Farmer-to-farmer Extension: a survey of lead farmers in Cameroon

This study examines how the farmer-to-farmer(F2F) extensionapproach is implemented by farmer trainers in Cameroon. Those farmers selected to lead F2F extension are often knownby different names but in this study, we use the term “lead farmer” (LF) as a generic term even though different namessometimes imply different roles.A questionnaire was used to collect data from 160 randomly selected LFs in six regions in Cameroon in 2013. The study describes the activities of LFs and the support they receive, assesses their technical competence and identifies factors that motivate them,as well as the challenges they face in implementing the F2F approach. In Cameroon, about half of the LFs (52 percent) were between 41 and 55 years old. Most LFs (81percent) were married, and more than half had education levels above primary school. A majorityof LFs started serving in their roles between 2005 and 2009. After their selection, through their group/community or from the extension field staff, LFs received an initialresidential training of 6.8 days on average (median = three days). They also received additional training during their service. The major functions of LFs were to provide other farmers with technical advice, supervise their activities, and mobilize their community for awareness or training sessions. Although LFs declared that their competencies in the techniquesthat they taught others were often insufficient, they rated theircompetence level on the innovations that they disseminated at 3.8on a scale of 1 to 5. Most (93 percent) topics taught by LFs were supported with practical exercises, and 91 percentof techniques were actually applied by trainees on their farms. Training needs were generally set by organizations who conducted their own training needs assessments. Lead farmers had some involvement in this process as training needs were identified through farmers’ requests. On average, a lead farmer trained five groups of 26.3 farmers each and 37 additional farmers outside of organized groups (median of total number of trainees per LF = 65).The most common places where LFs conducted training were in group/community halls, at trainees’ houses/farms, or at the LF’s house/farm. Transportation and communication expenses were mainly paid by LFs themselves.

---

• View source

---

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5716/WP15009.PDF

---

Altmetric score:

Dimensions Citation Count: