Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T21:22:22.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commercial channels vs free distribution and screening of agricultural learning videos: A case study from Benin and Mali

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2020

Gérard C. Zoundji Open the ORCID record for Gérard C. Zoundji [Opens in a new window] ,
Florent Okry ,
Simplice D. Vodouhê ,
Jeffery W. Bentley  and
Loes Witteveen
Gérard C. Zoundji*
Affiliation:
National University of Agriculture, Benin, 081 BP 7145 Cotonou, Benin
Florent Okry
Affiliation:
National University of Agriculture, Benin, 081 BP 7145 Cotonou, Benin Access Agriculture, 04BP282 Cotonou, Benin
Simplice D. Vodouhê
Affiliation:
University of Abomey-Calavi, 01 B.P 526 Cotonou, Benin
Jeffery W. Bentley
Affiliation:
Access Agriculture, Casilla 2695, Cochabamba, Bolivia
Loes Witteveen
Affiliation:
Communication, Participation & Social Ecological Learning, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 9001, 6880 GB Velp, The Netherlands Environmental Policy Group, Wageningen University, P.O. 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. Emails: gezoundji@yahoo.fr; zoundjig@postgrad.unu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Farmers’ access to reliable information is crucial to improving rural livelihoods, food security, and national economies in West Africa. This paper discusses the dynamics of accessing and using agricultural learning videos from commercial channels, vs project and non-project channels in Benin and Mali. Using combinations of different models to assess the effectiveness of agricultural extension programs, the findings showed that farmers were motivated to pay for videos and watch them by themselves, without facilitation. Farmers who watched the videos through project support have also continued to watch on their own if the videos are of interest to them. Nevertheless, farmers were less motivated in the learning process when they received the Digital Video Disc (DVD) free and without support to watch them. We also found that the distribution of learning videos through commercial channels reaches more serious users and increases farmers’ self-determination for learning, and farmers are more motivated to provide feedback than viewers who receive DVDs for free or via project support, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), or farmer organizations. Although buying a DVD is an individual action, they like to watch the videos in groups. After buying the DVD, about 43% of respondent borrowed DVD players and one person in five bought a DVD player to watch the videos. Efforts to promote improved technologies need to expand beyond the conventional focus on research and extension services. Support to agricultural technology dissemination must go beyond assistance to smallholder farmers and NGOs (practical implication). As the private sector has a role to play, both in making technologies available and in teaching farmers how to use them, their contribution would create space for innovation (theoretical implication). Our findings suggest that successful development intervention programs can be sell audiovisual material to farmers, who will use it proactively.

Keywords

Agricultural learning videoFood securityDevelopment intervention programs

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 544 - 560
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adégbola, Y. P. and Singbo, A. G. (2001). Analyse socio-économique de la filière des biopesticides en cultures maraîchères au Bénin. Benin: PAPA/INRAB et IITA-Cotonou, 1–30.Google Scholar
Amudavi, D. M., Khan, Z. R., Wanyama, J. M., Midega, C. A. O., Pittchar, J. and Nyangau, I. M. (2009). Assessment of technical efficiency of farmer teachers in the uptake and dissemination of push-pull technology in Western Kenya. Crop Protection 28, 987–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axinn, H. G. (1997). Challenges to agricultural extension in the twenty first century. In Scarborough, V., Killough, S., Johnson, D.A. and Farrington, J. (eds), Farmer-led extension: Concepts and practices. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.Google Scholar
Bentley, J., Chowdhury, A. and David, S. (2015). Videos for Agricultural Extension. Note 6.GFRAS Good Practice Note for Extension and Advisory Services.Google Scholar
Bentley, J., Van Mele, P. and Musimami, G. (2013). The Mud on Their Legs-Farmer to Farmer Videos in Uganda. MEAS Case Study, 3. UASID and Agro-Insight.Google Scholar
Bentley, J. W. (2009). Impact of IPM extension for smallholder farmers in the tropics. In Peshin, R. R. and Dhawan, A. K. (eds), Integrated pest management: dissemination and impact. New York: Springer, 333–346.Google Scholar
Bentley, J. W., Van Mele, P., Touré, S., van Mourik, T., Guindo, S. and Zoundji, G. (2017). Seeds of the devil weed. Local knowledge and learning from videos in Mali. Chapter 7. In Sillitoe, P. (ed), Indigenous knowledge: Enhancing its contribution to natural resources management. Wallingford, UK: CABI.Google Scholar
Bokusheva, R., Finger, R., Fischler, M., Berlin, R., Marin, Y., Pérez, F. and Paiz, F. (2012). Factors determining the adoption and impact of a postharvest storage technology. Food Security 4, 279–293, doi: 10.1007/s12571-012-0184-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chianca, T. (2008). The OECD/DAC Criteria for International Development Evaluations: An Assessment and Ideas for Improvement. Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Evaluation 5, 9. ISSN 1556-8180.Google Scholar
Dart, J., Petheram, R. J. and Straw, W. (1998). Review of Evaluation in Agricultural Extension. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Human Capital, Communications and Information Systems Research and Development. RIRDC Publication No. 98/136.Google Scholar
David, S. and Asamoah, C. (2011). The impact of farmer field schools on human and social capital: a case study from Ghana. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 17, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, K. (2006). Farmer field schools: A boon or bust for extension in Africa. Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 13.Google Scholar
Davis, K. E. (2008). Extension in Sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and assessment of past and current models, and future prospects. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 15, 15–28.Google Scholar
Davito, T., Okry, F., Kouevi, A. and Vodouhê, S. (2017). Efficacité comparée de trois méthodes de diffusion d’informations rizicoles par des vidéos au Sud du Bénin. Cahiers Agricultures 26, 65003. doi.org/10.1051/cagri/2017053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Defoer, T. (2002). Learning about methodology development for integrated soil fertility management. Agricultural Systems 73, 57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2017). Inclusive rural communication services – Building evidence, informing policy. Rome: FAO, 101 pp.Google Scholar
Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. (2006). Framework for African agricultural productivity/Cadre pour la productivité agricole en Afrique. Accra, Ghana: Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA). Google Scholar
Funnell, S. C. and Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful programme theory: Effective use of logic models and theories of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Goe, L., Bell, C. and Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness, A research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.Google Scholar
Hellin, J. and Dixon, J. (2008). Operationalizing participatory research and farmer-to-farmer extension: The Kamayoq in Peru. Development in Practice 18, 627–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid-Tropics. (2009). Food security and diversification in the drylands, Annual report 2009.Google Scholar
International Renewable Energy Agency (2019). Renewables readiness assessment: Mali. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). Google Scholar
Karuhanga, M., Kiptot, E. & Franzel, S. (2012). The effectiveness of the farmer trainers approach in technology dissemination in the East Africa Dairy Development project in Uganda: A study of volunteer farmer trainers. Nairobi, Kenya: East Africa Dairy Development Project.Google Scholar
Kemp, S. (2005). Principles of Microeconomics Study Guide, 3rd edition. Nelson Thomson Publishers.Google Scholar
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. Agric Hum Values 31, 231–243. doi 10.1007/s10460-013-9463-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lie, R. and Mandler, A. (2009). Video in development: Filming for rural change. FAO, CTA and Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Moumouni, I. M. and Streiffeler, F. (2010). Understanding the motivation of farmers in financing agricultural research and extension in Benin. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 49, 47–68.Google Scholar
Nathaniels, N. Q. R. (2005). Cowpea, farmer field schools and farmer-to-farmer extension: a Benin case study. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 148, ISBN 0 85003 760 3.Google Scholar
Okry, F., Van Mele, P. and Houinsou, F. (2014). Forging new partnerships: lessons from the dissemination of agricultural training videos in Benin. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). Adoption of technologies for sustainable farming systems. Workshop Proceedings, 4-7 July 2000. Wageningen, Netherlands: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).Google Scholar
Pye-Smith, C. (2012). Agricultural extension: A time for change. Linking knowledge to policy and action for food and livelihoods. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU.Google Scholar
Shampanier, K., Mazar, N. and Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: the true value of free products. Marketing Science 26, 742–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulimwengu, J. and Sanyal, P. (2011). Joint Estimation of Farmers’ Stated Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Services. The International Food Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper 01070.Google Scholar
USAID. (2011). Région de Mopti: étude sur les bassins de production des spéculations céréalières de la région de Mopti.Google Scholar
Van Mele, P. (2006). Zooming-in, zooming-out: a novel method to scale up local innovations and sustainable technologies. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 4, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Mele, P., Bentley, J., Harun-ar-Rashid, Md., Okry, F. and van Mourik, T. (2016). Letting information flow: distributing farmer training videos through existing networks. Indian Journal of Ecology 43, 545–551.Google Scholar
Van Mele, P., Wanvoeke, J. and Zossou, E. (2010). Enhancing rural learning, linkages and institutions: the rice videos in Africa. Development in Practice 20, 414–421. doi: 10.1080/09614521003710021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wantchekon, L. (2011). Deliberative Electoral Campaigns and Transition from Clientelism: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin. Working Paper. Princeton University.Google Scholar
Wanvoeke, J., Venot, J. P., Zwarteveen, M. and de Fraiture, C. (2015). Performing the success of an innovation: case of smallholder drip irrigation in Burkina Faso. Water International 40, 432–445. doi: 10.1080/02508060.2015.1010364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witteveen, L. (2009). The voice of the visual, visual learning strategies for problem analysis, social dialogue and mediated participation. Delft: Eburon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witteveen, L. and Lie, R. (2012). Learning about “wicked” problems in the Global South. Creating a film-based learning environment with “Visual Problem Appraisal”. Journal of Media and Communication Research. ISSN 1901-9726.Google Scholar
World Bank. (2007). Enhancing agricultural innovation: how to go beyond the strengthening of research systems. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank.Google Scholar
World Bank. (2012). Africa can help feed Africa: removing barriers to regional trade in food staples, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unity, Africa Region.Google Scholar
World Bank (2019). Benin digital rural transformation project. Washington, DC: Project document, World Bank.Google Scholar
Zossou, E., Aminou, A., Diagne, A. and Agboh-Noameshie, R. (2016). Gender gap in acquisition and practice of agricultural knowledge: case study of rice farming in West Africa. Experimental Agriculture 53, 566–577. doi: 10.1017/S0014479716000582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zossou, E., Van Mele, P., Wanvoeke, J. and Lebailly, P. (2012). Participatory impact assessment of rice parboiling videos with women in Benin. Experimental Agriculture 48, 438–447. doi: 10.1017/S0014479712000117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoundji, C. G., Okry, F., Vodouhê, S. D. and Bentley, J. W. (2016). The distribution of farmer learning videos: Lessons from non-conventional dissemination networks in Benin. Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016) 2, 1277838. doi: 10.1080/23311932.2016.1277838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zoundji, C. G., Okry, F., Vodouhê, S. D. and Bentley, J. W. (2018). Towards sustainable vegetable growing with farmer learning videos in Benin. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 16, 54–63, doi: 10.1080/14735903.2018.1428393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar