne peuvent exister que si les formateurs agricoles volontaires (volunteer farmer trainers – VFT) ont les compétences techniques et parviennent à relever les défis liés aux processus qui les empêchent de parvenir aux résultats souhaités. Cet article utilise des données quantitatives et qualitatives recueillies dans sept sites pour examiner les défis auxquels se confrontent les VFT au moment de diffuser leurs connaissances sur les innovations touchant à l'alimentation du bétail dans un projet de développement de la production laitière au Kenya. Les opportunités durables pour l'amélioration des performances des VFT font l'objet d'une discussion.

El programa extensionista realizado de campesino a campesino (ecc) se ha convertido en un apoyo para los servicios de extensión formales a la hora de difundir tecnologías agrícolas y de mejorar las capacidades de los productores. La eficacia y la sostenibilidad de tales programas son responsabilidad de los capacitadores rurales voluntarios (crv), quienes cuentan con habilidades y conocimientos técnicos que permiten solucionar los distintos obstáculos que impiden que los productores logren los resultados deseados. Utilizando información cuantitativa y cualitativa obtenida de siete localidades, el presente artículo examina los retos enfrentados por los crv al momento de compartir sus conocimientos sobre las innovaciones que, en el marco de un proyecto de promoción de productos lácteos en Kenia, se lograron en el forraje para animales. Asimismo, analiza la existencia de oportunidades sostenibles para mejorar el desempeño de los crv.

Keywords:

• Aid – Capacity development
• Labour and livelihoods
• Environment (built and natural) – Agriculture
• Methods
• Sub-Saharan Africa

Introduction

The past decade has seen an increase in community extension approaches in developing countries that are pluralistic, demand driven, client-oriented, and farmer-centred (Davis 2008; Rivera 2011; Wellard et al. 2013). The paradigm shift from top-down to bottom-up has been adopted by many development organisations. These new approaches are based on the social and experiential learning theories which recognise that solving smallholder farmers’ problems requires observation, joint learning, reflection, negotiation, feedback, and subsequent modifications of innovation strategies. Extension officers’ roles are also changing. Rather than being channels for agricultural technologies communicated from outside, they become catalysts and facilitators helping communities define their own goals and access information, markets, and credit (Christoplos 2010; Sulaiman and Davis 2012). Their role is thus to promote knowledge generation and sharing in a community development context with a focus on capacity building. Farmer-to-farmer extension (FFE) is a complementary approach and involves farmers sharing knowledge on agricultural innovations within their communities (Lukuyu et al. 2012). One such approach, implemented by the East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) Project, is the volunteer farmer-trainer (VFT) approach, which uses volunteer farmers to share knowledge and information on livestock feed technologies to dairy farmers in their communities. The VFT approach is based on the assumption that farmers can effectively disseminate innovations because they have an in-depth knowledge of local conditions, culture, and practices and are known by other farmers and hence have their trust. They live in the community, speak the same language, and use expressions that suit their environment (Kiptot and Franzel 2014; Lukuyu et al. 2012; Weinand 2002). The approach is especially effective when combined with group-based extension approaches that have a multiplier effect and help reduce transaction costs.

FFE models have been widely embraced by many extension initiatives in developing countries (Hellin and Dixon 2008; Kiptot and Franzel 2014; Lukuyu et al. 2012; Ssemakula and Mutimba 2011; Weinand 2002). This is because they are able to address the weaknesses of earlier models such as the T&V that were considered ineffective because they were not inclusive and extended irrelevant messages that relied on broad-based technical recommendations (Gautam 2000). The FFE models are more inclusive, low-cost, effective, and offer a wide-reaching alternative in supporting agricultural innovation (Ssemakula and Mutimba 2011; Wellard et al. 2013 ). For any extension model to be deemed effective it should be able to spread agricultural innovations, reach women and other marginalised groups, and at the same time, build capacities of farmers to innovate and be readily available and accessible (Ssemakula and Mutimba 2011; Wellard et al. 2013). Several authors have reported that although FFE is considered effective, there are challenges associated with such programmes (Lukuyu et al. 2012; Ssemakula and Mutimba 2011; Weinand 2002). These challenges, if not understood and addressed, may hinder FFE from effectively facilitating the spread of agricultural innovations. This article therefore aims to examine the challenges experienced by VFTs in Kenya as they share their knowledge on livestock feed innovations. It also explores opportunities that exist to improve their performance. The paper aims to address the following questions: What challenges do VFTs face? How are VFTs handling them? How is the EADD programme addressing them? How are Dairy Farmer Business Associations (DFBAs) addressing them? Are there other institutional opportunities that could be explored to enhance the performance of the VFTs?

Such information will help enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of VFTs in many FFE programmes. The article continues with a brief description of FFE globally and in the EADD project. The next section describes the methodology used in the study. This is followed by a presentation of results and discussion, and concluding remarks.

Farmer-to-farmer extension model globally and in the East Africa dairy development project

The FFE approach is currently practiced widely in many countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa in different forms. Examples include the “Campesino a Campesino” movement in Nicaragua, the kamayog in Peru (Hellin and Dixon 2008), farmer promoters in Bangladesh (Islam et al. 2011), farmer teachers in western Kenya (Amudavi et al. 2009), community extension workers in Uganda (Ssemakula and Mutimba 2011), and VFTs in Malawi and Kenya (Kiptot and Franzel 2014; Lukuyu et al. 2012; Weinand 2002). VFTs are farmers who through a process of training, experimentation, learning, and practice, increase their knowledge and become capable of sharing it with others. Although the VFT approach differs from country to country due to the conditions under which it takes place, the organisational set up, and management, they all have one feature in common: VFTs are trained by external agents and they in turn share their knowledge and skills with other farmers in the community. The role of VFTs varies depending on how they are selected to become trainers, their mode of operation and whether they are volunteers or are compensated for the time they spend training others, whether they work with groups or individuals, and whether they are trained as specialists in one subject or as generalists. The Kamayog in Peru are paid by their fellow farmers for their services in cash, in kind, or in the promise of future help through an indigenous system known as ‘ayni’ (Hellin and Dixon 2008).

In the EADD Project, VFTs are not paid for their services, but do receive training and inputs for setting up demonstration plots. The EADD project is implemented by a consortium of partners, led by Heifer International. It began in 2008 with the main objective to double the incomes of 179,000 dairy farmers in Kenya, Uganda, and Rwanda through improved dairy productivity along the dairy value chain. The World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), one of the consortium partners implementing the livestock feed and feeding system component of the project, contributes to this objective through the introduction of high-quality pastures and fodder, conservation techniques, improved utilisation of crop residues and on-farm feed formulation using locally available livestock feeds. The project has been using VFTs to help facilitate the spread of information on high-quality feeds to their fellow farmers through training, experimentation, and learning. EADD works with dairy producer organisations commonly referred to as Dairy Farmers Business Associations (DFBAs). A DFBA is a community managed organisation whose main purpose is to deliver services to farmers. Its benefits as a dairy hub are two-fold: (1) it has a chilling plant where milk is bulked and sold, providing income to farmers; and (2) it is a place where farmers can access services such as financing, technical support or artificial insemination for their animals, and, in certain instances, credit under a “check off” system, where inputs are provided and their costs are deducted from milk revenue. In Kenya, there are 21 DFBAs spread out across several districts of Central and Rift Valley regions. Each DFBA is composed of between 3,000 and 10,000 members who are dairy farmers. Training of members is organised at the village level through Dairy Management Groups (DMGs). A DMG forms the smallest training unit of the DFBA. It is at this level where most farmer training activities are organised and where learning takes place. The DMGs are composed of 20–30 farmers. Each DMG has a VFT who is selected through a participatory process involving DMG members, project dissemination facilitators, and the DFBAs. The selection criteria include:

• the ability to read and write

• the ability to interpret extension material to farmers

• membership of a farmer organisation or cooperative society working with the EADD Project

• being a dairy farmer

• having the willingness, interest, and ability to disseminate new innovations and knowledge to others without pay

• being a resident in the community

• being willing to set aside land for setting up demonstrations.

After selection, VFTs are trained during an intensive course by government extension staff and project staff known as dissemination facilitators in livestock feeds and feeding systems. They are supported to set up demonstration plots of various livestock feed practices which include different grasses, fodder shrubs, and herbaceous legumes. These demonstration plots are used as learning grounds. VFTs are also trained in feed conservation techniques which include silage making, hay baling, management and utilisation of crop residues, and experimenting with different homemade feed rations to make nutritious livestock feed formulations. The training activities are interactive and often involve practical sessions. Dissemination facilitators who are employed by the project visit the VFTs from time to time to get feedback on experiential learning and organise periodic training to improve VFTs’ knowledge and skills on aspects they do not understand. Dissemination facilitators also organise field days so that VFTs and other farmers can share their experiences on different aspects of livestock feed technologies. VFTs have the opportunity to participate in tours to innovative farms to learn new innovations. Once trained, they establish demonstration plots on their farms which they use to train and share their knowledge with members of their own and neighbouring DMGs. The topics, venue, and schedule of training activities are decided upon after consultation with the DMG members.

Study sites and methodology

Description of study sites

The study was undertaken in seven EADD sites managed by DFBAs in the Central and Rift Valley regions of Kenya: Mweiga (Nyeri), Olkalou (Nyandarua), Muki (Nyandarua), Kipkaren (Nandi), Kabiyet (Nandi) Cheptalal and Longisa (Bomet) (Figure 1). Each site is managed by a DFBA. The day-to-day operations are run by a manager and a committee of representative dairy farmers. The objectives of the DFBAs are to collect, bulk, chill, and market milk on behalf of farmers; and to provide them with training and extension services.

Figure 1. Map of Kenya showing interview locations.

The study sites experience different patterns of rainfall. Central and South Rift Valley regions have a bimodal type of rainfall with the short rains falling in October to December, while the long rains are in March to May. North Rift Valley has a unimodal type of rainfall with a long rainy season and a short dry season between November and February. All the study sites practise dairy farming with cattle feeding systems ranging from zero grazing (cattle confined and stall fed), to pure grazing where cattle graze freely on private land in paddocks or are tethered. Pure grazing is common in the North and South Rift Valley regions. Zero grazing is prevalent in Central Rift and Central Kenya.

Methodology

A mixed methods approach involving a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection was used. Collection of qualitative data was through focus group discussions with 66 VFTs, 49 men and 17 women. The purpose was to: (1) formulate hypothesis for a more in-depth formal survey which is the subject of this paper; (2) build adequate rapport with the VFTs, a fundamental requirement for the subsequent formal survey; (3) gain a general understanding of the livestock feed innovations being practiced and shared by VFTs; and (4) get their experiences on challenges they face and opportunities for improving their performance. Focus group discussions were held in five of the seven sites with groups of five to 20 VFTs. A third of participants were female, reflecting the ratio of VFTs recruited by the EADD project. To supplement information from focus group discussions, DFBA managers from the seven sites and three dissemination facilitators who are in charge of the two regions where the EADD project works were also interviewed. The purpose of the discussions was to understand the functions of the DFBAs and how extension services can be institutionalised within the DFBAs, and to explore the measures that are being put in place in order to improve the performance of VFTs.

Collection of quantitative data was through interviewing individual VFTs using a structured questionnaire. Formal surveys have often been criticised for not being able to capture the perceptions of respondents because questions are designed by researchers and, therefore, responses are to a large extent influenced by the perspectives of the researcher (Kiptot 2007). In this study, this limitation was overcome as the questions formulated were based on the perceptions given by VFTs during the focus group discussions. The formal survey was purposively used in order to capture quantitative data that would enable us to understand the factors that influence VFTs’ performance, challenges, and opportunities so that strategies to improve the effectiveness of the VFT approach can be developed. Sites selected for the study are those where the recruitment of VFTs started in 2008. By the end of 2008, EADD had recruited and trained 107 VFTs in 11 districts of Kenya, a third of whom were female (Kirui et al. 2009). Due to various reasons, such as attrition and illness, only 99 VFTs were interviewed in the formal survey, some of whom were recruited later to replace those who had dropped out.

Enumerators were trained before the questionnaire was administered. This was to ensure that they understood the questions and what was expected of them. After training, a pre-test was conducted with a small sample of VFTs who were not selected for the survey. This was necessary so as to ensure that the enumerators and respondents understood the questions, the enumerators were filling out the responses correctly, and to ensure that respondents were able and willing to provide the needed information.

Data were entered in the SPSS statistical package. Variables from households and individual VFT characteristics were assessed to capture relevant information from respondents. We used frequency counts, percentages, and means. Rating data were computed using mean ratings, while ranking data on challenges and opportunities were computed using scores as follows; 1 = 10, 2 = 9, 3 = 8, 4 = 7, 5 = 6, 6 = 5, 7 = 4, 8 = 3. Computation of overall rank was based on total sum scores.

Results

VFTs’ socioeconomic characteristics and dissemination activities

The average age of VFTs interviewed was 46.8 years and was the same for males and females (Table 1). VFTs belonged to an average of 3.0 farmer groups. There were no differences between men and women. On average, VFTs had 11.3 years of dairy experience and men had significantly more experience (12.2 years) than women (7.7 years; p < 0.10). Male VFTs interviewed had significantly more years of schooling (11.1) than women (9.0) (p < 0.05).

Table 1. Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of volunteer farmer trainers (VFTs) interviewed.

Variables	All VFTs (n = 99)		Female VFTs (n = 20)		Male VFTs (n = 79)		T-test
	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE
Age (yrs)	46.8	1.0	46.9	2.0	46.8	1.2	ns
No. of groups	3.0	0.1	3.1	0.3	3.0	0.1	ns
No. of years of dairy experience	11.3	1.1	7.7	2.1	12.2	1.1	*
Education (years)	10.7	0.3	9.0	0.7	11.1	0.3	**

Note: ns = not significant.

*Significance level p < 0.10.

**Significance level p < 0.05.

On average, VFTs interviewed had served 18.9 months (Table 2). Slightly over half of the VFTs interviewed (54%) had served between 21 and 25 months; 18% between 11 and 15 months; 9% between 16 and 20 months; 8% 6–10 months; and 7% had served less than five months. VFTs were asked how their own training needs were identified. The majority (72%) said that assessment of training needs was a consultative process between VFTs and project staff, while 23% said that they had not been consulted. In regards to the training needs of farmers, the majority of VFTs (84%) consulted with farmers before organising training sessions. Another 12% of VFTs decided the topics to train on their own.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics on the dissemination activities undertaken by volunteer farmer trainers.

Variables	All VFTs (n = 99)		Female VFTs (n = 20)		Male VFTs (n = 79)		T-test
	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE
Length of time served as VFTs (months)	18.9	0.79	19.6	1.59	18.8	0.90	ns
Distance covered (km)	6.7	0.69	5.2	1.0.	7.3	0.82	ns
No. of villages covered outside their own	4.8	0.62	2.8	0.40	5.3	0.76	*
Number of times per month VFT trains during the dry season	2.5	0.11	2.4	0.26	2.5	0.13	ns
Number of times per month VFT trains during the rainy season	2.3	1.4	2.4	0.310	2.3	0.15	ns
Time (hrs) spent per training	1.9	0.10	1.8	1.2	1.9	0.9	ns
Farmers trained per month	54.0	11.2	56.1	11.9	53.4	11.9	ns

Notes: *Significance level p < 0.10.

As part of their training and knowledge sharing activities, VFTs normally organise training sessions to train farmers on livestock feed technologies. Various means of contacting farmers are used. The majority of VFTs mentioned the use of cell phones (90%) and publicising through local DMG leaders (81%). Others include door-to-door visits, announcements during training sessions, public gatherings (immunisation campaigns, chiefs’ meetings) and use of posters. On segregating data by gender, the most popular method mentioned by male VFTs is the use of cell phones and publicising through DMG leaders, mentioned by 86% of male VFTs. All female VFTs (100%) interviewed used cell phones for mobilising farmers, while 70% used training forums to announce when the next training activity would take place. Letters were the least used method. VFTs were asked to rate various methods used in mobilising farmers for training sessions on a Likert scale of 3–1 where 3 is very important, 2 important, and 1 least important. Publicising during training sessions had the highest rating of 2.5, followed by publicising through DMG leaders (2.4), cell phones (2.3) and publicising through public gatherings (2.1). Those that received ratings below 2 were poster adverts, door-to-door and letters, in that order.

On the days they train, VFTs cover an average distance of 6.7km per day. Men cover 7.3km while women cover 5.2km. There was however no statistical difference between men and women (Table 2). Many VFTs train farmers outside their own villages. VFTs cover on average 4.8 villages outside their own. Male VFTs cover 5.3 villages outside their own whereas women cover 2.8. The difference was significant (p < 0.10). VFTs train 2–3 times per month and there were no important differences between seasons or between men and women. On the days VFTs train, they spend, on average about two hours per day. There were no important differences between men and women. The average number of farmers trained per month is 54, it is however not cumulative, as the same farmers may be trained but on different topics. On some occasions, new farmers are trained. On segregating data by gender, female trainers trained an average of about 56 farmers per month, whereas male trainers trained about 53 farmers per month. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. The median number of farmers reached per month was about 20, reflecting the fact that a few VFTs trained several hundred farmers, skewing the average number upward.

VFTs were asked whether they make follow-up visits after training farmers. The majority (93%) make such visits. VFTs who made follow-up visits were asked the criteria they used to make follow ups. The majority (65%) do it as part of their duty, while 32% do it after they receive requests from farmers. Slightly less than half of the respondents (43%) keep training records in notebooks. Records kept include date of training, attendance, venue, and topics covered. Over half of the VFTs (57%) have training materials which include brochures, leaflets, books, and newsletters. Out of these, 70% use them for reference and 46% also share them with the farmers they train.

Although 42% of VFTs own bicycles, 25% motorcycles and 12% motor vehicles (Table 3), 94% of the VFTs generally walked to conduct dissemination activities (Table 4). Other commonly used modes of transport included hired motorcycles (54%), public transport (54%), and own bicycles (36%). But there were important differences between men and women. Men rely more on their own motorcycles and bicycles, whereas women hire motorcycles and bicycles and use public transport. Very few women used bicycles as it is considered taboo in some communities for a woman to ride a bicycle.

Table 3. Transport owned by volunteer farmer trainers.

Transport owned	Overall %	% Male (n = 79)	% Female (n = 20)
Bicycle	42	46	30
None	29	28	35
Motorcycle	25	25	25
Motor vehicle	12	10	20

Table 4. Mode of transport used by volunteer farmer trainers.

	Overall %	% by gender
Mode of transport used	n = 99	Male (n = 79)	Female (n = 20)
Foot	94	92	100
Hired motorcycle	54	51	65
Public transport	54	52	60
Own bicycle	36	43	10
Own motorcycle	22	25	10
Hired bicycle	10	10	10
Own motor vehicle	8	8	10

Challenges VFTs face and opportunities for improvement

The most frequently mentioned challenge was the lack of relevant training materials (reference materials, sample seeds, pens, notebooks, etc.), mentioned by 98% of VFTs (Table 5). Over 90% also mentioned the high expectations from farmer trainees, limited technical knowledge and resistance to change by farmers. Other challenges included lack of transport, inadequate incentives, and local politics (some community members incite others not to participate in any training that does not provide allowances to participants). There was not much difference between male VFTs and their female counterparts except in two challenges; family conflicts involving farmer trainees (80% male vs 55% female), and local politics (72% male vs 65% female). Family conflicts involving farmer trainees come about as a result of female trainees not being able to implement what they learn from the training sessions since most household decisions are made by their husbands. The results show that there were less family conflicts experienced by farmers trained by female VFTs than male VFTs; the reasons for this were however not explored. VFTs also ranked challenges in terms of importance. The most critical ones were the lack of training materials, high expectations from farmer trainees, limited technical knowledge, lack of transport, resistance to change by farmer trainees, family conflicts involving farmer trainees, and local politics (Table 5).

Table 5. Percentages and ranking of challenges facing volunteer farmer trainers.

Challenges	Percentage of VFTs			Total scores	Rank
	Overall (n = 99)	Men (n = 79)	Women (n = 20)
Lack of training materials	98	97	100	832	1
High expectation from farmers	93	94	90	665	2
Limited technical knowledge	95	95	95	660	3
Fare/transport	88	89	85	658	4
Resistance to change by farmers	93	92	95	629	5
Inadequate incentives	89	89	90	620	6
Family conflicts involving farmer trainees	75	80	55	348	7
Local politics	71	72	65	324	8

Notes: In order to compute scores for each rank, the ranks were given scores as follows: 1 = 10, 2 = 9, 3 = 8, 4 = 7, 5 = 6, 6 = 5, 7 = 4, 8 = 3; which were then multiplied by the frequencies received by each rank, total scores were computed and the highest score was ranked 1 overall.

The most frequently mentioned opportunities for improving performance were capacity building in the form of holding training workshops and provision of training materials, each mentioned by 97% of VFTs (Table 6). Training materials included reference books, brochures, and magazines. Other materials were pens and flip charts. Other opportunities mentioned included exchange tours and provision of incentives. The incentives mentioned during focus group discussions include branding, such as certifying VFTs to give recognition based on their experience and performance. Other incentives included giving them bags, t-shirts, and caps with the project logo on. There was not much difference between male VFTs and the female counterparts except in two opportunities: involving both spouses in training (85% male vs 65% female) in order to reduce family conflicts involving farmer trainees, and being non-partisan (72% male vs 65% female). Exposure to new knowledge through exchange visits and tours was ranked as the most important opportunity for improving performance. Respondents said they learn more by seeing what others are doing. Provision of training materials ranked second, followed by capacity building, that is, more training workshops on livestock feed technologies.

Table 6. Percentages and ranking of opportunities to improve the performance of volunteer farmer trainers.

Opportunities	Percentage of VFTs			Total scores	Overall rank
	Overall (n = 99)	Men (n = 79)	Women (n = 20)
Exposure to new knowledge (exchange visits/tours)	95	96	90	841	1
Provision of training materials	97	96	100	760	2
Capacity building (training workshops)	97	97	95	666	3
Increased sensitisation	92	91	95	619	4
Provision of transport	88	90	80	595	5
Provision of more incentives	85	86	80	562	6
Involve both spouses in training	81	85	65	421	7
Being non-partisan	71	72	65	286	8

Notes: In order to compute scores for each rank, the ranks were given scores as follows: 1 = 10, 2 = 9, 3 = 8, 4 = 7, 5 = 6, 6 = 5, 7 = 4, 8 = 3; and multiplied by the frequencies. Computation of overall rank was based on total sum scores.

Discussion

VFTs conduct their activities in the midst of many challenges. Most notable are lack of training materials, high expectations from farmers, limited technical knowledge, transport, farmers’ resistance to change, and inadequate incentives. For the VFT to be effective and efficient, these challenges need to be addressed. Below we discuss the suggestions given by VFTs, what the EADD project and the DFBAs are doing in response to the suggestions, and other possible options that have been successful elsewhere that could be explored to enhance the performance of VFTs.

Institutionalisation of FFE in DFBAs

The support that VFTs get from the EADD project is not sustainable. The EADD project is donor funded, and just like any other such programme, it will someday come to an end. EADD has therefore come up with an exit strategy where they use the stage gate assessment tool¹ to rate DFBAs based on their level of maturity. There are five levels of maturity, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest. EADD is gradually phasing out the support to DFBAs depending on the level of maturity. Those that have reached stage 5 are completely phased out and are required to be independent. This includes meeting the costs of extension services provided to farmers. The DFBAs are therefore coming up with a structure of embedding extension in the services they provide to farmers. In line with this, DFBAs have recently recruited trained extension officers known as community extension service providers (CESPs) to provide technical backstopping support to VFTs and other farmers within the community. The CESPs are extension officers with knowledge on animal production and veterinary services. Currently, they are paid by DFBAs with subsidy from the EADD project, but as the DFBAs reach stage 5, they will be required to fully meet the costs of the CESPs. The CESPs are fully accountable to the DFBAs, with farmers providing a monitoring and evaluation function at no cost. Modalities need to be worked out on how CESPs will provide support to VFTs and how farmers will pay for the services.

Linking VFTs to CESPs will ensure that they are up-to-date with current knowledge and innovations. In addition, CESPs should also in turn link to government extension services which are found in all districts and have all the expertise that is required by farmers, ranging from technical issues, to marketing and social dynamics. Government extension officers however do not receive adequate resources to provide the extension services required by farmers. Since the CESPs do not have all the expertise needed, DFBAs can from time to time facilitate government extension staff to train VFTs whenever they need to update their knowledge on areas that CESPS are not competent in. Other farmer-to-farmer extension programmes in Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, and Uganda (Degrande et al. 2011; Lukuyu et al. 2012; Moumouni, Vodouhe, and Streiffeler 2009; Wellard et al. 2013) have developed sustainable mechanisms such as linkages with government, forming lead farmer associations so that they can seek services from government, and developing viable business services for their clients. One area that VFTs need training on is social learning dynamics and other soft skills. Resistance to change by some farmers was mentioned as one of the challenges. VFTs feel discouraged when some farmers they have trained do not take up the practices.

“Seeing is believing.” This is what one farmer told a VFT when asked why he had not taken up what he had learnt: “[When] I see my farmer trainer taking 10 litres of milk to the cooperative, only then will I take up the improved livestock feed innovations.”

There are various theories, such as social learning and social cognitive, in the literature that explain this behaviour. VFTs need to be trained not only on livestock feed innovations but also on social behaviour so that they do not feel that they failed. The training will enable them to have the adaptive capacity to react flexibly to the needs and challenges that may arise as they interact with farmer trainees. Cognition and behaviour go hand-in-hand: what people know and think affects their actions. In addition, most behaviour changes require new knowledge, but knowledge alone won't be sufficient to cause change; the social environment has an important influence on a person's behaviour. Lack of resources may also contribute to farmers resisting new innovations. Characteristics of the innovation may also influence behaviour. Imparting this understanding to VFTs will make them realise that non-adoption of a technology is caused by many other factors and therefore they should not blame themselves or lose confidence. A farmer-to-farmer extension programme in Ghana, TRAX-Ghana in Upper East region, included training courses on conflict management, group dynamics, and leadership styles, which enhanced the capacities of community trainers (Wellard et al. 2013).

Setting up libraries in DFBAs

Lack of training materials was reported as a major limiting factor. One of the suggestions given by VFTs is that they need training materials in the form of reference books, magazines, and brochures to improve their knowledge and skills. This was a clear concern that stood out among VFTs in focus group discussions. The EADD project has been providing VFTs reference materials from time to time, but as training materials are expensive, this is not a sustainable option to give each individual VFT. A more sustainable option which could be explored by DFBAs is establishment of small libraries at the DFBA offices, to accompany other services that DFBAs are already offering farmers such as inputs and banking. The CESPs can manage the library and stocking can be done with the assistance of different stakeholders. Such libraries will provide a sustainable central point of reference where VFTs and farmers can access training materials which they can borrow and return, or if they so wish, or make photocopies which they retain.

Increasing the number of VFTs

The findings showed that VFTs cover long distances mostly by foot; and some cover more than one village. The long distances covered on foot are hindering them from being effective since they are required to make follow-ups from time to time. When the programme began, the project did not envision a situation where VFTs would train outside their villages. But due to the lack of extension services in other villages, they are compelled to train outside their own villages whenever they are called upon. At times they hire motorcycles, bicycles, or use public transport at their own cost. Those who cannot afford such transport end up not offering their services outside their own villages. One suggestion to address this challenge that was mentioned by VFTs during focus group discussions is to increase the number of VFTs so as to reduce the distance that each has to cover. The EADD project has been doing this gradually but it is not able to keep pace with demand for extension services. For example, in 2008, there were 107 VFTs, a number that increased to 1,443 in 2012 (Kirui and Franzel 2012). Increasing the number of VFTs would reduce the distance covered and hence solve transport-related challenges. Recruiting and maintaining VFTs does however involve costs. Training and backstopping a farmer trainer costs roughly US$160/year. Half of this cost is for a two-day intensive training course and half for backstopping visits (Kiptot, Franzel, and Kirui 2012). The DFBAs need to do a cost benefit analysis to determine the feasibility of engaging more VFTs.

Providing incentives

It is a central theme of economics that incentives promote effort and enhance performance. It is argued that without incentives, there will be little action (Wellard et al. 2013). A review by Wellard et al. (2013) on community extension approaches showed that 25% of community extension trainers in the Self Help Africa project in Uganda dropped out because of the small allowances paid for attending meetings. Kiptot and Franzel (2014) identified five key incentives that motivate VFTs. They include: altruism, access to knowledge/skills, income from extension related activities, social benefits, and project benefits. Provision of more incentives was mentioned by VFTs during focus group discussions as one aspect that would greatly motivate them and hence improve their performance. VFTs receive substantial benefits from their training activities, including social benefits, financial benefits from the sale of seed, rendering specialised services, and early access to new information and technology, which help them to increase productivity on their own farms. The social benefits that VFTs receive can be increased if they receive more recognition as trainers. This can be through certification, badges, t-shirts, and caps. The EADD project has started providing VFTs with certificates, t-shirts, and caps inscribed with “Volunteer Farmer Trainer” and the project logo. This has elevated VFTs’ social status in the community. One farmer remarked, when asked about incentives:

‘‘When I wear the t-shirt inscribed with the words ‘farmer trainer' even farmers who are not from my DMG and village know that I am ‘mwalimu’ [Swahili for teacher]. This has greatly, motivated me.’’

Another way of increasing recognition is to have a contest where the best VFT is given an award in a public ceremony for outstanding performance. Competition can add motivation and hence enhance performance. Folger (1993) however cautions that this only works if the organisational reward system operates in a just, procedurally fair manner.

In addition to social benefits, the economic benefits that VFTs receive can be increased by facilitating them to start or improve income-generating activities related to the technologies they are promoting. Half of VFTs receive financial benefits from associated activities, such as selling seed, seedlings, or services such as chaff cutting, hay baling, and silage making (Kiptot and Franzel 2014). One VFT even earned money from training other farmers outside his village after being contracted by an NGO. Lukuyu et al. (2012) showed that such income-generating activities can help improve the sustainability of the VFT approach. Possible interventions to boost their income-generating activities include providing business training, helping VFTs to advertise their services, and linking VFTs to other service providers such as seed companies. EADD has already linked VFTs to the Kenya Seed Company and VFTs and other DMG farmers produce seed of different pastures on a contractual agreement. These seed multiplication plots serve a dual purpose. They are used for demonstrations, hence training grounds for farmers, and also provide income to VFTs. Once they sell the pasture seed to Kenya Seed Company, they use the straw for livestock feeding.

Another incentive suggested by VFTs that would solve the transport challenge is for DFBAs to provide bicycles or motorcycles to interested VFTs on credit; they could pay back the loans through their milk sales to the associations through a “check off” system. This would greatly motivate VFTs while at the same time enhance their efficiency. However, if the number of VFTs is increased as was earlier suggested, this option may not be necessary, but can be explored with those VFTs who are interested and are required to train outside their villages due to their expertise and popularity. The costs for organising this type of incentive may be high, but it may be worthy exploring with a few interested VFTs to see how feasible it is. Lessons can be learnt from other similar projects in Ghana, Uganda, and Malawi that have provided farmer trainers with bicycles (Wellard et al. 2013).

Community sensitisation

Other challenges experienced by VFTs are high expectations from the community and local politics where some community members incite others not to attend training sessions that do not provide allowances. There is the general perception that donor-funded projects have money and therefore farmers expect to be paid whenever they are called upon for training. Some farmers do not believe that VFTs are not given money to buy lunch for farmers. Weinand (2002) found that there was a lot of gossip and jealousy among farmers in Malawi because they believed that VFTs were paid for the work. In order to manage farmers’ expectations, project staff and VFTs have begun sensitising farmers to appreciate the importance of training and that it is for the purpose of imparting knowledge and skills, and not an opportunity to make money. Attitudes do not change overnight, but gradually we may see situations where farmers even meet the costs of training. DFBAs also need to step in to sensitise their members about the role of VFTs so that there is no misunderstanding.

Conclusions

This study has shown that community based extension approaches can help reach many farmers within a short period of time. However, the success in improving agricultural productivity is dependent upon their sustainability due to the fact that most of these approaches are facilitated by projects rather than government ministries. Improving VFTs’ performance and ensuring sustainability of community based extension is therefore a major challenge of the EADD project and other donor-funded projects elsewhere. The exit strategy developed by the EADD project is commendable; however, more sustainable mechanisms of providing technical backstopping services to VFTs and paying CESPs still remains a goal for DFBAs. Engaging CESPs is a recent development; we still do not understand the impact this has had on the performance of VFTs and whether farmers will be able to pay for their services. More studies are needed in this area. Other mechanisms that can be tried may include linking community based extension to government ministries to provide technical backstopping. Second, providing incentives has greatly motivated VFTs but whether this translates to enhanced performance remains unknown and hence more research is needed to establish the effect of incentives on performance.

Finally, VFTs have demonstrated that the cell phone is a powerful tool in technology dissemination as it is a fast and convenient way to communicate and get prompt feedback. There was generally more use of cell phones by female VFTs than their male counterparts, which saves them a lot time which can be used to attend to household chores. The project and other development organisations need to look into opportunities that the cell phone can best be utilised to boost agricultural production.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the enumerators who participated in this survey and to Noah Oyembo for data entry. We also thank all the volunteer farmer trainers who made this work possible. Patrick Mudavadi, Esther Karanja, and Sylvia Wafula are acknowledged for the logistics in the field.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Evelyne Kiptot is a social scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya. She holds a PhD in Social Science from Wageningen University, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on innovative extension approaches and gender issues in agroforestry.

Steven Franzel is a Principal Agricultural Economist at the World Agroforestry Centre and leads the Centre's research on Rural Advisory Services. He holds a PhD in Agricultural Economics from Michigan State University. His main research interests include farming systems, participatory research, extension approaches, and natural resource management.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the FoodAfrica Programme, a partnership between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland, and selected research centres of the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). We are also grateful for the support of the EADD Project and three research programmes of the CGIAR: Policies, Institutions and Markets; Forests, Trees and Agroforestry; and Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security.

Notes

1. A stage gate assessment tool is a management tool that enables EADD project to assess the progress of dairy farmer business associations so as to increase performance and sustainability. It also guides EADD's partnership with other producer organisations by informing on progress, priorities for support, and exit. Various indicators are used to monitor progress. These include production indicators such as improved nutrition, improved genetics, improved herd health, improved milk quality, and functional extension services.