Factors affecting lead farmers in facilitating conservation agriculture practices in Kalira Extension Planning Area in Ntchisi District, Malawi
Daniel Matemba
1
(Department of Agri-Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Mzuzu University, Private Bag 201, Luwinga, Mzuzu, Malawi.)
Dalo Njera
2
(Department of Forestry and Environmental Management, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Mzuzu University, Private Bag 201, Luwinga, Mzuzu, Malawi.)
Keywords: Lead Farmers, Conservation Agriculture Practices, Extension agents, Malawi,
Abstract :
This study explores the factors influencing Lead Farmers (LFs) in facilitating Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices in Malawi through the Lead Farmer Approach (LFA). LFA involves training individual farmers in smart agricultural practices, making them key agents for disseminating new technologies. The research, conducted in the Ntchisi district, employs a mixed-method design combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. The study's methodology involves surveys and focus group discussions with 394 follower farmers and 104 lead farmers. Logistic regression analysis explores factors such as age, gender, education, support from extension agents, time for farming, access to transportation, incentives, and depletion of own resources. Results indicate that access to support from extension agents, access to transportation, and depletion of own resources significantly influence the facilitation of CA practices by LFs. Lack of support or transportation acts as a hindrance, while resource depletion decreases the likelihood of considering LFA a viable approach. The study emphasises the importance of external support, transportation infrastructure, and resource availability in empowering LFs to promote CA effectively. The findings contribute to the understanding of the complex dynamics influencing the success of CA practices facilitated by LFs. The study recommends targeted interventions to enhance LF capacity and suggests further research on gender dynamics in CA facilitation, especially in regions with traditional gender roles. Overall, this research provides valuable insights for government and development agencies working towards sustainable agricultural and rural development in Malawi.
Abstract
This study explores the factors influencing Lead Farmers (LFs) in facilitating Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices in Malawi through the Lead Farmer Approach (LFA). LFA involves training individual farmers in smart agricultural practices, making them key agents for disseminating new technologies. The research, conducted in the Ntchisi district, employs a mixed-method design combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. The study's methodology involves surveys and focus group discussions with 394 follower farmers and 104 lead farmers. Logistic regression analysis explores factors such as age, gender, education, support from extension agents, time for farming, access to transportation, incentives, and depletion of own resources. Results indicate that access to support from extension agents, access to transportation, and depletion of own resources significantly influence the facilitation of CA practices by LFs. Lack of support or transportation acts as a hindrance, while resource depletion decreases the likelihood of considering LFA a viable approach. The study emphasises the importance of external support, transportation infrastructure, and resource availability in empowering LFs to promote CA effectively. The findings contribute to the understanding of the complex dynamics influencing the success of CA practices facilitated by LFs. The study recommends targeted interventions to enhance LF capacity and suggests further research on gender dynamics in CA facilitation, especially in regions with traditional gender roles. Overall, this research provides valuable insights for government and development agencies working towards sustainable agricultural and rural development in Malawi.
Key words: Lead Farmer, Conservation Agriculture, Follower Farmer, Malawi
Introduction
Lead farmers (LF) have been a common feature of agriculture extension service strategies to diffuse new technology or practices among smallholder populations in the developing world (Okori et al., 2022). The Government of Malawi (GoM) defines LF as an individual farmer, trained in good and smart agricultural practices/technologies that are enterprise-specific (Bhatti et al., 2021). This agriculture extension approach is referred to as the lead farmer approach (LFA) and Osumba et al. (2021) asserts that the effective performance of a LF relies on technical support from subject matter specialists and frontline extension workers from public and private sector organisations. These institutions or organisations build the capacity of a LF through training, provision of resources, and technical backstopping. Local leaders and farming communities provide moral support and initiate mechanisms for rewarding a LF in their communities (Kahsay et al., 2023). Taylor and Bhasme (2018) reported that LFs envisaged to play a dual role. First, LFs provide an entry point into a community for the diffusion of a new practice or technology in agriculture. By creating observable field-level demonstrations to be witnessed in real-time by other farmers in the locality, LFs provide a practical example of the innovations and their purported benefits (Hermans et al., 2021). Second, LFs also play a direct educational role in which they instruct community members in the new technology and potentially help troubleshoot problems that arise in the implementation of such agriculture technologies. Finca et al. (2023) further explained that LFs, therefore, serve as community repository of knowledge while also helping to translate and embed an agricultural innovation into local contexts.
The Lead Farmer Approach (LFA) has become an important element of Malawi’s public agricultural extension system as a way to extend the reach of agricultural extension services in the face of limited budgets for employing more agricultural extension officers (Thobejane, 2022). The Government of Malawi currently works with more than 12,000 LFs country-wide who train and promote agricultural technologies, including conservation agriculture (CA) technologies/practices, through their networks of follower farmers (FF) and demonstrations (Fisher et al., 2018). National policy support is essential for effective and sustainable farmer-to-farmer extension (F2FE) programmes. In this whole process, having LFs that are motivated, knowledgeable in new technologies, and have good communication skills is very critical in improving agricultural production including CA (Ragasa, 2020).
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) defines CA as a climate-resilient technology and management system that has demonstrable potential to secure sustained productivity and livelihood improvements for millions of climate-dependent farmers (FAO, 2019). According to FAO (2019), in Africa, the simultaneous application of the three principles of CA namely; minimum tillage and soil disturbance, permanent soil cover and crop rotation and intercropping started recently and has emerged in several places, most notably in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Malawi. CA is promoted for the positive benefits of increased soil organic matter, improved soil water retention, Improved soil fertility, and increased crop yields (Gadzirayi et al., 2014). The introduction of CA aims at enhancing agriculture to achieve improved and sustained agricultural productivity, increased profits, and ensure food security, while preserving and enhancing the resource base, through the application of new agriculture technologies (FAO, 2019).
A study by Fisher et al. (2018) on awareness and adoption of CA in Malawi revealed that LFs play a more critical role in increasing awareness of the CA practices. Nakano et al. (2018) reviewed LFA in diffusing agriculture technologies in rice farming, and concluded that ordinary farmers who were a relative or residential neighbours of LFs were more likely to adopt new technologies than those who were not. As a result, while the LFA technology adoption rates rise immediately after the training, those of the non-trained FFs catch up belatedly (Nakano et al., 2018). Their results further suggest the effectiveness and practical potential of F2FE programs for smallholders in Sub-Sahara Africa as a cost-effective alternative to the conventional farmer training approach (Nakano et al., 2018). Nakano et al. (2018) agree with Chirwa et al. (2008) and Karuhanga et al. (2012) who reviewed the effectiveness of the LFA in technology dissemination in the East African Dairy Development Project in Uganda, and Chabata (2013) who looked at the effectiveness of the LFA in the dissemination of soil fertility management technologies in Zimbabwe. Despite the recorded success of LFA in the dissemination of technologies and the adoption of technologies by FFs particularly in rice farming, dairy cattle production, and soil fertility management technologies in Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe respectively. The approach has recorded a low or limited rate in CA practices practiced by FFs in Malawi (Fisher et al., 2018).
Studies (Chinseu et al., 2022; Ward, 2018; Franzel et al., 2015; Oyelami et al., 2018) conducted in Malawi have consistently demonstrated low rates of CA principles being practiced, despite the government's efforts, such as the development of the National Agriculture Policy of 2016, aimed at promoting the application of LFA as a strategy for enhancing effective and sustainable agriculture production. While the literature extensively documents the role of LFAs in promoting CA (Franzel et al., 2014; Khaila et al., 2015). Other studies (Fisher et al., 2018; Ragasa, 2020) has revealed that LFs not only organize community meetings and raise awareness about CA but also play a crucial role in facilitating its adoption. However, a comprehensive understanding of their contribution beyond meetings and awareness creation is necessary. Therefore, this study was conducted to assess Factors affecting LFs in facilitating CA practices. The significance of this research lies not only in documenting its findings for future reference but also in contributing to the existing body of literature. Furthermore, it serves as a foundation for exploring how cultural factors influence the role played by LFAs in facilitating CA. The anticipated outcomes of this research are expected to provide valuable insights for government and development agencies working towards agricultural and rural development. Additionally, the study's findings are envisaged to inform and enhance the implementation of LFAs in promoting CA.
Results
Table 1: Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Step | Chi-square | Df | Sig. |
1 | 6.671 | 8 | .573 |
For the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test, the poor fit is indicated by a significant value less than .05, so to support the model there is a need for a value greater than .05 (Pallant, 2010). The results in Table 1 show that the chi-square value for the Hosmer-Lemeshow Test is 6.671 with a significant level of .573. This value is larger than .05. Therefore, indicating support for the model. Hosmer and Lemeshow Test supports the model as being reliable in identifying the predictor variables.
Results for the various predictor and contributory variables are shown in Table 2. Access to support from extension agents (p<.033), Access to Transportation (p<.033), and depletion of own resources (p<.060) influenced the facilitation of CA practices through LFA.
Table 2: Variables in the logistic regression equation
B | SE | Wald | Sig. | Exp(B) | 95% C.I. for Exp(B) | |||
Lower | Upper | |||||||
| Age | -.689 | 1.327 | .270 | .603 | .502 | .037 | 6.765 |
Gender | 1.408 | 2.758 | .261 | .610 | 4.410 | .162 | 119.899 | |
Education | .376 | .344 | 1.195 | .274 | 1.456 | .742 | 2.854 | |
Access to support from extension agents | 3.974 | 1.866 | 4.537 | .033** | 53.183 | 1.373 | 2059.933 | |
Time for own farming | .925 | 1.457 | .403 | .525 | 2.523 | .145 | 43.881 | |
Access to incentives | .063 | 1.495 | .002 | .967 | 1.065 | .057 | 19.934 | |
Access to Transportation | 3.013 | 1.413 | 4.547 | .033** | 20.358 | 1.276 | 324.802 | |
Depletion of own resources | -2.502 | 1.331 | 3.532 | .060* | 0.82 | .006 | 1.113 | |
**Significant at 5% *Significant at 10% |
Factors affecting lead farmers in facilitating CA practices
The study considered factors that affect LFs in facilitating CA practices. Factors under consideration included age, gender, education, access to support from extension agents, time for own farming, access to transportation, access to incentives, and depletion of own resources. The analysis of these factors was performed through Logistic regression analysis. The results (Table 2) indicated that Access to support from extension agents, access to transport, and depletion of own resources were significant.
The significance of access to support from extension agents to LFs implies that it increases the likelihood of LFs considering LFA as a good way to use of facilitating CA practices. Access to support from extension agents means that the LFs will work efficiently in facilitating CA thereby considering LFA as a good approach. However, lack of support from extension agents will make LFs not to efficiently render LFA not a good approach to use in facilitating CA practices. This, therefore, means that, LFs need to have access to extension agents as this would help LFs to be seeking clarification on matters that they find difficult to handle as also reported by Oyelami et al. (2018). The results agree Lee et al. (2023) who reported on the importance of agriculture extension and Franzel et al. (2015) who reported that a limited number of extension staff have been stationed at Extension Planning Areas to provide technical advice to farmers. At the same time, LFs have been identified and trained in the villages to address basic issues at the local level as also reported by (Mbanze et al., 2020). For complicated issues requiring technical advice, the LFs report to extension staff. This shows that LFs are mostly affected by support from extension agents in facilitating CA practices.
The significance of depletion of own resources by LFs implies that it decreases the likelihood of LFs to consider LFA as a good approach. This is because using its own resources for facilitating CA practices would make it costly for the LFs rendering LFA as not a good approach. However, the provision of resources to LFs to use in facilitating LFA would act as a motivating factor for a LFs to facilitate CA practices through LFA as also discussed by Ochieng et al. (2022). This, therefore, means that LFs need to be provided with resources to use for facilitating CA practices through LFA. The current study agrees with Ward et al. (2018) who reported that LFs with supported resources positively influence familiarity and promotion of herbicides use, mulching, and organic manure and adoption of minimum tillage and mulching. This shows that LFs are mostly affected by the depletion of their own resources in facilitating CA practices.
Age, gender, and time for own farming were not significant. However, it was expected that aged LFs would not consider LFA as a good approach due to the lack of physical strength that may be needed when implementing LFA. Nyathi et al. (2020) reported that difficulties that come with age, such as being weak and not being able to work as hard as previously are the reasons that affect agriculture innovations to be implemented since most technologies require energy. Time for own farming was expected to influence the LFs to consider LFA as a good approach if the LFs is left with enough time to do his or her own farming as also reported by Ragasa (2020). Therefore, less time for farming would decrease the likelihood of the farmer considering LFA as good approach. On Gender, it was expected that being male or female LFs would have an influence on the consideration of LFA as a good approach if the LFs face resistance from FFs of the opposite gender when facilitating CA. Therefore, the gender of LFs would either increase or decrease the likelihood of the LFs to consider LFA as a good approach. A study by Tsafack et al. (2015) reported that female operators in agriculture technologies were found to be 28 percent less productive than their male counterparts. This shows that LFs are mostly affected by Age, gender, and time for own farming in facilitating CA practices.
Conclusion
The study investigated the factors influencing Lead Farmers (LFs) in facilitating Conservation Agriculture (CA) practices, employing a Logit regression model. The results revealed that access to support from extension agents, access to transportation, and depletion of own resources significantly influenced the facilitation of CA practices through LFA. These findings emphasise the importance of external support, transportation infrastructure, and resource availability in empowering LFs to effectively promote CA practices. The study's robustness was confirmed through the Hosmer-Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test, demonstrating the reliability of the model in identifying predictor variables. The identified factors shed light on the intricate dynamics that impact the success of CA practices facilitated by LFs. The results emphasize the need for targeted interventions and support systems to enhance the capacity of LFs in promoting sustainable agricultural practices. While this study provides valuable insights into the factors influencing LFs in facilitating CA practices, there are additional areas that warrant further investigation. One promising avenue for future research is an in-depth exploration of the role of gender dynamics in the context of CA facilitation by LFs. The study indicated that gender did not emerge as a significant factor, but a more nuanced examination of how gender influences interactions between LFs and farmers, especially in regions where traditional gender roles may persist, could provide valuable insights.
Reference
Bhatti, M. A., Godfrey, S. S., Ip, R. H. L., Kachiwala, C., Hovdhaugen, H., Banda, L. J., Limuwa, M., Wynn, P. C., Ådnøy, T., & Eik, L. O. (2021). Diversity of Sources of Income for Smallholder Farming Communities in Malawi: Importance for Improved Livelihood. Sustainability, 13(17), 9599. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179599
Chabata, I. & de Wolf, J. (2012) 'The Lead Farmer Approach: An effective way of agricultural technology dissemination?', International Centre Tropical Agriculture. Available at: https://www.cgiar.ciat.org
Chinseu, E. L., Dougill, A. J., & Stringer, L. C. (2022). Strengthening Conservation Agriculture innovation systems in sub-Saharan Africa: lessons from a stakeholder analysis. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 20(1), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1911511
Chirwa, E. W., Kumwenda, I., Jumbe C., Chilonda, P., & Minde I. (2008). Agricultural growth and poverty reduction in Malawi: past performance and recent trends. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System. (ReSAKSS) Working Paper No. 8. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), 41. Available at: http://www.sa.resakss.org
Finca, A., Linnane, S., Slinger, J., Getty, D., & IgshaanSamuels, M. (2023). Implications of the breakdown in the indigenous knowledge system for rangeland management and policy: a case study from the Eastern Cape in South Africa. African Journal of Range & Forage Science, 40(1), 47-61. https://doi.org/10.2989/10220119.2022.2138973
Fisher, M., Holden, S. T., Thierfelder, C., & Katengeza, S. P. (2018). Awareness and adoption of conservation agriculture in Malawi: what difference can farmer-to-farmer extension make? International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 16(3), 310-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1472411
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. (2019). Conservation Agriculture Training guide for extension agents and farmers in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Franzel, S., Degrande, A. Kiptot, E., Kirui, J., Kugonza, J., Preissing, J., & Simpson, B. (2015) 'Farmer-to-Farmer Extension', Note 7, GFRAS Good Practice Notes for Extension and Advisory Services. GFRAS: Lindau, Switzerland, 1–56.
Gadzirayi, C. T., Mafuse, N., & Munyati, V. (2014). Enhancing Farmer Productive Capacity: Case of Action Research Based Conservation Agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Science, Research and Technology in Extension and Education Systems, 4(2), 93-97.
Hermans, T. D. G., Whitfield, S., Dougill, A. J., & Thierfelder, C. (2021). Why we should rethink ‘adoption’ in agricultural innovation: Empirical insights from Malawi. Land Degradation & Development, 32(4), 1809-1820. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3833
Kahsay, G. A., Bulte, E., Alpizar, F., Hansen, L. G., & Medhin, H. (2023). Leadership accountability in community-based forest management: experimental evidence in support of governmental oversight. Ecology and Society, 28(4), 20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14469-280420
Karuhanga, M., Kiptot, E., & Franzel, S. (2012) ‘The effectiveness of the farmer trainers’ approach in technology dissemination in the East African dairy development project in Uganda: A study of volunteer farmer trainers. Uganda: University of Uganda.
Khaila, S., Tchuwa, F., Franzel, S., & Simpson, S. (2015). The Farmer-to-Farmer Extension Approach in Malawi: A Survey of Lead Farmers. Nairobi. World Agroforestry Centre, 1–17.
Lee, H.B., McNamara, P.E. & Ho, H. Road accessibility and agricultural extension services in Malawi. Agric & Food Secur 12, 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-023-00410-y
Mbanze, A., Viera da Silva, C., Ribeiro, N. S., Silva, J. F., & Lima Santos, J. (2020). A Livelihood and Farming System approach for effective conservation policies in Protected Areas of Developing Countries: The case study of the Niassa National Reserve in Mozambique. Land Use Policy, 99, 105056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105056
Nakano, Y., Tsusaka, T. W., Aida, T., & Pede, V. O. (2018). Is farmer-to-farmer extension effective? The impact of training on technology adoption and rice farming productivity in Tanzania. World Development, 105, 23–37.
Nyathi, P., Moyo, T., Posthumus, H., & Stevens, J. (2020) ‘Impact of Social and Institutional Factors on the Uptake of Conservation Agriculture: A Case of Zambia and Zimbabwe’, Sustainable Agriculture Research, 9, 67. doi:10.5539/sar.v9n1p67.
Ochieng, W., Silvert, C. J., & Diaz, J. (2022). Exploring the Impacts of Lead Farmer Selection on Community Social Learning: The case of Farmer-to-Farmer Model: A Review of Literature. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 29(3), 7-31. https://doi.org/10.4148/2831-5960.1022
Okori, P., Munthali, W., Msere, H. (2022). Improving efficiency of knowledge and technology diffusion using community seed banks and farmer-to-farmer extension: experiences from Malawi. Agriculture & Food Security, 11(1), 38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00375-4
Osumba, J. J. L., Recha, J. W., & Oroma, G. W. (2021). Transforming Agricultural Extension Service Delivery through Innovative Bottom–Up Climate-Resilient Agribusiness Farmer Field Schools. Sustainability, 13(7), 3938. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073938
Oyelami, B., Akinwale, J., & Ladele, A. (2018). Lead farmer extension approach and sustainable extension service delivery in Oyo State, Nigeria. Contemporary Agriculture, 233. https://doi.org/10.1515/contagri-2018-0034
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: a step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS. Maidenhead, Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.
Ragasa, C. (2020). Effectiveness of the lead farmer approach in agricultural extension service provision: Nationally representative panel data analysis in Malawi. Land Use Policy, 99, 104966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104966
Taylor, M., & Bhasme, S. (2018) Model farmers extension networks and the politics of agricultural knowledge transfer. Elsevier Ltd, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.09.015. [Accessed on 30/12/2021].
Thobejane, M. K. (2022). The Impact of Empowering Women Farmers Towards Sustainable Agriculture in the Gauteng Province of South Africa (Doctoral dissertation). University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Department of Sustainable Food System and Development, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences.
Tsafack, S., Degrande, A., Franzel, S., & Simpson, B. (2015) ' Farmer-to-farmer extension: 'a survey of lead farmers in Cameroon. Nairobi. World Agroforestry Centre, https://doi.org/10.5716/WP15009.PDF. [Accessed on 10/04/2019].
Ward, P. S., Bell, A. R., Droppelmann, K., & Benton, T. G. (2018). Early adoption of conservation agriculture practices: understanding partial compliance in programs with multiple adoption decisions. Land Use Policy, 70, 27–37.