Modeling the Effectiveness of the Lead Farmer Approach in Agricultural Extension Service: Nationally-representative Panel Data Analysis

Lead farmers (LF), also known as contact or model farmers, have been part of most extension models for decades. In the past, LF approaches have been criticized for the selection of richer and progressive farmers, as well as for limited productivity and development impact. More recently, a revived LF approach has contributed to new farmer trainers, who are more representative of the community, with closer ties to social networks, motivated volunteers, and are voted for and chosen by participatory processes within the community. So, how effective is this lead farmer approach in delivering agricultural extension services?

The Department of Agriculture Extension Services (DAES) defines lead farmers as: "individual farmers (male and female) who have been elected by the village to voluntarily assist in the delivery of a maximum of three good practices/technologies that are enterprise specific and are trained in those technologies." (DAES, National Lead Farmer Approach Guidelines, 2015). In Malawi, the lead farmer approach is implemented and heavily promoted nationwide to support government extension workers and accelerate technology dissemination. The LF approach has been widely adopted by most agricultural projects, indicating positive roles and contributions of LFs. However, national data show persistently low adoption of agricultural management practices being promoted by these LFs.

In our research seminar on February 27, 2019, Catherine Ragasa, Research Fellow at IFPRI Washington, DC, presented the results of an ongoing study, financed by the Government of Flanders. The study combines qualitative and quantitative data to assess the performance of LFs, in terms of their expected roles and functions and evaluate their effectiveness in bringing about technology awareness and adoption.

Data sources and methods

The study utilizes a range of qualitative and quantitative data that include:

1. Household and community surveys (nationally representative; 3,000 HH): July–September 2016 and July–September 2018
2. Census of state and non-state extension service providers in 15 districts: December 2016–March 2017
3. In-depth interviews with 30 service providers and 71 extension workers: December 2016–March 2017
4. Focus group discussions (55 FGDs total) in January/February 2017 and January/February 2019
5. In-depth interviews with 531 LFs, of which, about 20 percent are female LFs.

The research team used quantitative methods to control for non-exposure bias, non-random program placement, selection bias, and unobserved heterogeneity issues. This was done by employing a two-step process which models adoption conditional on awareness. Alternative estimation methods were used to check for consistency and robustness of results.

Key findings of the study

The results of the study show that LFs assist Agricultural Extension Development Officers (AEDOs) in their work. They are also an important bridge between farmers and AEDOs. However, the study team found limited coverage, as well as weak implementation and low effectiveness, of the current LF approach in Malawi. Only 13 percent of farmers reported having received agricultural advice from LFs in the last two years, while 7 percent reported receiving advice in the last 12 months. The study found that access among farming households to agriculture advice within the last 2 years is mainly from AEDO/AEDC (56 percent of HHs reporting), followed by radio (40 percent), NGO extension worker (29 percent), and other farmers/friends (24 percent). Radio programming, followed by community or group meetings, and face-to-face visits from agents were the most mentioned methods for accessing extension services. But only 20 percent of farmers reported having interacted with any LF.

The econometric models consistently show that the presence of LFs in a community or farmers’ interaction with LFs has no effect on awareness and adoption of almost all major agricultural management practices being promoted. The study found that while respondents were satisfied with the quality of LF, exposure or access to LFs is not associated with greater awareness and adoption of technologies. However quality of LFs, adoption behaviour by LFs, and regular training received by LFs are associated with greater awareness and adoption of technologies.

The study also investigated the challenges faced by LFs and potential solutions to those challenges. Challenges mentioned by LFs included: lack of cooperation from other farmers (90 percent); lack of transportation or mobility (52 percent); depletion of own resources (24 percent); lack of support from extension agents (19 percent); less time for own farming (14 percent); and lack of cooperation from village head (19 percent). As potential solutions, LFs mentioned: (1) more support from extension agents (51 percent); (2) support from local leaders (47 percent); (3) support from community and other farmers (44 percent), and, more incentives (35 percent).

By comparing training and support given and monitoring of lead farmers by an NGO project and government program through AEDOs in Dowa district, the study found that the LF work and are active only if there is a project.

Conclusions

1. LFs play an important role as information bridge between farmers (demand) and extension workers and service providers (supply).
2. LFs play a crucial role in supporting and assisting AEDO’s activities in the communities. This includes farm demonstrations and community and group meetings.
3. However, the coverage or interaction with farmers is limited (only reaching up to 20 percent of households nationwide).
4. LFs cannot fill the gaps or areas where AEDOs are absent or not active. LFs complement AEDO’s work, rather than substitute it.
5. Characteristics of LFs are different from those of average farmers in the community, this is because some LFs are still being selected by AEDO or chief head.
6. There is no statistical association between farmers’ exposure, access to, and interactions with LFs and their awareness and adoption of agricultural technologies.
7. Access to quality LFs, adoption behaviour of LFs, and regular training received by LFs have strong and consistent effects on awareness and adoption of most technologies promoted.

Ragasa concluded her presentation by outlining four implications of the study:

1. Regular training: LFs need training and retraining on LF concepts, communication, and agricultural management systems.
2. Ensuring selection of quality of LF: To ensure inclusive and quality of participation in the selection process, greater sensitization of and ownership by communities of the LF approach is needed.
3. Maintaining and incentivizing quality LFs: To do their work effectively and sustainably LFs need support from AEDOs, community and local leaders, and other service providers.
4. Incentivizing adoption behavior of LFs: Only a few LFs are already adopting the technologies that they are meant to promote. In order to meet different local contexts, the study recommends revisiting the appropriateness of the technologies promoted.

The seminar presentation is available below.