279
approaches (such as farmer field schools, training groups, exchange visits and field
days). Given this diversity of approaches, the managers were not likely to be biased
in favor of F2FE, as they might have been had they been using F2FE alone. Sampling
was done using the snowball sampling method, in which respondents directed interviewers to other potential respondents (Goodman 1961). This method was used
because no lists of development organizations using the F2FE approach were
available.
In Cameroon and Malawi, interviews were also conducted with 160 and 203
randomly selected farmer-trainers, respectively, who were working with the organizations visited (Tsafack et al. 2015; Khaila 2015). No such survey was conducted in
Kenya because of the availability of a data set from interviews with 99 randomly
selected farmer-trainers working with a dairy project (Kiptot and Franzel 2012). In
Kenya, a survey also was conducted of 113 randomly selected trainees (farmers
trained by farmer-trainers) to confirm that they had indeed been trained and to determine their level of knowledge about the improved practices and whether they were
using them (Kiptot et al. 2013).
24.2.1 Main Features of the Approach
The organizations surveyed used farmer-trainers for a wide variety of enterprises
and initiatives, including livestock, crops, agroforestry, nutrition and sustainable
land management. Proportions of organizations promoting CSA (or some component of it, such as conservation agriculture) ranged from 4% in Cameroon to 23% in
Kenya and 40% in Malawi. The most common terms for those doing the training
were lead farmers, farmer-trainers, contact farmers and community facilitators. The
uptake of the approach appears to be fairly recent: In all three of the countries, over
half of the organizations reported having adopted it over the 7 years prior to 2014.
The trainers’ main roles were to train farmers, to follow up with those farmers,
and to mobilize them for meetings and training events. Most trainers (over 84% in
all three countries) received an initial training (often 1 week in length), and nearly
half received additional training after they had served for some time. Many hosted
a demonstration plot. Over 72% of farmer-trainers in each country received training
materials such as leaflets and brochures.
In most cases their key responsibility was to train other members of their own
farmer groups, although sometimes they worked with neighboring groups as well.
In only a few cases did they serve villages. In 25 of the organizations, the trainers
received no compensation; in 43 they were compensated for some expenses such as
communication and travel to meetings; and in 12 they received salaries or periodic
allowances. There was little variation among countries in the proportions of farmertrainers compensated in these various ways.
24 Farmer-To-Farmer Extension: A Low-Cost Approach for Promoting…
approaches (such as farmer field schools, training groups, exchange visits and field
days). Given this diversity of approaches, the managers were not likely to be biased
in favor of F2FE, as they might have been had they been using F2FE alone. Sampling
was done using the snowball sampling method, in which respondents directed interviewers to other potential respondents (Goodman 1961). This method was used
because no lists of development organizations using the F2FE approach were
available.
In Cameroon and Malawi, interviews were also conducted with 160 and 203
randomly selected farmer-trainers, respectively, who were working with the organizations visited (Tsafack et al. 2015; Khaila 2015). No such survey was conducted in
Kenya because of the availability of a data set from interviews with 99 randomly
selected farmer-trainers working with a dairy project (Kiptot and Franzel 2012). In
Kenya, a survey also was conducted of 113 randomly selected trainees (farmers
trained by farmer-trainers) to confirm that they had indeed been trained and to determine their level of knowledge about the improved practices and whether they were
using them (Kiptot et al. 2013).
24.2.1 Main Features of the Approach
The organizations surveyed used farmer-trainers for a wide variety of enterprises
and initiatives, including livestock, crops, agroforestry, nutrition and sustainable
land management. Proportions of organizations promoting CSA (or some component of it, such as conservation agriculture) ranged from 4% in Cameroon to 23% in
Kenya and 40% in Malawi. The most common terms for those doing the training
were lead farmers, farmer-trainers, contact farmers and community facilitators. The
uptake of the approach appears to be fairly recent: In all three of the countries, over
half of the organizations reported having adopted it over the 7 years prior to 2014.
The trainers’ main roles were to train farmers, to follow up with those farmers,
and to mobilize them for meetings and training events. Most trainers (over 84% in
all three countries) received an initial training (often 1 week in length), and nearly
half received additional training after they had served for some time. Many hosted
a demonstration plot. Over 72% of farmer-trainers in each country received training
materials such as leaflets and brochures.
In most cases their key responsibility was to train other members of their own
farmer groups, although sometimes they worked with neighboring groups as well.
In only a few cases did they serve villages. In 25 of the organizations, the trainers
received no compensation; in 43 they were compensated for some expenses such as
communication and travel to meetings; and in 12 they received salaries or periodic
allowances. There was little variation among countries in the proportions of farmertrainers compensated in these various ways.
24 Farmer-To-Farmer Extension: A Low-Cost Approach for Promoting…