This document summarizes a study on the impact of demonstration plots and contact farmers on the adoption of sustainable land management (SLM) practices in Mozambique. The study found that assigning female contact farmers (FCFs) who conducted demonstration plots increased both women's and men's knowledge of SLM practices as well as women's adoption of these practices. While male contact farmers (MCFs) appeared to have no significant effect, there was some evidence that male farmers learned from other male peers. The study is being followed up to further explore factors like labor constraints and the roles and relationships between contact farmers.

1. Seeing is Believing? Evidence from a
Demonstration Plot Experiment in
Mozambique
Florence Kondylis
Valerie Mueller (Presenter)
IFPRI Workshop
Mozambique Strategy and Support Program
October 18, 2012
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 1

2. Motivation
 Extension services used to disseminate ag
information
• Quality of information
• Lack of administrative-field work balance
• Source of information is important
• Women lack access
 Contact Farmers (Moz and elsewhere)
• Link extension workers to farmers
• Low knowledge-high transaction costs
• Need clear set of activities to encourage visits
from extensionist and improve CF knowledge
2

3. IE of Extension Activities within
Smallholders’ Project
 Educational agenda for extension agents—
SLM (mulching, crop rotation, intercropping, reduced tillage,
micro-basins, contour farming, row planting, and improved
fallowing)
 Improve quality of information by training
both agents and CFs (October 2010)
 Reduce transactional costs associated with CF
knowledge transfer
• Demonstration plot within the community
• Toolkit which includes bicycle
 Increase access to women—female CF
3

4. Evaluation Design
 Market-led Smallholders Development in the
Zambezi valley Project—GOM & World Bank
 Census of communities in five districts of
Tete, Sofala, and Zambezia provinces
 Census of 200 communities to randomize
• 50 communities into control group
• 150 communities have male CF with training
and demonstration plot
• 75 (of 150) also have a female CF with a
demonstration plot to reach women
4

5. Survey
 Pre and post-harvest survey in 2012 done by
INE (February-April & May-June)
 4,000 households in 200 communities
 Household demographics, male and female
knowledge of SLM and non-SLM practices,
labor allocation, employment, and income,
plot-specific info, and production
• GPS coordinates
• GPS measured adoption rates
 Community, extension, and CF surveys
5

6. Households in Smallholder Survey
6

7. Variation in Proximity to CFs
7

8. Similarity of CFs
2.5
2
1.5
Density
1
.5
0
-.5 0 .5 1
Soico-Economic Distance
Farmers in Treatment 1
Farmers in Treatment 2
Farmers in Control 1
8

9. Effects of Demonstration Plots
Yi,h,j=β0+β1MCFj+ β2FCFj+β3Xi,h,j+εi,h,j.
Y: Knowledge and Adoption
MCF: Has a male contact farmer (T1 and T2)
FCF: Has a female contact farmer (T2)
X: individual gender, age, grades completed,
marital status, number of children, number of
males and females by age categories, number
of rooms in the house, housing wall and roof
materials, average education of adults, total
landholdings, enumerator and ap dummies.
9

10. Knowledge and Adoption
Knowledge Self-reported SR Objective
Score Adoption No. of No. of
dummy SLM SLM
adopted adopted
All (N=6078) (N=5395) (N=5395) (N=5395)
MCF -0.001 -0.016 -0.037 -0.065
FCF 0.007 0.024 0.080* 0.081**
Mean 0.24 0.82 1.33 1.06
Females (N=3599) (N=3100) (N=3100) (N=3100)
MCF -0.000 -0.018 -0.026 -0.087*
FCF 0.009* 0.026 0.097** 0.108**
Mean 0.24 0.82 1.28 1.06
Males (N=2479) (N=2295) (N=2295) (N=2295)
MCF -0.001 -0.015 -0.046 -0.039
FCF 0.003 0.022 0.055 0.050
Mean 0.25 0.84 1.39 1.07 10

11. Source of SLM Learning
MCF FCF Extension
agent
All (N=5395)
MCF 0.009 0.006 -0.02*
FCF 0.022 0.037*** 0.03**
Mean 0.14 0.01 0.06
Females (N=3100)
MCF 0.007 0.006 -0.015
FCF 0.020 0.033*** 0.029***
Mean 0.12 0.01 0.04
Males (N=2295)
MCF 0.017 0.008 -0.030*
FCF 0.029 0.042*** 0.033
Mean 0.17 0.01 0.09
11

12. Learning Channels
 Distinctions in access attenuate MCF effect?
• Proximity to the house of male CF affects
knowledge
• Females far from male CF in T2 have reduced
knowledge
 Missing data from 2/3rds CFs
• Extension agents visit sites with FCF more?
 NO
• Intensity of Treatment varies by Treatment?
 Female contact farmers might have visited
farmers more

12

13. Peer teachers versus CFs
% adopted by Females Males
MCF -0.014 -0.042 -0.007 -0.033
FCF 0.029 -0.016 -0.051 0.105
Share of female peer teachers 0.998* 0.485
MCF*Share of female teachers 0.098 -0.173
FCF*Share of female teachers -0.392 0.631*
Share of male peer teachers -0.464 0.264
MCF*Share of male teachers 0.400 0.120
FCF*Share of male teachers 0.091 -0.728
13

14. Peer teachers versus CFs
Avg. SLM techniques Females Males
adopted
MCF 0.084 -0.352 -0.338 0.052
FCF 0.079 -0.228 -0.126 0.245
Share of female peer teachers 4.574 -1.356
MCF*Share of female teachers -1.373* 2.189
FCF*Share of female teachers -1.050 1.926
Share of male peer teachers -2.849 4.276**
MCF*Share of male teachers 2.987* -1.607
FCF*Share of male teachers 1.995 -1.479
14

15. Discussion
 Targeting women in extension increased their
SLM and non-SLM knowledge and SLM adoption
 Male CF may have no effect after 15 months;
Evidence of male peers teaching women
 Missing 2/3rds of FCFs. Project team verified they
exist, so we will survey them soon
 Future work
• Labor constraints to adoption
• Explore how to enhance existing CF structure by
studying perceptions of contact farmers, the selection
process and arrangements made between MCF and
FCFs, gender-differentiated issues with trust, sharing
information, soliciting advice, and risk aversion in round
2 (January 2013)
15