284
In Kenya, the mean proportion of farmer-trainers who were women across the
F2FE programs of 30 organizations was 43%, while the mean proportion of field
staff who were women in the same organizations was only 33%. Thus the proportion of female extension providers among farmer-trainers was about 30% higher
than the proportion of women among field staff. In contrast, in Cameroon and
Malawi, the mean proportion of farmer-trainers who were women was about the
same as the mean proportion of field staff who were women (Fig. 24.3).
However, in certain organizations, the proportion of farmer-trainers who were
women was dramatically higher than the proportion of female field staff. For example, in the East Africa Dairy Development Project in Kenya in 2013, only 10% of
the professional trainers were women, whereas 28% of the 1141 farmer-trainers
were women. In the Ministry of Agriculture of Malawi in 2013, only 21% of the
field staff were women, whereas 40% of the 12,000 volunteer farmer-trainers were
women. Organizations making special efforts to recruit female farmer-trainers,
using such measures as targeting women’s groups and providing childcare during
training, were able to recruit high numbers of them. Nevertheless, low literacy levels among women limit the efforts being made to increase the number of women
trainers because an ability to read and write is often a prerequisite for the position.
24.3 Discussion
These findings contribute to a growing body of knowledge on the effectiveness of
farmer-trainers. Whereas no formal impact evaluations using randomized controlled
trials were found, there have been several studies using quasi-experimental techniques or surveys of participants’ perceptions and trainees’ knowledge. Nakano
et al. (2015) found that farmer-trainers in Tanzania were successful in disseminating
knowledge about rice cultivation, and that the improved practices diffused to other
farmers as well over a 5-year period. Wellard et al. (2013) found that farmers working with farmer-trainers in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda in collaboration with an
NGO (Self-Help Africa) had significantly higher adoption rates than farmers in a
control group. Lukuyu et al. (2012) found that volunteer farmer-trainers in Kenya
were highly prized by their trainees and were still actively training their peers several years after project support had ended.
Only Wellard et al. (2013) examined the costs of farmer-trainers. They did not
examine costs per farmer trained but did estimate overall benefit-cost ratios, based
on increased adoption, yields and income in areas with farmer-trainers compared to
controlled areas. Benefit-cost ratios ranged from 6.8:1 to 14.2:1, indicating that the
investment in an F2FE program yields high returns. Concerning gender, no study
was found that examined the role that F2FE could play in reducing gender imbalances in extension.
It is important to note that neither the above studies nor our own surveys dealt
exclusively with CSA practices. One question, therefore, is whether findings concerning F2FE’s performance in promoting a wide range of agricultural practices are
S. Franzel et al.
In Kenya, the mean proportion of farmer-trainers who were women across the
F2FE programs of 30 organizations was 43%, while the mean proportion of field
staff who were women in the same organizations was only 33%. Thus the proportion of female extension providers among farmer-trainers was about 30% higher
than the proportion of women among field staff. In contrast, in Cameroon and
Malawi, the mean proportion of farmer-trainers who were women was about the
same as the mean proportion of field staff who were women (Fig. 24.3).
However, in certain organizations, the proportion of farmer-trainers who were
women was dramatically higher than the proportion of female field staff. For example, in the East Africa Dairy Development Project in Kenya in 2013, only 10% of
the professional trainers were women, whereas 28% of the 1141 farmer-trainers
were women. In the Ministry of Agriculture of Malawi in 2013, only 21% of the
field staff were women, whereas 40% of the 12,000 volunteer farmer-trainers were
women. Organizations making special efforts to recruit female farmer-trainers,
using such measures as targeting women’s groups and providing childcare during
training, were able to recruit high numbers of them. Nevertheless, low literacy levels among women limit the efforts being made to increase the number of women
trainers because an ability to read and write is often a prerequisite for the position.
24.3 Discussion
These findings contribute to a growing body of knowledge on the effectiveness of
farmer-trainers. Whereas no formal impact evaluations using randomized controlled
trials were found, there have been several studies using quasi-experimental techniques or surveys of participants’ perceptions and trainees’ knowledge. Nakano
et al. (2015) found that farmer-trainers in Tanzania were successful in disseminating
knowledge about rice cultivation, and that the improved practices diffused to other
farmers as well over a 5-year period. Wellard et al. (2013) found that farmers working with farmer-trainers in Ghana, Malawi and Uganda in collaboration with an
NGO (Self-Help Africa) had significantly higher adoption rates than farmers in a
control group. Lukuyu et al. (2012) found that volunteer farmer-trainers in Kenya
were highly prized by their trainees and were still actively training their peers several years after project support had ended.
Only Wellard et al. (2013) examined the costs of farmer-trainers. They did not
examine costs per farmer trained but did estimate overall benefit-cost ratios, based
on increased adoption, yields and income in areas with farmer-trainers compared to
controlled areas. Benefit-cost ratios ranged from 6.8:1 to 14.2:1, indicating that the
investment in an F2FE program yields high returns. Concerning gender, no study
was found that examined the role that F2FE could play in reducing gender imbalances in extension.
It is important to note that neither the above studies nor our own surveys dealt
exclusively with CSA practices. One question, therefore, is whether findings concerning F2FE’s performance in promoting a wide range of agricultural practices are
S. Franzel et al.