institutionalization of the volunteer farmer trainer approach in dairy...
TRANSCRIPT
Institutionalization of the Volunteer Farmer Trainer Approach in Dairy Producer Organizations in Kenya
Evelyne Kiptot, Mercy Mwambi, Steven Franzel, Sylvia Wafula and Josephine Kirui
September 2015 Research Report
ii
Acknowledgements
The field work would not have been possible without the support of the FoodAfrica Program
financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Finland. We are also grateful to the support of the
EADD Project and two CGIAR research programmes: Policies, Institutions and Markets led by
the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); and Forests, Trees and Agroforestry.
Special thanks go to the Producer Organization managers and their staff who participated in
focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The opinions expressed here belong to
the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of PIM, FTA, IFPRI, ICRAF or the CGIAR.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. ii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................. v 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Volunteer Farmer Trainer (VFT) Approach in the East African Dairy Development
project (EADD) ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Sustainability and institutionalization: A review .............................................................. 4
1.4 Conceptual framework for institutionalization of the VFT approach in POs.................. 9
2.0 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Overview of the sampled POs ............................................................................................ 12
2.1.1 Kabiyet Producer Organization .................................................................................. 12
2.1.2 Sot Producer Organization ......................................................................................... 13
2.1.3 Lelchego Producer Organization................................................................................ 14
3.0 Results ...................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1 VFT’s training activities ...................................................................................................... 16
3.1.1 How the VFTs organize trainings .............................................................................. 16
3.1.2 Training venues ........................................................................................................... 17
3.1.3 Other trainings and services offered by VFTs other than feeds ............................... 19
3.1.4 Progress of training activities of the VFTs ................................................................. 20
3.1.5 Challenges faced by VFTs during training ................................................................ 21
3.2 Sources of seed .................................................................................................................... 22
3.3 Support that VFTs get from POs ........................................................................................ 23
3.3.1 Advantages of VFTs working with the PO ................................................................ 24
3.4 Social networks .................................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Support given by the POs to different actors to enhance knowledge dissemination .... 27
3.6 What needs to be done to ensure sustainability of the VFT approach? .......................... 28
3.6.1 Support VFTs require from the PO ............................................................................ 28
3.6.2 Support required from farmers .................................................................................. 29
3.6.3 Support required from EADD before end of project ................................................ 30
3.6.4 Support required from other stakeholders ................................................................ 31
3.7 Opportunities for institutionalizing the VFT approach ................................................... 32
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 33 5.0 References ................................................................................................................................ 35 Annex 1 Participants list ................................................................................................................ 40 List of Tables Table 1: Training venues for farmers ................................................................................................ 17
Table 2: Training venues in the different POs .................................................................................. 19
iv
Table 3: Summary of other trainings in addition to livestock feeds offered by the VFTs in the
different POs ....................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 4: Reported trend of VFTs activities ........................................................................................ 21
Table 5: Source of seed for various livestock feed technologies ..................................................... 23
Table 6: Support VFTs receive in the different POs ......................................................................... 24
Table 7: Important networks for organizing farmers’ trainings ..................................................... 26
Table 8: Reasons why different actors do not work together .......................................................... 27
Table 9: Support given by the PO to different actors in extension ................................................. 28
Table10: Support required from the PO as reported by VFTs in the different POs ...................... 29
Table 11: Organizations working with various actors in the POs .................................................. 32
Table 12: VFTs and PO extension staff views on opportunities for enhancing integration of the
VFT approach into POs ...................................................................................................................... 33
List of Figures
Figure 1: The process of institutionalization .................................................................................... 10
v
Acronyms
ABS TCM LTD African Breeders Services Total Cattle Management Limited
AGRITEX Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services
AI Artificial Insemination
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
DADOs District Agriculture Development Offices
DFBAs Dairy Farmers Business Association
DMGs Dairy Management Groups
EADD East Africa Dairy Development Project
FGD Focus Group Discussions
FLE Farmer Led Extension
FTA Forests, Trees and Agroforestry
ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IPM-FFS Integrated Pest Management Farmer Field School
IRD Informal Research and Development
KDFF Kenya Dairy Farmer Association
KDLC Kabiyet Dairy Company Limited
KES Kenya Shilling
KFA Kenya Farmer Association
MALF Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
MCA Member of County Assembly
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
PIM Policies, Institutions and Markets
POs Producer Organizations
R&D Research &Development
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VFT Volunteer Farmer Trainers
WRUA Water Resources Users Association
vi
Quotes by volunteer farmer trainers
“We have never experienced a severe drought like this one; farmers are now wishing that
they could have conserved their feeds. It has served as a lesson and most of them are
willing to learn on feed conservation methods.”
“I have one container of silage of 1000kgs that will hopefully serve me till the next rainy
season”
“Farmers need to be constantly reminded to store their feeds”
“What do you do with farmers who are not taking up new livestock feed technologies?”
“Our farmers took pride in having many cows, but since EADD came in, most of them
have reduced their herd to two or three animals and are enjoying the benefits”
“I used to get 2lts of milk per cow but now I am getting up to 10lts
1.0 Introduction
Agricultural extension is important in disseminating information, reducing poverty and
promoting agricultural development in most developing countries. In the past, top-
down public sector-driven model of extension was commonly used for information
dissemination. The model, however, was ineffective because of various reasons such as
limited resources (few staff and shortage of funds) hence its inability to reach a
substantial number of farmers, especially the poor smallholder farmers living in remote
and mountainous regions (Dalsgaard et al., 2005). This called for introduction of
alternative extension paradigms that moved away from top-down to participatory
approaches that are farmer focused and private extension systems composed of private
companies, non-governmental, community-based, and faith-based organizations
(Nambiro et al., 2006; Rees et al., 2000). While several benefits have been reported on the
use of participatory extension approaches (Birkhaeuser et al., 1991; Alston et al., 2000), it
is evident that ensuring the sustainability of the approaches remains a great challenge
(Rivera and Alex, 2004; Feder et al., 2010).
High cost national extension systems have been significantly scaled down and in worst
case scenarios discontinued because the high fiscal demands placed on public budgets
are not sustainable (Quizon et al., 2001). Private led extension systems on the other
hand mostly run for the period that the project is being implemented thus
compromising the future of the extension systems once the life of the project has ended.
The lack of farmers’ participation is regarded as one of many barriers, which limits the
effectiveness and sustainability of the extension services. Hence, there are increasing
calls for approaches which emphasize capacity building and reorientation of the
extension system in order to enable it to better target the diversified needs of different
farmers. Farmer led extension (FLE) approaches have been shown to be effective in
promoting farmer engagement in extension. In FLE approaches, farmers take an active
and lead role in technology development and dissemination by being involved as
extension workers or trainers of other farmers (Islam et al., 2011). FLE approaches
divert from the old way of disseminating centrally-designed extension messages and
seek to be responsive to local information needs and priorities, value indigenous
knowledge, and emphasize joint learning between extension professionals and farmers
(Killoug, 2003; Scarborough et al., 1997).
FLE approaches are also known as farmer-based extension, participatory extension,
farmer participatory extension, people or farmer-centered extension, demand-driven
extension, farmer-driven extension, and community-based extension (Feder et al., 2010;
Killough 2003; Namvong and Baconguis 2010; Rivera and Alex 2004). Though there are
2
variations in names, a common feature of these extension approaches is that they are
implemented through community-based groups or organizations of farmers (Feder et
al., 2010; Killough, 2003; Rivera and Alex, 2004; Scarborough et al., 1997; Kiptot and
Franzel, 2015). However, given that in most developing countries, strong and viable
groups rarely exist, most of the FLE projects strive to form new groups or organizations
(Feder et al., 2010). The stability and sustainability of farmer groups or organizations
might influence the future of the FLE approaches and their effectiveness. Evidence has
it that farmer groups formed or developed through external assistance including
government and donor funded projects survive only during the period of project
funding; such groups tend to collapse as soon as external funding support ceases (Feder
et al., 2010; Heemskerk and Wennink, 2004; Opondo et al., 2006; Quizon et al.,2004).
The effectiveness of FLE approaches has widely been documented (Lukuyu et al., 2012;
Wellard et al., 2013; Sssemakula and Mutimba, 2011; Rivera and Alex, 2004; Namvong
and Baconguis, 2010; van de Fliert et al., 2007). According to these authors, the FLE
approaches are cost effective, inclusive, support agricultural innovation and reach the
marginalized groups. However, the sustainability of the approaches remains weak
(Feder et al., 2010; Opondo et al., 2006; Quizon et al., 2004). Hence, there is a pressing
need to understand how externally-initiated FLE approaches could be organized to be
more sustainable once external funding or subsidies end. Using an innovative extension
approach in the East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) project in Kenya, known as the
Volunteer Farmer Trainer (VFT) approach as a case study, we intend to provide insights
on how the sustainability of such approaches can be enhanced. To do this, the study
looked at what mechanisms need to be put in place to institutionalize the FLE approach
into existing dairy Producer Organizations (POs), the challenges and opportunities and
the perspectives of different actors on institutionalizing the VFT approach.
1.2 The Volunteer Farmer Trainer (VFT) Approach in the East African Dairy
Development project (EADD)
The EADD project is a collaborative venture between Heifer International, Techno
serve, African Breeders Services (ABS), International Livestock Research Centre (ILRI)
and the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). The project started in 2008 and its main
objective during the first phase was to double the incomes of 179,000 dairy farmers in
Kenya, Uganda and Rwanda through improved dairy production and marketing.
EADD works with dairy POs also referred to as the Dairy Farmers Business
Associations (DFBAs). The PO is a community managed organization consisting of
shareholders and registered members. The functions of the PO include bulking milk
3
and linking farmers to buyers, processors, agrochemical industries and financial
institutions. POs also provide farmers with access to inputs and credit through a check
off system where costs are deducted from milk revenue. Kenya has a total of 21 POs
located in central and Rift valley regions each consisting of about 3,000 to 10,000
members who are dairy farmers.
ICRAF leads the project’s feeding systems component and uses the VFT approach, a
type of farmer-to-farmer extension to meet its objective. Farmer-to farmer extension is
defined as the provision of training by farmers to farmers, often through the creation of
a structure of farmer promoters or farmer trainers (Scarborough et al., 1997). The VFT
approach involves farmer trainers who receive training from EADD and in turn train
other farmers. Farmer trainers are known by different terminologies in different
countries. Common names include lead farmers, farmer promoters, model farmers,
community knowledge workers and contact farmers among others. The role of farmer
trainers (FTs) might differ depending on the context in which they work. FTs might
either be paid or not, train farmers in groups or individually and may be trained as
specialist on one subject or generalists (Kiptot and Franzel, 2015). In the EADD project
VFTs are not paid. The VFT approach is based on the spirit of volunteerism (Kiptot and
Franzel, 2014).
The VFT approach uses volunteer farmers to disseminate information on livestock feed
technologies to dairy farmers in their communities. As of June 2012, 2,676 VFTs (38%
women) had been recruited and trained in Kenya. VFTs are selected through a
participatory process involving farmers, locational representatives and the management
committee of the POs. The VFTs selected meet a certain criteria including being good
communicators, having interest in dairy farming, active in dairy farming i.e. a member
of a dairy management group (DMG) and willing to give part of their land for
demonstration purposes (Kirui et al., 2009). The VFTs are trained on feeds and feeding
methods by dissemination facilitators employed by EADD and then supported to set up
demonstration plots on their farms. The support is mainly through provision of inputs
such as seed for setting up demonstration plots. VFTs are also exposed to other
technologies through educational tours to innovative farms. The demonstration plots
are used for training neighbouring farmers and farmers within the DMGs. The livestock
4
feeds which include fodder crops and grasses that are grown in the demonstration plots
are sometimes left to mature and the seeds shared with other farmers for replication.
Training is done through the DMGs which have 20-30 farmers each.
Studies on the effectiveness of the VFT approach in EADD have reported positive
impacts of the approach on farmers’ awareness, knowledge and skills on livestock feed
technologies (Kiptot and Franzel, 2014; Kiptot and Franzel, 2015; Mwambi et al., 2015).
VFTs are motivated by various benefits such as knowledge and skills and social
benefits. They however also have challenges which include transport costs, opportunity
time for labour and lack of training materials. With regard to this, Kiptot et al. (2011)
notes that for the VFT approach to be sustainable, the trainers must feel that the benefits
of engaging in dissemination activities far outweigh the costs that they incur. EADD
project is currently phasing out its support in Kenya, hence, the sustainability of the
model may not be guaranteed. A more sustainable strategy is needed to ensure the
approach continues even without support by the project. One of the ways we propose is
by institutionalizing the VFT approach in the extension structure of Producer
Organizations (POs). This case study aims to explore how the VFT approach can be
institutionalized in the extension structure of producer organizations.
1.3 Sustainability and institutionalization: A review
Agricultural extension is considered important in disseminating information, reducing
poverty and promoting agricultural development in most developing countries. Yet,
sustainability of the approaches used has been a major challenge (Feder et al., 2010).
Budgetary allocation to national extension systems have been significantly scaled down
and hence affecting delivery of services to farmers. Majority of the NGOs on the other
hand deliver private extension projects for a specified period of time after which the
projects close down. As Bunch (1996) notes, to achieve sustainable social processes, a
series of conditions have to be put in place.
5
Davis et al. (2014) acknowledges that building capacity for resilience‐oriented systems,
for instance extension systems, requires shifting from the project approach to building
sustainable institutions that anticipate shocks and initiate interventions to meet the
specific needs of the communities. This may entail institutionalization of the project
approach into already existing organizations. Institutionalization involves a deliberate
effort to incorporate knowledge at the organizational level so that it may persist and be
available for future re-use (Wiseman, 2007). Institutionalizing is a process in which
learning of individuals and groups (in this case learning of the VFTs and farmers) is
embedded into the organization (herein being the POs) and includes systems, structure
and procedures that provide a context for interactions (Crossan et al., 1999).
The literature shows that different methods have been used to institutionalize project
approaches into existing organizations. In scaling up of participatory approaches
through institutionalization in government services in Zimbabwe, Hagmann et al.
(1999) explains a detailed strategy for institutionalization. The key elements considered
include networking, where all the stakeholders (mostly NGOs) that used approaches
similar to participatory approach (and who worked closely with the Department of
Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) which is the main extension
service provider in the field) shared experiences and facilitated the institutionalization
process. In this way, the project stakeholders were able to learn from each other. The
stakeholders jointly worked together to conduct workshops at provincial, national and
international level to inform the public on the role of participatory extension
approaches. As a result the network expanded as other organizations showed interest in
adopting the approach. The other step involved familiarization of AGRITEX staff at all
levels with the extension approach mainly through field visits. Then, workshops were
organized where extension workers were trained on participatory tools. Each extension
worker chose a community to work with in order to practice his/her skills. Follow up
workshops were conducted to enable extension workers to share experiences and
improve their facilitation skills continuously. Finally, due to increased awareness for the
6
required change in the organization, AGRITEX launched an organizational
development programme to improve output among staff at all levels. The study
concluded that institutionalization of participatory approaches into hierarchical
organizations is a complex system that requires planning, implementation, and
monitoring & evaluation procedures.
Moumouni and Labarthe (2012) analyzed the processes of institutionalization of
agricultural knowledge sharing platforms among stakeholders in francophone Sub
Saharan Africa. The study used literature review and semi-structured interviews with
various stakeholders. Three key points were considered; (i) the capacities of the
government to guarantee the reliability of knowledge transferred to farmers through
extension agents, (ii) the possibilities of farmers to influence platforms to ensure that
their concerns and needs were considered in updating extension agents’ knowledge,
and (iii) the financial sustainability of the knowledge sharing platforms. The study
found that over the decades, the platforms shifted from heavy, expensive and
ineffective machines to smaller and less expensive platforms around common specific
interests.
Using semi structured questionnaires to interview individual farmers, Tiwari (2012)
carried out a case study of Integrated Pest Management-Farmer Field School (IPM-FFS)
institutionalization in Nepal. The author considered institutionalization as the kind of
learning and change created by the process of IPM-FFS approach at the local level. The
experiential learning theory was used. The theory focuses on generation of new
knowledge and application of acquired knowledge and behaviour in the real field.
Further, the experiential learning theory is conceived as a process that contrasting to an
outcome continues after completion of one cycle. Using this theory, Tiwari (2012)
reported that institutionalization of IPM-FFS approach was not very effective since
eighty percent of the IPM-FFS groups did not repeat learning activities at the local level
and a majority of them did not share the information with others. Contrary to this
7
study, Kiptot and Franzel (2012) reported that the VFT approach is effective in
information dissemination in Kenya where more than 70% of trainers trained other
farmers on six different livestock feed technologies.
Joshi et al. (2012) on the other hand did a study on whether participatory research
approaches rapidly improve household food security in Nepal and identified policy
changes required for institutionalization. In this study, the authors looked at how
informal research and development (IRD) method that was used by the NGOs to
disseminate inputs could be integrated in District Agriculture Development Offices
(DADOs) of the Department of Agriculture. This is because the benefits of using IRD
were very large as they reduced the time needed for variety testing and popularization
and hence reduced the time needed to improve food security. However, the NGOs
could not sustainably finance the use of IRD and therefore the government was
required to change its policies to adopt the method. Such policies included speeding up
the process of releasing and registering seeds. Indeed, Pretty and Hine (2001) argue that
without appropriate policy support at a range of levels, improvements will remain at
best localized or at worst wither away. This scenario is similar to the case of VFT
approach in Kenya which has been effective in information dissemination (Kiptot and
Franzel, 2012; Kiptot et al., 2012) but its sustainability is a challenge hence the
importance of institutionalizing it into local POs and government extension.
In their study on institutionalizing end-user demand steering in agricultural research
and development (R&D) using farmer levy funding approach in The Netherlands,
Klerkx and Leeuwis (2008) point out interesting results. This study analyzed the use of
farmer levy funding as a way of institutionalizing end-user demand steering in
agricultural R&D systems. In this approach, private R&D funding is obtained through
collective funding got by imposing compulsory levies on farmers. In such systems of
farmer levy funding, farmers become, as a collective, direct clients of providers of
8
agricultural R&D. This empowers farmers to take full control of the R&D process, and
therefore the ultimate degree of participation as outlined in many ‘participation
ladders’ will be attained (Ashby and Sperling, 1995). Klerkx and Leewis (2008) shows
that the institutional arrangement of contractual research planning, in the context of
farmer levy funding of R&D, does not automatically successfully grant end-users and
other relevant stakeholder’s real participation and control in innovation processes.
Furthermore, in a system in which a financier can exercise great influence on the way
R&D is executed, and can make R&D institutions more responsive to the needs of end-
users, the financier itself also has to undergo a process of institutional change to be
sufficiently responsive to the needs of end-users.
Drawing from this literature, it is evident that for successful institutionalization of
project extension approaches such as the VFT approach into existing organizations such
as the POs, there should be active participation of staff from the POs in the process of
institutionalization. The staff should be familiarized with the project approach and be
directly involved in creating awareness of the benefits of the approach to the
community and the need for institutionalization. Other stakeholders should also play a
key role in providing suggestions on institutionalization of the project into existing
organizational structures and sustainability. Further, the review stipulates the role of
organizations in institutionalization. The POs should identify means of maintaining the
reliability and sustainability of the project approach which might include provision of
technical backstopping and financial capital. Finally, the POs might be required to
change existing policies or formulate new ones that support and promote VFTs work.
This study will look at institutionalization of the VFT approach in the POs extension
structures in terms of;
1. The ways in which POs will support the implementation of the VFT approach
sustainably
9
2. The extension policies that need to be changed or incorporated in the POs to
promote sustainability and institutionalization of the VFT approach
3. The role of other stakeholders for example NGOs and government extension in
enhancing sustainability and institutionalization of the VFT approach into the
POs
1.4 Conceptual framework for institutionalization of the VFT approach in
POs
A visualized process of institutionalizing the VFT approach into POs is presented in
Figure 1. The first stage involves identification of a preexisting organization that may
or may not be having extension structures. The organization will be expected to support
the VFT approach after the funding project phases out. This is followed by awareness
creation whereby the existing organization that has been supporting implementation of
the approach informs the public, POs, government and other stakeholders on the
importance of the approach and the benefits of integrating it into POs. An enabling
environment should be created within the organization to assist in the integration
process. An enabling environment consists of three essential elements namely policy,
leadership and resources. Sustainable institutionalization of farmer-to-farmer extension
requires policies that recognize the importance of extension in reaching organizational
goals that provide support, guidance and reinforcement for implementation of the
approach. In addition, leadership is critical to help the organization in formulating
strategies for attaining future goals. Leadership can play a role in organizational
readiness to sustain institutionalization by supporting policy and institutional changes.
Finally, The VFT approach cannot be sustained if there are no resources. These may
include engaging extension officers to provide technical backstopping, capacity
building and other key support functions. Capacity building may involve training of
farmer trainers so as to keep them updated on modern technologies and ensure
reliability of the information they provide. Other PO staff might also require managerial
10
and leadership skills to help them carry out different key functions in supporting the
extension system. Another important support function is monitoring and evaluation
which may entail extension staff to monitor VFTs activities and share what has been
achieved and how with the organization’s staff, communities and others who might be
interested to learn and adopt the strategy. The experiences are used to draw suggestions
for policy changes and resource allocation (Silimperi et al., 2002) thus building on the
sustainability of the approach.
Figure 1: The process of institutionalization
11
2.0 Methodology
This study was conducted in the Rift Valley region of Kenya. The three POs selected for
the study were at different stages of maturity. The performance of POs has been
evaluated previously by EADD in terms of production and business aspects. Production
indicators used include nutrition, genetics, herd health, milk quality and extension
while business indicators are governance, value proposition to farmers, value
proposition to market, financial health, capital structure and business start-up. The
performance indicators are scored in percentages and the average percentage is used to
give the overall production stage score of a particular PO. The production stage scores
range from 1 to 5 where stage 1 is 0-20%, stage 2 is 21-40%, stage 3 is 41-60%, stage 4 is
61-80% and stage 5 is 81-100%. Stage 1 therefore represents low performance and stage
5 is characteristic of high performance. These indicators have been used in other POs as
well. POs are in different status of operation. The PO can be under EADD support,
transitioning from EADD to own dependency or graduated to own dependency. The
selected POs were Kabiyet and Lelchego in Nandi County and Sot in Bomet County.
Lelchego was still under EADD, Sot’s production performance was classified in stage 3
in 2013 with an overall performance score of 61.1% and therefore in a transitional stage.
Kabiyet PO has a combined score of 70.6% and is therefore in stage 4 of production.
This clearly indicates that the PO is performing well. Kabiyet PO has stopped receiving
support from EADD and is growing to full dependency.
Focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) were used to
collect data in the field. FGDs were conducted prior to the key informant interviews in
March and May 2015 to get VFTs perspectives, issues and concerns on the
institutionalization of the VFT approach into the POs. A total of 33 VFTs, identified by
the PO extension officers and the EADD extension staff, attended the FGDs. About 11
PO extension staff also participated in the FGDs. Each FGD involved a small group of 5
to 20 participants in order to have a manageable dialogue. ICRAF staff facilitated the
discussions. VFTs responses were recorded on flip charts after a consensus was reached.
A list of participants, their mobile phone numbers and gender are provided in annex 1.
Key informant interviews were done in May 2015 with the PO board members, PO
extension staff, PO managers, NGO staff, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries
(MALF) staff and the VFTs. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to capture
information on the trainings and other activities done by the actors, training venues and
networks for organizing trainings, the support received from the POs and other
institutions and their perceptions on institutionalizing the VFT approach into the POs.
12
At least 2 PO board members, 3 VFTs, a PO manager, one MALF staff were selected for
key informant interviews in each PO. The study intended to interview 3 NGO staff but
only one was interviewed due to conflicting time schedules.
Focus group discussion in Kabiyet and key informant interview in Sot
2.1 Overview of the sampled POs
The following section gives a brief description of the POs, their history, performance
and extension services.
2.1.1 Kabiyet Producer Organization
Kabiyet Dairies Company Ltd (KDCL) commonly known as Kabiyet dairies is one of
the POs in Nandi County where the EADD project operates. KDCL was registered as a
cooperative society in 2008 and was incorporated as a limited liability company on 30th
January, 2009. The PO started milk collection on 1st June 2009 with a collection of 1,623
litres on day one. From inception to May 2011, 14,270,823.80 kilos of milk passed
through KDCL with the chilling plant making sales of KES. 499,478,833 of which KES
348,501,046.17 was paid to dairy farmers. It has one main chilling plant at Kabiyet
centre and two satellite coolers at Sangalo and Koisolik respectively which are 6 km
apart. The chilling plants have a capacity of 24,100 litres. These satellite coolers are
located near the villages and this move has helped improve milk quality. Time spent on
transportation has also lessened hence reducing the possibilities of milk spoilage and
spillage. Milk in these three centers is normally collected, bulked and chilled, ready for
collection by the processor. Apart from these coolers, Kabiyet dairies has 13 other
13
collection centers for only collecting and bulking milk. To date, the hub is still active in
its operations including buying and collection of milk from farmers.
Kabiyet PO has 11,000 registered members but only 4,500 are reported to be active. With
regard to the POs performance evaluated in 2013, Kabiyet PO is in transition in that it
has stopped receiving support from EADD and is growing to full dependency. It
receives an average of 8, 000 litres of milk per day during the dry season but the amount
shoots to an average of 32,000 litres per day in the wet season. The PO accumulates a
gross amount of KES.30 million per month, out of which KES.27 million is paid to
farmers thus making a profit of KES.3 to 4 million per month. The PO manager
acknowledges that the profit made is adequate for running the PO functions such as
monthly payments of workers.
Kabiyet PO has an extension department with a total of 6 qualified extension staff
consisting of 5 men and one woman. The PO fully meets the costs of the extension
department which covers monthly salary, mobilization expenses, travel expenses, lunch
allowance during meetings and training materials. In addition, as of 2015, Kabiyet has
10 active VFTs who assist in providing extension services out of 32 available in 2013.
However, the VFTs do not work closely with the PO and this is confirmed by the fact
that the PO manager has very little information on VFTs activities. On a scale of 1-5,
where 1 is least known and 5 is well known, the PO manager scored 1 on how well
he/she knows the VFTs activities in the PO. This is partly due to the fact that the PO
manager is new.
2.1.2 Sot Producer Organization
Sot is a PO in Bomet County. Sot dairy was started in 2008 by Set Kobor women group,
which is a group for the blind. The women were assisted by the EADD project to start
dairy farming and were given heifers by Heifer International. EADD further organized
the women to start Sot dairy as an immediate source of market for their milk. Sot dairy
eventually became open to all farmers whereby each farmer was required to buy shares
worth KES.5, 000 for membership. Mobilization of farmers began in 2008 and in October
2009 Sot dairy made its first collection of 219 kgs of milk per day. By 2010, Sot dairy was
able to collect 12,000kgs of milk per day which rose to 20,000kgs per day in 2012. The
PO collects an average of 1,500 litres of milk per day during the dry season and an
average of 12, 000 litres per day in the wet season. Currently, Sot dairy has an estimate
of 3,390 registered shareholders who supply milk at the site, out of these, 1,200 are
14
active members. Sot PO gets revenue of KES.2 million per month and a net profit of
KES.100, 000 or less per month. At times, the PO suffers losses especially during the dry
season when milk supply is at its lowest. The PO faces financial challenges because the
profit is not adequate to cover the costs incurred. The PO manager indicated during the
interview that most funds are spent in repaying a loan used to purchase the cooling
plant facility. However, the manager hopes that after clearing the loan, the PO will be in
a better position to manage all its expenses.
Sot PO revealed that it is under EADD phase 2 support and thus receives some financial
and material support. Sot PO has a fully-fledged extension department with 12
extension staff. There are more male extension staff (11) than female (1). The PO meets
50% of the extension staff costs. The main costs identified include monthly salary,
transport, training materials, mobilization and inputs. The other 50% of the costs are
covered by EADD and the Kenya Dairy Farmers Federation (KDFF). During the FGDs,
it was reported that Sot currently has 10 active VFTs out of the 20 reported in 2013. The
VFTs have a close working relationship with the PO and the score of 5 out of 5 given by
the PO manager responding to a question on how well he/she knows the VFT activities
in the site is enough evidence. EADD initiated the working arrangements.
2.1.3 Lelchego Producer Organization
Lechego PO was formed in 2010. Prior to this, milk collection was done in an open place
at the local shopping centre. This compromised the quality of milk and in some cases
milk was rejected by buyers subjecting farmers to losses. The aim of forming Lelchego
was to get a clean place for milk collection hence the name Lelchego, which is a
combination of two Kalenjin words “lel” meaning white and “chego” meaning milk.
Lelchego was started by a few members who mobilized other farmers to form a
cooperative. In 2010, EADD intervened leading to the formation of a management
board to govern the PO’s functions. In June 2010, Lelchego started milk collection
receiving about 1,800kgs of milk on the first day and by December, 2010 the PO was
receiving 8,000kgs per day. As of 2015, Lelchego PO had bought a milk cooler with a
capacity of 6,000kgs, an automated generator and a vehicle for transport, routing and
mobilization. The PO receives an average of 175,318kgs per month and 281,904kgs per
month during the dry and wet season respectively. Currently, Lelchego has 3,000
shareholders and is in a process of having all its members as shareholders. The
registered members are 4,200 in total with 1,750 of them being active. The PO manager
of Lelchego noted that the monthly income of the PO is somehow adequate to support
15
the PO. The manager pointed out that the fluctuating supply of milk during the wet and
dry season present challenges in sustaining the PO expenses though they still manage.
FGD members and a photo of milk transporters in Lelchego
The VFTs present at the FGD noted that Lelchego has 12 active VFTs out of 20 reported
in 2014. The PO has 4 extension staff members working in its extension department. All
the extension staff are male. Lelchego fully caters for the costs of the extension
department which includes monthly salary, transport allowance and capacity building
meetings. The PO has close working relationship with the VFTs. The working
relationship was initiated by the PO extension staff. Asked on how well he/she is aware
of the VFTs activities, the manager scored 3 out of 5 implying that he/she is somehow
knowledgeable about the VFTs and their activities.
16
3.0 Results
3.1 VFT’s training activities
The VFTs have been trained on several livestock feed technologies including pasture
grasses, fodder shrubs, feed conservation and leguminous fodder. They therefore have
wide knowledge on livestock feeds. The commonly mentioned livestock feed
technologies that VFTs are knowledgeable about include Rhodes grass, Napier grass,
calliandra, silage making, hay making, sesbania, sorghum, lucerne, desmodium, sweet
potato vines and conservation of crop residues. Other feed technologies reported
include mulberry, luceana, lablab, purple vetch, feed formulation, oats, and Sudan
grass. VFTs have demonstration plots with various feed technologies established. The
type of feed technologies available on the demonstration plots are Rhodes grass, Napier
grass, sorghum, calliandra, sweet potato vines, sesbania, lucerne and desmodium.
Other feed technologies available in few plots include purple vetch, trichandra, Sudan
grass, mulberry, tree lucerne and Columbus grass. The plots were set up with the
support of EADD where VFTs were given inputs and the skills. Demonstration plots are
good resource for training and efforts should be made to ensure VFTs have most of the
feed technologies on the plots.
Most farmers became VFTs between 2010 and 2015. VFTs offer training to DMG
members about 2 times per month. The ratio of VFTs to DMG is 1:17.8 which is
considerably more favorable than that of government extension staff given as 1:1500 in
Kenya. VFTs also train an average of 6.1 other groups apart from the DMGs. These
groups are mainly women groups, church groups, youth groups or merry go round
groups. The VFTs do not only train within their village but outside as well. Clearly, the
use of VFTs should be promoted since it enhances learning among farmers most of
whom are in the rural areas because they are more than other extension staff and deal
with small manageable numbers.
3.1.1 How the VFTs organize trainings
VFTs train farmers during various forums in the community. Table 1 presents some of
the common training venues. VFTs also reported that they work closely with PO
extension staff in organizing trainings for farmers within the PO. The Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries (MALF) and NGOs such as Technoserve are also
other institutions that VFTs work with. VFTs support these organizations by providing
training to farmers.
17
3.1.2 Training venues
It was deemed important to understand the training venues used by the VFTs and other
actors. The benefit of this is to know whether the VFTs have convenient locations for
holding trainings and if there are any costs involved in securing the venues. The
common venues identified during FGDs and key informant interviews include schools,
church, shopping centres’ grounds, farmers homesteads, VFT homestead, community
‘barazas’ in public places, community cattle dip grounds, community hall and milk
collection centres. The choice of a venue largely depends on its accessibility, location,
number of the participants and the event in question. For instance, school grounds are
mostly used for field days due to their capacity to accommodate large number of
farmers and exhibitors with different demonstrations. Shopping centres’ grounds,
church and community hall are preferred for trainings that involve theory while the
VFT homestead is commonly used when demonstrations are involved.
Generally, the VFTs and other actors use similar venues for training farmers. Most of
the venues are not charged. Church, shopping centers, farmers homesteads and PO
grounds form the main training venues for all actors. The VFTs use all the mentioned
venues except two and thus VFTs have many points of contact with farmers. The PO
extension staff and the government staff follow closely having more training venues
than the NGO staff. VFTs’ demonstration plots and farmers farms are the two venues
that cut across the different POs.
Table 1: Training venues for farmers
Training venue How meetings are organized
1. Community ‘barazas’
in pulic places
Barazas are meetings organized by the local administration to discuss
issues facing the local community. During such forums, VFTs are invited
to talk to farmers on various aspects of farming including livestock feed
technologies.
2. VFTs demonstration
plots
Some farmers visit the VFTs demonstration plots for learning. The
decision to visit the plots can be made exclusively by the farmers, the
VFTs or both. VFTs pointed out that they have fodder shrubs, Napier
and Boma Rhodes in their plots which are the common technologies that
they train. VFTs also practice conservation of crop residues such as
silage and hay making.
18
3. Communal cattle dip There are specific days reserved per month for using the cattle dip.
Farmers meet at the dips as they take their cattle for plunge dipping to
control parasites. VFTs take advantage of such gatherings to offer advice
and training to farmers.
4. Farmers’ farms Occasionally, VFTs visit farmers at their farms to offer training. The
decision to visit a farm is made after consultation between the farmer
and the VFT, on request by the farmer or the VFT.
5. Farmer groups Farmer groups are important in promoting and sharing of information.
VFTs mentioned that they offer trainings in various groups such as
women groups, merry-go-rounds, youth groups, etc. Training in groups
is facilitated by the group leaders who have networks with the VFTs.
Group leaders often invite VFTs to conduct training to their members.
The most common groups identified by the VFTs were boda boda
groups, agricultural groups, Kenya Women Finance Trust (KWFT),
Uwezo fund and morning star groups.
6. Schools Farmers meet at the school grounds or in classrooms. No charges are put
for holding meetings in the schools. It was noted that school grounds are
perfect for trainings involving many farmers thus requiring large space,
for instance, field day events
7. Milk collection
centres
VFTs train farmers at the collection centers during pay days. Pay days
are the specific days that farmers receive monthly payment for the milk
they have supplied at the cooperative.
8. Community hall This is a hall that is set aside for holding community functions. It is
usually hired or sometimes space is given without charges depending on
whether the meeting is for public or private group
9. Church compounds Trainings are conducted at the church compound during group
meetings or sometimes sharing of information is done after church
service. The church leaders allow the extension agents to pass
information to farmers during church service. VFTs also train farmers in
various church groups during their meetings
19
Table 2: Training venues in the different POs
Training venue Kabiyet Sot Lelchego
Community
barazas
VFTs
demonstration
plots
Community cattle
dips
Farmers farms
DMG members
homesteads
Other farmer
groups in members
homesteads
Milk collection
centers
Church
3.1.3 Other trainings and services offered by VFTs other than feeds
In addition to training on livestock feed technologies, there was a general agreement
among the VFTs during FGDs that they offer other services to farmers (Table 3). Some
of these services include, creating awareness on improved breeds and breeding
specifically the use of Artificial Insemination (AI). However, VFTs do not provide AI
services. A general feeling from the groups was that the community needs more AI
service providers since there is only one provider serving all households in each PO.
This could explain the low and slow uptake of AI services among farmers as
demonstrated by the existence of local breeds in the area.
20
Table 3: Summary of other trainings in addition to livestock feeds offered by the VFTs
in the different POs
Service Kabiyet Sot Lelchego
Breeds and
breeding
Milk quality
Farm records
Cattle branding and
calf registration
Savings
Disease control
Soil testing
Group dynamics
Water harvesting
Dairy as a business
Gender
participation in
dairy
Manure utilization
3.1.4 Progress of training activities of the VFTs
VFTs training activities have been growing since they started training. When asked
about the main reasons for the observed trend, the VFTs pointed out several factors
(Table 4). First is that farmers are demanding for training because they want to
improve their dairy farming practices. This includes improving the feeding practices,
breeding, record keeping, milk quality and hygiene among others. VFTs observed that
the interest to get training also grows when farmers appreciate dairy farming as a
business. In order to get increased income, farmers require skills on dairy production
which can be acquired through the VFTs. The skills may range from dairy feed
management, cow and calf management, milk quality to marketing. The VFTs mainly
concentrate on information targeting feed technologies but are knowledgeable on other
aspects as well.
Another major reason identified for increased training is that farmers are seeing other
successful adopters and want to learn from them. It has been known for a long time that
21
farmers like learning from their successful peers and role models such as the VFTs. One
VFT said during the FGDs that “farmers believe in seeing” while emphasizing the
importance of VFTs practicing what they teach and the great impact that has on
promoting technology adoption. Reducing land sizes has been cited as a major reason
for growing demand for training. Farmers want to try alternative dairy farming
methods that are intensive and require less space. Such methods include zero grazing
and feed conservation technologies like silage making, conservation of crop residues
and hay baling. With reducing land sizes, it is evident that free grazing system and
paddocking which are characteristic of the use of natural grass may not be applicable in
the long run. This is where the VFTs become more useful in educating farmer on
alternative techniques. Other reasons for increased training include favorable climate
and increase in new members in the PO. However, a few VFTs training activities have
been declining since they started training because the VFTs do not have demonstration
plots and therefore farmers find it difficult to learn from them.
Table 4: Reported trend of VFTs activities
Training activity Reasons for the observed trend
Growing Increased demand for training from farmers
Farmers are also appreciating dairy farming as a business
Farmers are seeing other successful adopters and want to
learn from them
Reducing land sizes
Favourable climate
Increase in new members in the PO who want training
Farmers want to learn from the VFTs who are role models
Constant -
Declining VFTs do not have demonstration plots and therefore
farmers find it hard to learn from them
3.1.5 Challenges faced by VFTs during training
During the FGDs and key informant interviews, efforts were made to understand some
of the challenges and constraints that VFTs face while carrying out their training
activities. The major challenge is high transport costs. VFTs train within and outside
22
their villages which involves a lot of travel. The VFTs are not paid to attend trainings
but use their own resources. Another challenge is that VFTs work is time consuming.
VFTs have to leave their daily responsibilities to attend to farmer’s needs. At times, they
have to get an attendant to take care of their home duties while away which leads to
added costs. Poor attendance to meeting by farmers poses a great challenge to VFTs
who are always willing to offer training. Sometimes, farmers attend meetings
irregularly and thus may fail to follow up on previous trainings. VFTs feel demotivated
when the farmers do not implement the technologies that they have received training
on. Other challenges are lack of inputs, lack of training materials, high costs associated
with mobilizing farmers to attend meetings and farmers lateness during meetings.
3.2 Sources of seed
Seeds and planting materials are important inputs for the VFTs who use them to set up
demonstration plots for training farmers and to multiply feed technologies by sharing
the seeds with other interested farmers. However, most of the VFTs mentioned that
availability of seeds and planting materials for various livestock feed technologies is a
major challenge. This was also mentioned as a major constraint to increased forage
production on smallholder farms in eastern Africa (Orodho, 2006). Table 5 shows that
EADD is the main supplier for seeds which poses a threat on the continuity of seed
supply after the end of the project. EADD acts as an intermediary, buying seed from a
few producers or dealers in Kenya and making it available to VFTs. VFTs then
distribute the seeds to other farmers. Fellow farmers also play an important role in
distributing seeds compared to other seed suppliers namely the PO agrovets, other
agrovets, MALF, WRUA, PO plots and Kenya Farmers Association (KFA).
Rhodes grass seeds are the most accessible with farmers reporting to have got them
from four of the eight mentioned seed suppliers. Lucerne, calliandra and desmodium
seeds are obtained from three of the eight suppliers. Seeds for other feed technologies
such as Columbus grass, sorghum, tree lucerne, mulberry, sweet potato vines, Sudan
grass, trichandria and sesbania are available in less than two of the eight seed vendors
mentioned. Generally, lack of seeds is a major constraint that may hinder VFT training
activities and subsequent adoption of the improved technologies. This is because after
training, farmers ask for seeds from the VFTs or seed sources where they can get the
seeds to implement the technologies they have been trained on. Sometimes VFTs do not
have the seeds or the seeds cannot be found from local seed outlets like agrovets.
23
Training then become irrelevant to farmers causing most farmers to stop attending
training meetings. This eventually leads to slow uptake of technologies which
demotivate VFTs.
There is need to ensure adequate seeds of the recommended livestock feed technologies
are made available to VFTs and other dairy farmers in the various POs. This can be
done by linking the VFTs and the POs to other available and accessible seed vendors
during the institutionalization process. Additionally, once a forage cultivar has proved
to be successful, its seed must be produced in large quantities by the VFTs to be shared
among other smallholders. If seeds are insufficient, seed costs become high thus
hindering adoption.
Table 5: Source of seed for various livestock feed technologies
Feed Technology
EADD PO agrovet
Other agrovets
Other farmers
MALF WRUA PO demo plot
KFA
# of VFTs
Rhode grass - 3 1 - 1 - - 1
Napier grass - - - 8 - - - -
Columbus grass
1 - - - - - - -
Lucerne 2 1 - - 1 - - -
Sorghum 6 - - - - - - -
Tree lucerne 1 - - - - - - -
Calliandra 5 - - 2 - 1 - -
Mulberry - - - 2 - - - -
Sweet potato vines
- - - 2 - - 3 -
Desmodium 1 1 - - 1 - - -
Sudan grass - - 1 1 - - - -
Triachandria 1 - - - - - - -
sesbania 3 - - 1 - - - -
3.3 Support that VFTs get from POs
POs and the EADD project are the main institutions supporting VFTs. The POs provide
training through the PO extension staff. VFTs seek information from the PO extension
staff on certain technologies that they may not be familiar with. The EADD project on
the other hand supplies seeds for livestock feeds and also trains VFTs on different
livestock feed topics.
24
Table 6: Support VFTs receive in the different POs
Support received
from the PO
Kabiyet Sot Lelchego
Capacity building
through the PO and
PO extension staff
VFTs carry out field
days jointly with
the PO extension
staff
VFTs mobilize
farmers to attend
meetings organized
by PO extension
staff
Farm visits done
jointly by VFTs and
PO extension staff
3.3.1 Advantages of VFTs working with the PO
Although, inadequate support is given to the VFTs, most POs acknowledge that having
a working relationship with the VFTs can be of great help to the PO and its members.
Some of the advantages include:
Access to information: Collaboration between VFTs and the PO encourages exchange of
information. The VFTs capacity building needs are fulfilled by accessing information
through the PO extension staff who educate them on topics that they are not well
familiar with. The PO extension staff also share training materials with the VFTs. The
materials include brochures, flyers, pamphlets, manila paper, and pens among others.
The VFTs further get to learn by participating in farm visits to successful farmers. Such
visits are sponsored by the PO. The PO also gets to learn about challenges and
opportunities facing their PO members through VFTs who are in constant touch with
the farmers. The PO can use the information to tailor extension services to meet the
needs of their members.
25
Increased coverage: The POs have an average of 5 extension staff serving about 10,000 PO members. Having few extension staff presents a challenge in reaching farmers and providing information on time. The use of VFTs fills this gap by increasing the number of extension providers in a cost effective way hence reaching more farmers and enhancing information dissemination. Easy mobilization of farmers: The VFTs can assist the PO in mobilizing farmers during meetings thus reducing the cost of advertisement. The VFTs can be crucial in organizing for meeting venues and informing the PO extension staff on the appropriate meeting dates depending on the community activities and events. Liaison: The VFTs benefit from the PO through being linked to other NGOs. Most POs
are entry points for NGOs working with the community. The POs recommend their VFTs to NGO staff who engage them in other projects. Through these NGOs, VFTs gain access to trainings, inputs, markets and sometimes credit. VFTs get to learn about other farming technologies thus being empowered.
3.4 Social networks
Social networks are important in organizing farmer trainings. Identifying the various
network actors and recognizing their roles in promoting trainings is crucial for
successful institutionalization. The network actors act as a link between farmers and
extension agents by passing information to farmers on training dates, subjects and
venues. Because of their liaison role, it is vital for the network actors to be informed of
the roles of the VFTs, other extension agents and the POs in enhancing dairy
productivity and the dairy value chain. The social network actors will be helpful in
enhancing VFTs activities by informing farmers on the role of VFTs, ensuring that
farmers attend training meetings and sometimes encouraging farmers to implement the
technologies that they have been trained on.
There are a number of social networks used by different actors within the PO. These
include milk transporters, group leaders, church leaders, school administration, local
administration, PO workers, MALF staff, VFTs, gate keepers e.g. MCAs and NGO staff.
Among the actors, VFTs are the most networked than other extension agents. The PO
extension staff and the PO managers are the second most networked actors followed by
government extension staff and NGO staff in that order.
Church leaders and the local administration are the most important networks for most
extension agents (Table 7). Church leaders perform a role of informing their
congregation on upcoming training meetings. Sometimes, the church leaders give the
VFTs an opportunity to share information with church members during church
26
services. Such opportunities are also offered by the local administration officers during
‘barazas’. Other vital networks include the school administration where the school staff
passes information on meetings to students who in turn inform their parents. Group
leaders are important for contacting and organizing meetings for their members. The
PO management staff was mentioned as one of the important networks for extension
agents. The PO management organizes their farmers to attend meetings held by various
extension agents. PO management does this through the PO extension staff or by using
posters to advertise. VFTs and PO extension staff mentioned that they use milk
transporters or agents to inform farmers on training meetings. Milk transporters pass
the information while collecting milk from farmers. The milk transporters are at times
given posters for advertising meetings. The posters are given to farmers or pinned on
notice boards in public places for farmers to read.
Although social networks are very important for enhanced knowledge dissemination,
some actors do not work together. Reasons given range from lack of established
working relationship to competition (Table 8).
Table 7: Important networks for organizing farmers’ trainings
Networks VFTs PO extension staff
Government extension staff
NGO staff PO manager
Milk transporters
Group leaders
Church leaders
School administration
Local administration
PO workers
MALF staff
VFTs
Gate keepers e.g. counsellors
NGO staff
27
Table 8: Reasons why different actors do not work together
VFTs opinions on why some of them do not work with the PO
PO extension staff opinion on why they do not work closely with VFTs
Government extension staff opinion on why they do not work with the PO extension staff
Some POs do not recognize the VFTs
VFTs are not active No established working
relationship with the VFTs
POs view ministry staff as competitors
POs feels the ministry staff does not provide sufficient support
POs have their own extension support unit
The POs transformed to companies hence there is little cooperation with other stakeholders
3.5 Support given by the POs to different actors to enhance knowledge
dissemination
The POs provide full support to the PO extension staff in terms of monthly salary,
transport, capacity building, and training materials among others (Table 9). Support
provided to other extension agents is limited. For instance, the VFTs do not receive
monthly allowance but get assistance in terms of facilitation to participate in farm visits,
inputs (e.g. seeds) and farmer mobilization subject to availability of funds.
28
Table 9: Support given by the PO to different actors in extension
VFTs PO extension staff Government extension staff
NGOs
1. Sponsoring VFTs
to participate in farm visits
2. Providing inputs such as seeds
3. Mobilization of farmers
4. Pay for advertisement of
meetings
1. Provision of transport allowance
2. Monthly salary
3. Access to information
4. Provision of training materials
5. Mobilization of farmers
6. Airtime allowance
7. Lunch allowance
1. Mobilization of farmers
1. Mobilization of farmers
2. Purchasing of inputs from their firms
3.6 What needs to be done to ensure sustainability of the VFT approach?
3.6.1 Support VFTs require from the PO
For successful integration, the POs should support VFTs activities in a number of ways.
This could be through giving transport means to facilitate their movement to training
venues (Table 10). Asked on their thoughts about where the PO can get the funds to
cater for transport needs, VFTs suggested that POs can use part of the finances got from
milk sales. Secondly, to provide up-to date information to farmers, VFTs need technical
backstopping which can be provided by the PO extension staff. Thirdly, the PO can
provide inputs such as seeds to the VFTs to set-up demonstration plots. VFTs admitted
that they have limited access to fodder shrubs and grass seeds, a factor that hinders
their progress. Lastly, the VFTs require support in offering AI services. To effectively do
this, it was suggested that the PO should train at least two farmers on AI provision. This
will ensure that AI services reach other farmers on time leading to improved breeds and
improved production.
29
Table10: Support required from the PO as reported by VFTs in the different POs
Support required from the PO Kabiyet Sot Lelchego
Transport to attend training
Capacity building through
trainings
Provision of inputs to set up
demonstration plots
AI provision
Access to ready market
Exchange tours sponsorship
Recognition
Training materials
3.6.2 Support required from farmers
Implementation of technologies: Farmers should implement the technologies that they
have received training on. This motivates the VFTs and also the PO. Implementation
can be made possible by ensuring that the seeds and other inputs required are
accessible and affordable to farmers. Technology adoption is likely to increase milk
production and income thus motivating more farmers to join dairy farming as a
business. Again, this will increase demand for training hence the need to institutionalize
the VFT approach so that farmers can easily access information on improved dairy
practices.
Participate in training meetings: Farmers should attend meetings when called upon and
on time. Regular attendance is also important so that they can follow up on subsequent
trainings. During meetings, farmers should be willing to cater for their transport and
lunch whenever required. Other costs that might apply include notebooks and pens.
Supply milk to the PO: For continuity of the VFT approach within the POs, farmers
should be willing to supply milk to the chilling plants managed by the POs. The POs
get their income through sale of milk and thus this money is necessary to maintain
VFTs activities. The farmers can increase shares to the PO to enhance sustainability of
the organization.
Allocate land for demonstration: Farmers should be willing to allocate land for
demonstration and for establishing improved livestock feeds. Demonstration plots are
30
useful in educating other farmers through the demo plots and also they play an
important role in seed multiplication making seed available to farmers.
Disseminate information: It is expected that the farmers will share information learnt
with fellow farmers.
3.6.3 Support required from EADD before end of project
Capacity building: VFTs need to update their skills often. EADD can sponsor VFTs to
participate in trainings or exchange tours. EADD can also provide training materials at
a subsidized cost of for free.
Inputs: EADD can make inputs available to VFTs and other farmers before exiting. As
observed during FGDs, most VFTs get their seeds for establishing demonstration plots
through EADD. VFTs are not familiar with other seed vendors and EADD can play a
great role in recommending some available seed suppliers.
Recognition: Before the project phases out, EADD should recognize VFTs efforts. The
VFTs mentioned that recognitions can be made by providing certificates or branding.
The VFTs believe that through identification, they can easily approach farmers
especially those unknown to them.
Creation of awareness of importance of VFTs among the POs: Farmers, MALF staff, VFTs and
board members have a general feeling that institutionalization may actualize because
the POs board members are now aware of the VFTs and their activities. There was an
agreement that EADD should create more awareness to the POs about the VFTs and the
importance of having them within the POs. During the FGDs, VFTs argued that the POs
do not recognize them and do not incorporate them in their strategic plan. This, they
say, has led to a decline in VFTs activities.
Link POs with other stakeholders: EADD staff can link POs with other stakeholders who
may offer different forms of support.
31
3.6.4 Support required from other stakeholders
There are many organizations that are already working with different actors in the POs
as shown in Table 11. They can be prevailed upon to support VFTs in the following
areas;
Capacity building: some stakeholders such as the MALF staff and can provide training to
VFTs. The VFTs can learn from the MALF extension staff during field days, exchange
tours or other training events. Through the MALF, the VFTs can be updated with
current knowledge on improved practices.
Inputs: During the FGDs, it was realized that the MALF provides inputs to farmers at a
subsidized price. This move is essential in promoting VFT integration since farmers can
implement technologies taught by the VFTs. The inputs can be used to set up
demonstration plots for VFTs. Further, inputs such as agrochemicals can be supplied to
the POs’ agrovets.
Improvement of infrastructure e.g. roads: The county government’s role came out clearly
during the key informant interviews where different stakeholders mentioned that they
should improve infrastructure. Accessible roads and water should be made available to
boost milk production.
Provision of credit: Farmers need credit form the government and financial institutions.
The credit should be given at a lower interest rate so that many farmers can access it.
Credit facilities help in buying dairy cows and dairy feeds. They are important in
improving dairy farm structures such as the zero grazing units.
Cooperation: other stakeholders should cooperate with the POs to enhance
institutionalization. Having a joint work plan between VFTs and MALF staff is a good
example of working relationship that can sustain the VFT approach.
32
Table 11: Organizations working with various actors in the POs
Organization VFTs PO extension staff PO management
MALF Creating awareness on public health
Training
Training Training farmers
Ministry of cooperation
- - Provision of credit facilities
KDFF Vaccination - Advising the board members
Training farmers
SNV Potato and avocado farming
-
Technoserve Horticulture Conservation agriculture
Training farmers
Nestle Milk hygiene - Training farmers
Soil care Soil PH -
WRUA Water conservation -
Agrochemical industries
- Supply chemicals Training farmers
County government
- - Provision of credit through CDF
Processors - - Financial assistance during field days
Financial institutions
- - Credit facilities
3.7 Opportunities for institutionalizing the VFT approach
Opportunities that can enhance VFT institutionalization are several (Table 12). The
existence of a ready market through the POs implies that there is a secure source of
income for farmers. Certainty of market and income reduces farmer’s risks and
increases their participation in dairy farming. Farmers are motivated to invest in
improved technologies to improve their productivity. Another opportunity lies in the
growing interest among farmers to learn about modern livestock feed technologies. This
has been necessitated by climate change whereby the rain fall patterns are not
predictable and thus farmers can no longer rely on natural pasture. Most farmers are
seeking knowledge on feed conservation techniques through skilled VFTs. The ever
33
reducing land sizes have increased the demand for intensive farming technologies that
minimize space. Technologies such as fodder shrubs require relatively little space for
establishment. There are a number of successful adopters of dairy technologies in the
dairy POs. These give an opportunity for increased training since farmers would want
to learn about new technologies in order to improve their milk production.
Table 12: VFTs and PO extension staff views on opportunities for enhancing integration
of the VFT approach into POs
VFTs PO extension staff
1. Ready market for milk 1. VFTs have knowledge
2. Availability of land for implementing new technologies
2. VFTs have resources
3. Growing interest on improved feed technologies
3. Farmers increased demand for trainings
4. Farmers are appreciating dairy farming as a business
5. Existence of successful adopters that farmers can learn from
6. Access to credit through the PO check off system has motivated farmers to participate in dairy and in the PO
4.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
From the FGDs and key informant interviews, it is evident that the demand for VFTs
services is growing. Farmers’ enthusiasm to learn should be tapped. Institutionalization
of the VFT approach is one of the ways of enhancing learning through the VFTs after
the EADD project ends. Institutionalization of the approach in POs assures farmers of
having access to information from their peers leading to increased adoption of
improved livestock feed technologies, increased dairy productivity and household
incomes.
However, lack of awareness among some of the PO board management teams and the
PO staff on the importance of VFTs could be a hindrance to integrating the VFT
approach into the POs extension structure. VFTs are found to be active in POs where
some of the board members are or have worked as VFTs. This means that such board
members push for recognition of the VFTs and inclusion of VFTs activities within the
PO work plan. Further, unavailability of funds is a drawback in supporting VFTs. Most
34
POs provide transport and salary to extension staff but not to VFTs yet the two actors
do similar work. Some PO extension staff view VFTs as competitors hence creating
conflicts between the VFTs and the PO which may lead to inefficiencies in information
dissemination if not managed. More awareness creation of the importance of VFTs in
enhancing information dissemination needs to be stepped.
The involvement of other stakeholders in the PO activities is pegged on how the POs
relate with different actors. For instance, the MALF rarely participates in POs activities
because the PO views the government as a competitor in that they are targeting the
same audience. However, the POs need to understand that the government is a non-
profit making entity and its mandate is to provide services to farmers with the aim of
improving farmers’ livelihoods.
For the VFT approach to be sustainable, the following issues raised by VFTs need to be
considered by POs during institutionalization.
Recognition and identification: VFTs agreed that recognition of their activities and hard
work is a great source of motivation. The VFTs suggested that the PO can promote
identity by giving branded T-shirts, caps, folders and badges. Identification helps VFTs
gain ease of entry into farmers’ homesteads and other communities during training.
Material and financial support: VFTs are of the opinion that they should be provided with
training materials such as charts, maker pens, folders, pens, note books and brochures
among others. Inputs for setting up demonstrations should also be made accessible.
Through demonstration plots, VFTs can replicate grasses and fodder shrubs and share
with other farmers. POs can provide seeds on credit through their agrovets or can make
them available on the PO demonstration plots. Provision of material and financial
support to contact farmers has been debatable for a long time with proponents arguing
that without incentives there will be little action; critics insisting that a volunteering
spirit is vital to sustainable community development (Bhuktan et al., 1997; Holt-
Gimenez, 1997; Kiptot and Franzel, 2014). There is an agreement on provision of
financial assistance to trainers particularly transport or providing transport means like
motorbikes or bicycles. Other support should be directed towards lunch and
mobilization. Sometimes farmers themselves pay the trainers either in cash or in kind
for the services offered (Helin and Dixon, 2008).
Capacity building: Opportunities to participate in exchange tours order to interact with
other VFTs were considered important in updatingVFTs knowledge and keeping them
motivated. VFTs mentioned that training can also be conducted by experts from other
35
organizations or by PO extension staff. Plans are underway to form VFTs association in
Bomet. The Sot PO extension manager will play a crucial role in identifying all the VFTs
and bringing them together. VFTs association forums will be essential in exchanging
ideas.
Linking VFTs to other organizations: The POs are gate keepers for most NGOs intending
to initiate projects in the community. This study has shown that POs interact with
different organizations that offer different services. One way of ensuring the
sustainability of the VFT approach is for POs to link VFTs with various organizations
working in their area. This will increase VFTs visibility and knowledge not only on
dairy but on other agricultural activities as well.
Increase number of VFTs: The number of VFTs currently working closely with POs has
reduced. An increase in the number of VFTs will lead to increase in the number of
farmers having contact with the trainers. Information will be readily available and
accessible to farmers. However, increasing the number of VFTs comes with additional
costs of training the new trainers which may be offset by the profits they get from
increased volume of milk as a result of increased productivity.
5.0 References
Alston JM, Marra MC, Pardey PG and Wyatt TJ. 2000. Research returns redux: a meta-
analysis of the returns to agricultural R&D. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 44 (2):185-215.
Ashby J and Sperling L. 1995. Institutionalizing participatory client driven research and technology development in agriculture. Development and Change 26: 753-770.
Bhuktan J, Gonsalves J, Killough, S, Ma Quang T and Nguyen A. 1997. Farmers changing the face of technology: Choices and adaptations of technology options. Cavite: International Institute for Rural Reconstruction. Birkhaeuser D, Evenson RE and Feder G. 1991. The economic impact of agricultural
extension: A review. Economic Development and Cultural Change 39 (3): 607-650
Bunch R. 1996. People-centered agricultural development: principles of extension for achieving long term impact. In: Scarborough V (ed.). Farmer-led Approaches to Extension Network Paper No. 59a. Papers presented at a workshop in the Philippines July 1995.
Agricultural Research and Extension Network.
36
Crossan M, Lane H and White RE. 1999. An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Academic Management Review 24: 522-537.
Dalsgaard JPT, Minh T, Giang VN and Riise JC. 2005. Introducing a farmers’ livestock
school training approach into the national extension system in Vietnam. AgREN. Network
Paper No. 144. January. London: ODI.
Davis K, Babu S and Blom S. 2014. Building the resilience of smallholders through extension and advisory services. In: Fan Shenggen R, Pandya-Lorch and Yosef F (eds). Resilience for food and nutrition security, pp 127-136.
Feder G, Anderson JR, Birner R and Deininger K. 2010. Promises and Realities of
Community Based Extension. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00959. IFPRI, Washington DC.32 pp
Fliert E van de, Dung NT, Henriksen O and Dalsgaard JPT.2007. From collectives to
collective decision-making and action: Farmer field schools in Vietnam. The Journal of
Agricultural Education and Extension, 13(3): 245-256.
Hagmann J, Chuma E, Murwira K, Connolly M. 1999. Putting Process into Practice: Operationalizing Participatory Extension. ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AGREN) Paper No. 94. Heemskerk W and Wennink B. 2004. Building social capital for agricultural innovation:
experiences with farmer groups in Sub-Saharan Africa. Bulletin 368. KIT-Publishers,
Amsterdam
Hellin, J. and J. Dixon. 2008. Operationalising Participatory research and farmer-to-
farmer extension: the Kamayog in Peru. Development in Practice 18 (4): 627-632
Holt-Gimenez, E. 1997). The Campesino-e-Campesino Movement in Latin America. In: Scarborough, V., Killough, S., Johnson, D. and Farrington, J. (Eds), Farmer-led Extension: Concepts and Practices. London: IT Publications/ODI, pp. 36_38. Islam M, Gray D, Reid J and Kemp P.2011. Developing Sustainable Farmer-led
Extension Groups: Lessons from a Bangladeshi Case Study. The Journal of Agricultural
Education and Extension, 17(5) 425-443.
Joshi KD, Devkota KP, Harris D, Khanal NP, Paudyal B, Sapkota A and Witcombe JR.
2012. Participatory research approaches rapidly improve household food security in
37
Nepal and identify policy changes required for institutionalization. Field Crops Research, 131: 40-48. Killough, S. 2003. Farmer-led extension: A comparative analysis of characteristics and
outcomes of three programmes in Latin America. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
University of Reading, Reading UK
Kiptot E and Franzel S. 2012. Effectiveness of the farmer-trainer approach in dissemination of
livestock feed technologies: A survey of volunteer farmer trainers in Kenya. Nairobi: World Agroforestry Centre. Kiptot E and Franzel S. 2014.Voluntarism as an Investment in Human, Social and Financial Capital: Evidence from a Farmer-to-farmer Extension Program in Kenya. Agriculture and Human Values 31 (2): 231–243.
Kiptot E, Lukuyu B, Franzel S and Place F. 2011. The Farmer Trainers Approach in
Technology Dissemination in Kenya: Farmer Trainers and Trainees Perspectives. Research Report. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi Kenya. Kiptot E. and Franzel S. 2015. Farmer to farmer extension in Kenya: Opportunities for
enhancing the performance of volunteer farmer trainers in Kenya. Development in
Practice, 25 (4): 503-517
Kirui J, Franzel S and Lukuyu B. 2009. Farmer trainers: An emerging dissemination pathway. Nairobi: Poster presented at the World Agroforestry Congress. Nairobi, Kenya.
Klerkx L and Leeuwis C. 2008. Matching demand and supply in the agriculture knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy, 33 (3): 260-276. Lukuyu B, Place F, Franzel S and Kiptot E 2012. Disseminating Improved Practices: Are Volunteer Farmer Trainers Effective? Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 18 (5): 525–540. Moumouni I and Labarthe P 2012. Institutionalization of knowledge sharing platforms in the last three decades in Francaphone sub Saharan Africa. University of Parakou, Benin Mwambi M, Kiptot E and Franzel S.2015. Assessing the Effectiveness of the Volunteer Farmer-Trainer Approach in Dissemination of Livestock Feed Technologies in Kenya vis-à-vis Other Information Sources. ICRAF Working Paper No. 199. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi Kenya.
38
Nambiro E, Omiti J and Mugunieri L. 2006. Decentralization and Access to Agricultural
Extension Services in Kenya. Poster presented in the conference of the Association of
Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast Australia.
Namvong S and Bacoguis RT. 2010. The farmer-driven approach and its contributions
to farmer empowerment in the village extension system of Lao People’s Democratic
Republic. Middle East Journal of Scientific Research, 6(2): 108-116
Opondo C, Engorok O, German LA and Stroud A. 2006. Lessons from using
participatory action research to enhance farmer-led research and extension in
Southwestern Uganda. African Highlands Initiative. Working Paper No. 3. World
Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi Kenya.
Orodho AB. 2006. The role and importance of Napier grass in the stallholder dairy industry in Kenya. FAO Waicnet information. Rome, Italy. Pretty NJ and Hine R. 2001. Reducing food poverty with sustainable agriculture production and the environment. A summary of new evidence. Final report of the “SAFE-World” Research Project. Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex, Colchester UK. Quizon JB, Feder G and Murgai R. 2001. Fiscal Sustainability of Agricultural Extension:
The Case of The Farmer Field School Approach. Journal of International Agricultural and
Extension Education 8(1): 13-23
Rees D, Momanyi M, Wekundah FN, Odondi J, Oyure AO, Andima D, Kamau M, Ndubi J, Musembi F, Mwaura L and Joldersma R.2000. Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems in Kenya - Implications for Technology Dissemination and Development. Agricultural Research & Extension (AgREN). Network Paper. No.107.
Rivera WM and Alex G (eds). 2005. Extension reform for rural development: Case studies of
international initiatives. Vols. 1–5. Washington, D.C: World Bank and United States
Agency for International Development.
Scarborough V, Killough S, Johnson D and Farrington J. 1997. Farmer-led extension:
Concepts and practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Silimperi D, Franco LM, Zanten van TV and Macaulay C. 2002. A framework for institutionalizing quality assurance. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 14 (suppl_1): 67-73.
39
Ssemakula E and Mutimba JK. 2011. Effectiveness of the farmer-to-farmer Extension Model in Increasing Technology Uptake in Masaka and Tororo Districts of Uganda. African Journal of Agricultural Extension 39 (2): 30–46.
Tiwari KP. 2012. IPM-FFS Institutionalization in Nepal: A case study. Journal of Agricultural and Environment 13:20-21. Wellard K, Rafanomezana J Nyirenda M, Okotel M and Subbey V. 2013. A Review of Community Extension Approaches to Innovation for Improved Livelihoods in Ghana, Uganda and Malawi. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 19 (1): 21–35. Wiseman E. 2007. The institutionalization of organizational learning: A neo-institutional perspective. Proceedings of OLKC 2007-Learning Fusion.
40
Annex 1 Participants list
Kabiyet FGD Participants
Name Phone number Gender Position
1. Daniel Koech 0724878166 M VFT
2. Elizabeth Chelel 0720206653 F VFT
3. Caleb Bett 0717095239 M VFT
4. Aziz Kosgei 0726806283 M VFT
5. Vincent Sang 0711141051 M PO extension staff
Kapcheno FGD Participants
Name Phone number Gender Position
6. Joseph Mitei 0716395377 M VFT
7. John Chepkwony 0711504023 M VFT
8. Emilia Koros - F VFT
9. Naomi Mitei 0711898072 F VFT
10. Amina Tuwei 0725212037 F VFT
11. Romana Cheroboi 0725223096 F VFT
12. Emmanuel Serem 0728081650 M VFT
13. Kiplang’at Mengich - M VFT
14. Vincent Too 0710566275 M VFT
15. Obadiah Maiyo 0728453550 M VFT
16. Mathew Bungei 0707451194 M VFT
17. Charles Rotich 0729058634 M VFT
Sot FGD Participants
Name Phone number Gender Position
18. Johnstone Lang’at 0728964934 M VFT
19. Kirui Geoffrey 0720326489 M PO extension staff
20. Michael Kones 0723277403 M PO extension staff
21. Langat Hassan 0702102278 M PO extension staff
22. Ngeno Eric 0712065112 M PO extension staff
23. Langat Robert 0729862271 M PO extension staff
24. Koech Paul 0728127500 M VFT
25. Enoch Kibet 0700817042 M PO extension staff
41
26. James Mosonik 0726775182 M VFT
27. Julius Kones 0728057237 M VFT
28. Janet Tuiya 0707827990 F VFT
29. Bernard Koech 0715746472 M VFT
30. Margaret Bore 0728464913 F VFT
31. Christopher Koech 0723515551 M PO extension staff
32. Nancy Chepkemoi 0717645670 F PO extension staff
33. Yaban Simon 0729967911 M PO extension staff
34. Norah Koech 0726558181 F VFT
35. Rose Koech 0712464965 F VFT
36. Rose Sigilai 0721339468 F VFT
37. William Tololwo 0710017966 F VFT
Participants in Lelchego FGD
Name Phone number Gender Position
38. Macmillan Tanui 0724141950 M VFT
39. Eliud Lagat 0714740621 M VFT
40. Grace Chepkemoi 0726261895 F VFT
41. Ruth Kosgei 0722588519 F VFT
42. Francis Kirongo 0736685443 M VFT
43. Abraham Lagat 0724128239 M VFT
44. Korir Enock 0728254281 M PO extension staff
45. Mark Keino 0717285208 M VFT