International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tags20

Sustainable farmer-to-farmer extension – the

experiences of private service providers in Zambia

Davina Boyd & Rochelle Spencer

To cite this article: Davina Boyd & Rochelle Spencer (2022) Sustainable farmer-to-farmer
extension – the experiences of private service providers in Zambia, International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 20:4, 438-448, DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2021.1939592

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1939592

Published online: 16 Jun 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 206

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tags20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
2022, VOL. 20, NO. 4, 438–448
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1939592

Sustainable farmer-to-farmer extension – the experiences of private

service providers in Zambia
a b
Davina Boyd and Rochelle Spencer
a
Centre for Sustainable Farming Systems, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia; bCentre for Responsible Citizenship and
Sustainability, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
To improve and sustain farm productivity, farmers require information on inputs, Farmer-to-farmer extension;
postharvest management and markets, and exposure to new technologies and private service providers;
best practices. Traditionally public agricultural extension agents are the knowledge user-pays; social
brokers for farmers. However, government extension has received much criticism entrepreneurship;
sustainability
due to limited reach and relevance, and poor resourcing. This paper examines the
use of a private extension approach that is supporting and educating farmers in
groups in two districts of Zambia through farmer-to-farmer extension. This paper
shares the experiences and perspectives of farmers who provide the extension
services. In doing so, it highlights the tensions within the role of farmers as private
service providers and three emergent dilemmas for sustainability of the approach.

Introduction
In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), farmer-to-farmer models
have become an integral part of extension systems
(Kiptot & Franzel, 2019; Masangano & Mthinda, 2012;
Simpson et al., 2015). Farmer-to-farmer extension
(F2Fe) represents a shift in thinking away from
systems that emphasize top-down, expert-led transfer
of knowledge to one that is more participatory and
demand-driven. At the same time, F2Fe is part of
the impetus for developing extension systems that

CONTACT Davina Boyd d.boyd@murdoch.edu.au Land Management Group, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
address pervasive resourcing constraints; extension
systems in SSA are increasingly recognized for being
under funded and under staffed (Davis et al., 2020).
F2Fe involves engaging local farmers in the deliv-
ery of training and services; these include inter alia,
lead farmers, model farmers, community-based
workers and volunteer farmer trainers. Typically,
F2Fe operates on a voluntary basis; in some instances,
farmers are paid a small stipend or provided with
incentives (e.g. bicycle, training). While F2Fe can
increase the reach of programs and be cost effective
(Simpson et al., 2015), a major concern is their sustain-
ability, and as such, approaches tend to be supported
by the projects of development organizations rather
than government agencies (Kiptot & Franzel, 2019).
Some researchers argue that finding a way to
finance extension activities is ‘key to having a sustain-
able system of extension’ (McNamara, 2014, p. 1).
Others have identified additional drivers of sustain-
ability. For example, Kiptot and Franzel (2019) found
that the sustainability of volunteer farmer-trainers in
the Kenyan dairy sector was linked to: having the
program embedded in local institutions; the develop-
ment and fostering of social capital; the provision of
technical backstopping and the motivation of the vol-
unteers. They noted that farmer-trainers were motiv-
ated by non-monetary incentives, including skill
development, altruism, social and project benefits,
but they also reported that farmer-trainers were
‘increasingly motivated by opportunities to earn
income from selling inputs and services’ (Kiptot &
Franzel, 2019, p. 411; Kiptot et al., 2016).
In response to the notion that sustainability of
F2Fe is linked to financial incentive, user-pays
models have emerged. These approaches are similar
to voluntary F2Fe, but instead of local farmers
working for free, they work within a business frame-
work delivering services in exchange for payment
from farmers. The rationale is that service providers
can flourish without ongoing project support by deli-
vering services that farmers need while generating an
income. User-pays systems are worthy of examination
for their claims to address issues of sustainability. One
example that forms the basis of this study is the
private service provider (PSP) approach implemented
by Catholic Relief Service (CRS) in SSA. This paper
builds on a previous paper that examines the alacrity
and resistance of smallholder farmers to pay for PSP
services and the challenges experienced in imple-
menting a user-pays approach (see Spencer et al.,
2018). The focus here is to share the experiences
439
and perspectives of farmers who provide PSP services
in Zambia. In so doing, we contribute to the much-
needed debates about the sustainability of the role
and identify lessons for practitioners.
Materials and methods
The private service provider (PSP) approach
The PSP approach was designed to secure the long-
term, post-project sustainability of savings groups in
rural livelihoods (Bavois, 2013). The first step involves
recruiting field agents from the target communities.
The agents are selected by the community using cri-
teria provided by the project that relate to demo-
graphics, skills, expectations and prior experience.
They are trained to assist smallholder farmers in
establishing and maintaining savings groups. While
this initially takes place within a project format, a
certification process is incorporated to graduate (suc-
cessful) agents to become independent PSPs as
social entrepreneurs. This certification process
involves a review of the agent’s performance in con-
sultation with at least two of their savings groups.
Once certified, PSPs transition from being paid a
stipend by the project to being paid by farmers on
a fee-for-service basis. PSPs continue forming and
supporting savings groups, thereby generating
income.
Evaluations of this approach in Africa provide evi-
dence that it can be sustainable, with PSPs generating
an income from this role and working with savings
groups beyond the life of a project (Bavois, 2018; Fer-
guson, 2012a). In addition, households with access to
PSP services are more active as entrepreneurs and
more likely to have savings and credit linked to
micro enterprise activity (Ferguson, 2012b). Given
these findings, the role of the PSP has been extended
in some projects in SSA to include delivery of a
broader range of services relating to the following
skillsets, known as SMART Skills: financial education,
marketing, natural resource management and inno-
vation. These skillsets were derived from a previous
study about the skills farmers desire (Ashby et al.,
2009, p. 130), which found that the combination of
these skillsets ‘represent capacity for sustainable
entrepreneurship’. The PSP approach offers a poten-
tially effective way to deliver these skillsets to small-
holders while expanding the services the PSPs have
to offer and also capitalizing on the entrepreneurship
already being fostered by PSPs. PSPs undergo further
440 D. BOYD AND R. SPENCER
training in the SMART Skills. It is anticipated that PSPs
will deliver these services to farmers for a fee beyond
the life of the project.
Study sites and methods
This qualitative research reports on the experiences of
ten PSPs working as private agricultural extension
providers for smallholder farmers in Zambia. These
PSPs are part of two projects: one located in the
Eastern Province (Project-E) and the other the
Western Province (Project-W). Both projects are food
security projects with agriculture and nutrition com-
ponents as well as a focus on consolidating, protect-
ing and developing the productive asset base of
smallholders. Project-E was a 5-year project; Project-
W was a 4-year project. The PSPs that participated in
the study were purposively selected by project staff
using criteria provided by the researchers. The criteria
were designed to capture a range of experiences
including men and women, young and old, and
more or less ‘successful’ PSPs (based on project moni-
toring and evaluation data).
The study sites are two of the poorest provinces in
Zambia. The Eastern Province has a population of 1.7
million people with 89.9% involved in small-scale
farming (CSO, 2016). The study site is comprised of
five villages in the province, three in the Chipata Dis-
trict and two in the Lundazi District. The Western Pro-
vince has a population of approximately 1 million with
an estimated 85.5% of the population living in rural
areas who are largely small-scale farmers (CSO,
2016). In the Western Province, the study site is
made up of five villages in the Mongu District.
At each site, groups of smallholder farmers (e.g.
savings, marketing and producer groups) form the
basis of the PSPs’ clientele. Across the study sites,
group members are subsistence farmers generating
some cash income from a range of livelihood activi-
ties. In the Eastern Province, the main sources of
income were hybrid maize and cotton, other activities
included groundnut and soya production, buying and
selling products including second-hand clothes, oil,
eggs, fish and/or making and selling items such as frit-
ters and scones. For farmers in the Western Province,
the main source of income was tomatoes. Additional
livelihood activities included rice, cassava, cabbage
and rape production. Some individuals were also
engaged in making and selling charcoal and handi-
crafts, offering services as a blacksmith, and buying
and selling fish.
This study used semi-structured interviews to
capture the experiences of the PSPs over time. The
interviews were qualitative and included questions
about the PSPs motivations for becoming a PSP,
how they perceived their role and relationships with
their clients (other smallholder farmers) and the
NGO, the services they deliver and could potentially
offer in the future, challenges faced and plans for
the future. The interviews also included a small
number of questions related to the profitability of
their businesses such as the number of clients,
income and expenditure. Over 4 years, the PSPs
were interviewed two or three times, depending on
their availability. These interviews took place at
different stages of their careers as PSPs including:
during their training; while they transitioned to this
new role; in the early project phases (year 1 or 2);
and post project (Project-W only). PSP clients and trai-
ners were also interviewed, the findings from these
interviews inform this paper although are not directly
reported on here as the focus is to hear from the PSPs
themselves. The research had ethics approval from
the Murdoch University Human Research Ethics Com-
mittee (HREC) permit number 2013/144. Respondents
gave oral or written consent (depending on their pre-
ference and literacy levels) to participate in the
research using a culturally appropriate protocol
approved by the HREC. Where oral consent was pro-
vided, it was recorded on the hard-copy of the proto-
col by the interviewer.
Results
The underlying premise of the PSP approach is that
the marketization of development activities fosters
sustainability; project beneficiaries become either
service providers (PSPs), or the clients who
demand services from PSPs – the intention being
that this new entrepreneurial ecosystem will
thrive long after the project has ended. As with
any business venture, sustainability is likely to
depend on a number of factors including the
PSP’s ability to be service-oriented, profitable and
entrepreneurial.
This research intensively engaged with 10 PSPs
over a 4-year period as part of a larger multi-country
research collaboration. They were aged between 31
and 50 and included 4 females and 6 males. Our
research enabled us to analyse their activities to
explore the sustainability of the role with a particular
emphasis on their perspectives of the role and how
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
this may impact on whether they continue. This
section presents results regarding: the services the
PSPs deliver and whether they are service-oriented;
their remuneration and whether the role is profitable;
and, importantly how they define the role and extent
to which they are entrepreneurial. Collectively, this
information sheds light on the sustainability of the
approach post-project.
Are the PSPs service oriented?
Initially, PSPs have two core services to offer: (1) for-
mation of smallholder savings groups and (2) delivery
of training designed to develop smallholder entrepre-
neurial capacity (SMART Skills). Over time, the oppor-
tunities for service provision are intended to expand
beyond these core services in response to the
growing demands of farmers as their livelihoods
improve from the skillsets they learn from PSPs. For
example, as farmers learn about the cost savings
associated with buying inputs in bulk there is an
opportunity for the PSP to broker deals with input
suppliers. Or, in response to a new market opportu-
nity, farmers can request their PSP negotiate a deal
with buyers; the entrepreneurial PSP would charge a
commission for these arrangements. This expansion
of services is potentially critical to the sustainability
of the PSP enterprise, however, very few PSPs
moved beyond offering the two core services they
were trained in by the project.
The main services PSPs offer are forming savings
groups and teaching, simply put ‘teaching is the
service I am rendering’. Other services typically
offered include managing the savings-related activi-
ties of the groups (e.g. calculating interest, helping
share out the savings and resolving conflicts) and
reporting to the NGO project about the group activi-
ties. Two PSPs offered training beyond what was
taught to them by the projects. One delivered training
from previous projects he had been involved in (e.g.
business management and book keeping), the other
delivered training based on the needs of the group
(e.g. poultry management and adult literacy). In
addition, three PSPs offered services other than train-
ing, for example: ‘providing a link between the groups
and their customers’, helping the groups receive
formal certification with the Department of Commu-
nity and Development so that they can apply for
grants, and helping individuals with ‘business plan-
ning and profit and loss calculations for new business
ideas’.
441
When asked about the kinds of services they could
offer in the future, more than half of the PSPs said they
would continue to provide lessons and that in order
to expand their business, rather than focus on
expanding services they would focus on expanding
their client base – ‘I have plans to expand by increas-
ing the number of groups to increase the payments’
… ‘when you have many groups you receive more
money’. This expansion approach is built into the
PSP model whereby PSPs are encouraged to recruit
apprentices to facilitate the establishment of more
groups. Two of the PSPs from Project-E thought this
would be effective, indicating that there was
demand for new groups, ‘even now groups arrange
themselves and even if the project goes the people
will need me’. But, prioritizing expansion of the
client base over expansion of services is unlikely to
be feasible for all PSPs, one reason for this is transpor-
tation issues, others include market saturation and
managing arrangements with apprentices.
Eight of the PSPs identified transport and/or the
distance between groups as a major constraint
impacting their ability to maintain their groups and
grow their business. For Project-W PSPs, walking
between groups takes considerable time (average
100 min per group) and in order to increase the
number of groups they work with would require tra-
velling greater distances due to low population
density; as one PSP remarked ‘in urban areas 9–7
groups will be in a 2 km radius, but in rural areas
like this there will be much less’. Another commented
on the distances, but also potential risks ‘I want more
groups, but communities are too far apart and it is
risky, yesterday I was coming from a group far from
my place and I fell down because it was night and I
couldn’t see properly’. Project-E PSPs spend less
time travelling to visit their groups (average of 30
min per group) but for them it is a challenge to main-
tain their bicycles – ‘the parts for the bicycles that we
have been given aren’t available nearby, so with this I
don’t think you can work well as a PSP – if the bicycle
is not sound you have to borrow a bicycle [and pay for
it]’. The Project-W PSPs suggested ‘they be assisted to
buy a motorbike,’ but project financing was unlikely
to accommodate this. Project-E PSPs also saw the
benefit of having a motorcycle, although they
reported that they can manage with their bicycles, if
they are able to maintain them.
The recruitment of an apprentice was also seen as
a way to address the long distances between groups
that limited PSPs’ expansion prospects. Two PSPs had
442 D. BOYD AND R. SPENCER
started working with an apprentice, but they
expressed concerns about how this would be
managed, ‘my apprentice may want to be indepen-
dent and in the process, take some of my groups’
and there are ‘conflicts sometimes, they want to
take over my job’. Interestingly, one PSP who started
as an apprentice also reported difficulties, in their
case the ‘PSP refused to reveal the formula for
sharing out the savings because he was afraid that
he could run out of business’.
Whether in the short or longer term it seems that
PSPs will not be able to rely solely on expanding
their client base. Transportation issues and challenges
associated with apprentices aside, some felt they
would run out of things to offer their groups, ‘this is
not a viable business because once you train your
groups, they are free to leave you and say they have
the knowledge now; it is difficult to ask them to
keep on paying you’. PSPs were asked about the
additional services they thought they could offer
their groups. Four PSPs identified specific services,
for example: ‘accessing market information’, ‘helping
the farmers to bulk their maize for example, and con-
necting them to buyers who can come to buy
produce right here’, ‘writing their business plans for
them’ and ‘working as an agent for an agro-dealer
or input supplier’. However, the rest of the PSPs
emphasized the continued delivery of lessons, as
articulated by one PSP about their future, ‘I see
myself learning to have a vast knowledge to teach
others’. As for the kinds of lessons they thought
they could offer, suggestions included: repeating
lessons, in particular relating to the marketing skillset
including helping their groups to ‘diversify their
business’, ‘add value to their products’ and ‘calculate
the costs of the business before starting it’; and,
new lessons, provided by a project, ‘I requested
more lessons so our minds will be broadened with
what we are supposed to do’.
The ideas provided by the PSPs suggests that by-
and-large they consider the core service they have
to offer, now and into the future, is training.
However, although not articulated as such, in many
respects, the service the PSPs described is small
business facilitation. This service includes building
capacity through the SMART Skills, but also providing
ideas about business development (e.g. diversifying,
value adding) and providing encouragement. PSPs
talked about visiting groups ‘to see how they are
doing’ and ‘to motivate them so that when the
project goes they still have something to do’. This
suggests that PSPs may need more guidance and
support in developing their services, because while
this facilitation role was well received by groups,
how to package, market and price it was less clear.
The PSP model has inbuilt components that
encourage the expansion of the client base and
service provision, however for these PSPs, the pro-
jects placed greater emphasis on expanding their
client base. This scaling out approach could be a
logical first step, but it may also reflect a desire to
maximize the number of beneficiaries reached, and
an emphasis on the social rather than entrepreneur-
ial dimension of the model. However, unless
balanced with a scaling up approach to encourage
and support PSPs to develop new services, simply
scaling out could be a major threat to the sustain-
ability of the approach.
Are the PSPs profitable?
Central to the PSP approach is the notion that if PSPs
are paid for their services, this will foster sustainability
because PSPs will view it as a valuable income gener-
ating activity. In the early stages of their ‘careers’ half
the PSPs identified payment as a challenge. As noted
by one, ‘almost all groups I have visited have found it
very difficult to accept the PSP fee-for-service
concept’. However, for most PSPs this issue seems to
have resolved itself over time. In the later interviews,
all the PSPs except for two reported generating
some income from the role. Table 1 provides an over-
view of the PSPs’ average income; it highlights that
while not all PSPs were being paid, six earned
around USD 30 per month and one earned an esti-
mated USD 174 per month, however later reports indi-
cated that several groups had stopped making
payments, complaining that the rate was too high.
For the PSPs not being paid, one chose not to
charge his groups but to continue training them,
the other received payment from a few groups, but
not consistently; this PSP had negotiated with the
groups but thought that payment would depend on
‘how they are saving’ and whether they had the
money to pay. Across both projects, farmer contri-
butions to the PSP ranged from USD 0.05 to 0.21
per month. Payments were not always made
monthly or every month with some groups paying
per ‘package’ of topics, visit, half-yearly and yearly.
In a few cases, payment was made in-kind e.g. the pro-
vision of labour for weeding in exchange for a module
on marketing basics valued at USD 26.32.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 443

Table 1. PSP average income per month and percentage income contribution.
PSP Number of groups Number of groups paying Payment/month (Kwacha) Payment/month (USD) % of income
Project-E 1 11 11 464 49 2
Project-E 2 15 15 329 35 55
Project-E 3 16 0 0 0 5
Project-E 4 22 22 281 30 15
Project-E 5 10 7 140 15 15
Project-W 1 15 15 1650 174 -
Project-W 2 12 11 445 47 50
Project-W 3 18 17 350 37 60
Project-W 4 11 0 0 0 0
Project-W 5 11 8 400 42 10

For those earning approximately USD 30 per
month, the income generated was comparable to
the stipend they received from the project in the
training phase (∼USD 26), but for the others it was
considerably less or considerably more. Interestingly,
regardless of how much PSPs were being paid they
did not consider they were paid adequately because
of the costs and time involved. One of the better
paid PSPs
felt the money given is not enough because when I con-
sider the time I spend, sometimes I spend the whole day
and I buy stationary, lunch and other materials … the
payment is not enough for this, all in all I say it’s just okay.
Another PSP receiving very little payment reflected
that ‘payment is a burden … sometimes I feel like quit-
ting when I think that I leave my house and my per-
sonal work to come and assist the people, but they
do not appreciate [pay] for my work’. The PSPs
seemed to recognize that in terms of the time they
spent on the task and how this impacted their ability
to do other tasks (including generating income) they
were not adequately remunerated. This is not surpris-
ing as they reported spending an average of 54–70 h
per month travelling to visit their groups, in addition
to the time they spent with them. They also reported
other expenses for transport, materials, phone
airtime and hired labour costs to carry out farming
activities that the PSP would normally undertake, but
could not because they were busy in the PSP role.
The average monthly expenses incurred range from
USD 5–15 with communication costs the main
regular cost averaging USD 4.20 per month.
Despite not being entirely satisfied with the
payment received, typically PSPs understood that it
was difficult for smallholders to pay, ‘people are
failing to pay me because of the poverty situation
here’, ‘if a person is struggling for his own money to
save and even to feed their family I should not ask
to be paid’. This resulted in at least one PSP never
charging their groups a fee and others only charging
a fee according to the season, because ‘in the rainy
season they are lacking many things, but in the dry
season they will pay more’. The same applied to one
of the few PSPs offering a service other than training:
For business planning, I charge some and others I don’t,
it depends on the type of people that come, there are
some that have money and others that don’t have
money, it also depends on the type of business, for a
big business (poultry, livestock, fish ponds) I charge, for
a small business I don’t.
One PSP thought that over time the groups might
be in a position to pay them more as they learnt and
applied the SMART Skills, ‘I improve their way of being
so that maybe in the future they can meet my
demand [and pay me]’. Others were less concerned
about the amount they were making, but viewed it
as a way to diversify their own income stream. With
PSPs generating 0–60 per cent of their income from
the role some ‘depended on this’ income, but
another cautioned that ‘they could not depend on
it’ and that the money received was less reliable
than other income sources. Overall, nine PSPs indi-
cated that they could earn some money from it, but
that the financial returns for many were low.
Even though there were questions about the profit-
ability of the role, all the PSPs said they would continue
in the role after the projects ended. As outlined in the
previous section, many PSPs saw expanding their
client base as an opportunity to generate more
income. The PSPs were concerned about the low
returns, but their intent to continue suggests that
PSPs placed considerable value on the non-financial
aspects of the role, as discussed in the next section.
Are the PSPs entrepreneurial?
The intent of the PSP model is that service providers
initially develop their business within the framework
444 D. BOYD AND R. SPENCER
of the project and once the project ends they are
equipped to operate as social entrepreneurs. This
entrepreneurialism is integral to the PSPs’ ability to
scale up and be sustainable beyond the life of the
project. The extent to which they embraced the
concept of social entrepreneur was revealed in discus-
sions about how they defined their role and what
motivated them. It quickly emerged that there were
four main role definitions based on their emphasis
on the entrepreneurial or community development
dimensions of the role (see Figure 1).
In the early stages of their budding careers, eight
PSPs emphasized the community volunteer aspect
of the role, ‘I am a community volunteer. People are
not yet developed, so my role is to help them move
a step further’ and ‘I don’t really want to get
payment as such; my focus is for the community to
develop’. Initially, only one PSP spoke of being both
community volunteer and businessperson but
expressed concern about describing themselves as a
businessperson to their groups ‘because when I say
to a member that I’m doing business, the members
will think that I myself am the only one who will
benefit’. Despite the market-based premise of the
PSP design, just one PSP defined their role as entre-
preneur: ‘I see myself as a businessperson because I
have a product to sell, which is to provide lessons at
a fee’.
One and two years later, six perceived themselves
as agents of the NGO. They explained this is ‘because I
report to the project’. One PSP explained ‘my role is to
inform the project of what is going on in the field and
to take lessons from the project to the groups’. The
relationship with the NGO was a defining character-
istic precisely because PSPs are trained within the
project, ‘I go to trainings on the SMART Skills and
Figure 1. Spectrum of how PSPs identify their role.
deliver these back to the groups’. For these PSPs, a
moral imperative to deliver lessons to their commu-
nities is core to their role, ‘From the lessons that I
receive, I see groups formed and saving, it encourages
me because I know what I am doing is right’.
Over time, the dual dimensions associated with
social entrepreneurship became apparent to them.
Commitment to their communities remained a pre-
vailing motivation for the PSPs even after they came
to embrace the entrepreneurial qualities of the role.
One PSP had many older farmers in his groups who
‘are failing even to pay one kwacha [∼USD 0.05] per
month’, but ‘the heart I have is for the community,
to improve their livelihoods, sharing with them knowl-
edge’. At the same time, he was entrepreneurial, char-
ging a fee of 20 kwacha [∼USD 1.08] to give
consultations to field assistants of other NGOs and
to farmers’ associations. He explained ‘I could have
been charging more, but to encourage more business
I keep the price low’.
Three PSPs strongly identified with the entrepre-
neurial aspect of the role. One PSP told us ‘I am a busi-
nessperson because people are paying money, that is
why I work hard and teach them all the skills I have
learned [from the NGO] so that they can appreciate
and pay me’. Another explained ‘To me being a PSP
is like a business, I depend on it and I earn my liveli-
hood from being a PSP. I am also a farmer but
being a PSP is another source of income’. This PSP
expressed entrepreneurial ambition to expand his ser-
vices and number of groups he worked with, but he
also demonstrated a strong sense of obligation to
his community, ‘I am motivated because many
people are able to now take their children to school
and benefit from savings groups’. The social entrepre-
neur premise of the role is signalled by his dual
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
motivation to work hard because people are paying
him and to improve the wellbeing of his clients
through trainings.
Half of the PSPs had previously volunteered with
NGOs. Conceivably, the PSP role was yet another
way they could contribute to their community’s
development, albeit for payment. We heard numer-
ous declarations from PSPs to this effect: ‘I have
seen that it is one way of helping the community’,
‘the NGO opened our eyes so that we can help
people in the community, to reduce their poverty’.
Another PSP explained, ‘I am contributing to the
development of my community but it was the NGO
that provided me with all the training and knowledge
to do this’. Another disclosed ‘my husband worries
because I earn nothing from my PSP activities, but I
am still working hard because I accepted the job to
assist the community’; ‘I am public spirited and
happy to sacrifice my time for the benefit of the com-
munity. We have sacrificed ourselves to save our com-
munities’. These testimonies from PSPs reveal that for
most, the potential to develop a business is not what
compels them to take up the role. Understanding this
nuance as a legacy of colonialism and postcolonial
development interventions sheds light on the chal-
lenges for introducing market-based approaches.
When NGOs recruit farmers to train as PSPs, the
role is introduced to them as a social entrepreneur.
However, the data highlight that newly recruited
PSPs are not typically motivated to become business-
people nor to develop a business. They are compelled
to address the prevailing poverty of their commu-
nities. One PSP explained ‘My vision is to see the com-
munity not experience hunger and for children to go
to school’; another said when the project ends they
will continue to be a PSP ‘but would like to work
with another project’. These remarks offer us a
glimpse into how the PSP role is perceived by the
PSPs themselves. While all PSPs were socially motiv-
ated to continue, not all were driven by the entrepre-
neurial opportunities, signalling the need for the
project to focus its efforts on developing this aspect.
This is not to say that PSPs don’t value earning an
income from this new role, but it can be understood in
light of how the PSP model is implemented. In the
beginning, while PSPs were being trained, they
received payment from the NGO. Once they com-
pleted their trainings they graduated and were
expected to charge their farmer groups a fee for
their services. We heard from the PSPs that this tran-
sition in service delivery is challenging for them and
445
confusing for their farmer groups who had been
receiving the service for free. We heard from one
PSP that a ‘group refused the payment element
asking why should they pay for his service when
before this was free’. And for two PSPs, the notion
of asking their groups to pay was at odds with the
mutually reinforced belief that they are poor commu-
nities that need free agricultural extension services.
We were told, ‘I can’t demand a lot of money from
my groups because they are very poor’. And from
another,
There are a lot of widows and disabled people who
cannot move through the Barotse Plains to buy and
sell fish. I’m feeling pity for my people. They just pay
me a small token of appreciation, anything they want
to give me, but not a regular monthly payment.
This dilemma was compounded by the unclear
messages coming from NGOs. Despite the PSP train-
ing modules’ description of the PSP as social entrepre-
neur, some PSPs revealed that project staff referred to
PSPs as volunteers. Others described situations where
project staff had discouraged entrepreneurial drive,
advising PSPs not to pursue opportunities because
‘they were not ready’ or because it was beyond the
scope of the project. For example, one PSP had
trained as a literacy instructor but when he advised
the NGO of his intention to provide this service to
his groups, he was told to wait until the following
year. Likewise, when the PSPs expressed a desire to
create a farmers’ association for their groups the
NGO discouraged them, ‘we are keen to start an
association, but we are being told not to hurry and
then we lost confidence’.
The PSP approach is designed as a market-based
intervention for the delivery of fee-based services to
help develop rural livelihoods. What we see though
is that many of the PSPs (and in some cases, the
NGO project staff) struggle to adopt the entrepreneur-
ial aspect of the role. This finding raises important
questions about the sustainability of the PSP
approach.
Discussion and concluding remarks
The PSP model’s market-based approach incorporates
a range of elements designed to foster sustainability
including a service orientation, self-funding mechan-
ism and entrepreneurial emphasis. However, the
PSPs’ experiences highlight that many of them
struggled with the market-based orientation; they
446 D. BOYD AND R. SPENCER
found it difficult to conceive of ways to expand the
services they deliver, to generate sufficient income
to justify the time and expense of the role, and, to
flourish as social entrepreneurs. This signals the PSP
approach requires a radical rethinking of how to do
development and the roles of the different actors;
quite simply there seems to be a tension between
the ‘old’ (charity-oriented) way of doing development
and the ‘new’ (market-oriented), and this potentially
undermines the PSP approach as well as threatens
its sustainability, thereby raising a series of dilemmas.
How to scale out and up when an important
metric of determining the impact of a project is
the number of beneficiaries reached?
An important metric of determining the impact of a
development intervention is the number of benefici-
aries reached within the project timeframe. Too often
scaling out processes (the mere multiplication of the
same, i.e. train more PSPs to reach more farmer
groups) are prioritized over scaling up processes in
which value is added to something (i.e. PSPs offer
new services and training to the same farmer groups)
(Linn, 2012). Certainly, PSPs identified the risk of
market saturation in scaling out compared with what
they deemed to be the more sustainable approach of
scaling up. Indeed, most challenges regarding scalabil-
ity in the context of international development relate
to scaling up rather than scaling out (Wigboldus &
Leeuwis, 2013), and therefore, processes of scaling
up require ‘flexibility, time and resources to be success-
ful’ (Creech, 2008, p. 9). This is particularly so in the
context of social entrepreneurship, whereby, scaling
processes should focus on diversity of services
offered; knowledge dissemination; creating markets;
influencing awareness, norms and behaviours; and
network development (Kalafatas, 2006).
In discussing scaling up of R4D innovations in agri-
culture, Shilomboleni and De Plaen (2019) advise that
implementing actors must effectively engage with the
scaling process. Therefore, ensuring that the PSP
approach is not only scaled out but embedded
within local socio-cultural structures and practices is
‘an important enabling factor that affects the sustain-
able spread or adoption of an innovation’ (Shilombo-
leni & De Plaen, 2019, p. 727). In doing so, the PSP
model is enacted within situated practice, that is, in
farmers’ capabilities to adopt the approach. Could it
be that only scaling out (without also scaling up)
holds an inherent risk to the sustainability of the
PSP approach? The challenge is to arrive at a respon-
sive and situated implementation of the PSP
approach.
How to balance the strong social mission of
the PSPs and smallholder expectations
regarding free agricultural extension with a
fee-for-service approach?
The compelling sentiment of the PSPs was to support
NGO interventions that address the persistent poverty
of their communities. This strong sense of social
purpose prevails over the entrepreneurial aspect of
the role, signalling the need to emphasize entrepre-
neurship during recruitment and training and to
explain to PSPs the imperative for a market-based
approach. NGOs need to embrace the entrepreneur
premise of the role too and discursively shift from
the community volunteer concept.
Combined with an entrenched history of depen-
dency, the fee-for-service approach sits somewhat
uncomfortably with cultural norms regarding giving
and reciprocity. The culture of solidarity, ‘social net-
works and culturally legitimized dealings tend to
prevail over market-efficient behaviour, as they
promote the survival of the community under con-
ditions of scarcity’ (Cieslik, 2016, p. 12). Farmers are
compelled to offer PSPs a small token of appreciation
for their time and training, for example, giving the PSP
money for soap as opposed to payment. This subtle
resistance to the marketization of agricultural exten-
sion points to the need for the PSP model to privilege
local understandings and ways of being that embed
social norms of gift and reciprocity within the commu-
nity (McNamara, 2017).
Hence, a moral economy lens helps to equalize the
two elements of social entrepreneur because it recog-
nizes ‘that economic activities are defined and legiti-
mized by moral beliefs, values and norms’ (Cieslik,
2016, p. 12). The notion of the moral economy rests
upon the premise that, particularly in rural livelihoods,
there are ‘a set of normative attitudes concerning the
social relations that surround their local economies’
(Cieslik, 2016, p. 12). The solidarity expressed by
PSPs for their communities is an artefact of the pre-
vailing moral economy that the PSP approach must
support to ensure its sustainability. This is also impor-
tant for the effectiveness of the approach because the
motivation of farmers engaged in F2Fe has been
linked to their effectiveness in the role (Fisher et al.,
2018).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
How to reconcile the innovative, creative and
responsive elements of social
entrepreneurialism with detailed project
design, consistent project delivery and a
culture of accountability?
Notwithstanding the strong social purpose of the
PSPs, there was evidence of nascent entrepreneurial-
ism, but this was often dampened by NGO staff. As
McNamara (2017) notes, structures relating to devel-
opment funding and ‘actants’ like project reporting
influence how NGO field staff create meanings. In
this case, the meanings of social entrepreneurship
for NGO staff are constrained by concerns for how
to marry innovation, creativity and responsiveness
with typical structured and consistent project deliv-
ery. Although there is no singular definition of a
social entrepreneur, some key attributes beyond
creating social value, is their ability to recognize and
harness opportunities, innovate, take risks and be
resourceful (Peredo & McLean, 2006). This sits in
tension with the way in which NGO staff and pro-
grams are closely monitored, controlled and
evaluated.
The PSP approach encourages the development of
PSP networks intended to operate as ‘peer support
organizations’ that ‘enhance sustainability’ beyond
the life of a project (Bavois, 2013). These networks
potentially play a vital role in the innovation
process, although as described their function
appears to be less about innovation and more about
risk management, training, quality control and stan-
dardization of services and pricing (Bavois, 2013).
This suggests that there could be room to reimagine
the function of the PSP network, whereby the
network itself is a broker of innovation (Klerkx, 2012)
connecting PSPs and facilitating alliances with other
actors; enabling these actors, rather than the NGO,
to be the drivers of change and improving the per-
formance and impacts of private extension systems
(Malima et al., 2020). At the same time, there is a
need for policies that foster innovation and support
the F2Fe ecosystem to thrive after project funding
support ends (Kiara, 2011).
This research highlights the considerable promise
of the PSP model to address the challenge of provid-
ing sustainable agricultural extension services to
smallholder farmers. However, like other novel exten-
sion approaches, the sustainability of this approach
hinges on the different actors reimagining their
roles. The research indicates that PSPs would benefit
447
from targeted activities that emphasize the entrepre-
neurial aspects of the model and support PSPs and
other actors to unravel some of the dilemmas high-
lighted above to enable PSPs to thrive and drive the
sustainability of this F2Fe approach.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the PSPs who met with the research team mul-
tiple times over 4 years and generously shared their experi-
ences. Thanks to CRS for funding and partnering with the
researchers to explore its market-based approach. We also
acknowledge the work of the research team (Drs. Catherine
Mthinda, Charles Masangano, Stanley Kahila, John Davis),
research assistant Leila Nasr and implementing NGOs in Zambia.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by the Australian Agency for Inter-
national Development (AusAID) through the AusAID Develop-
ment Research Awards Scheme under an award titled
Improving the ability of smallholder farmers in southern Africa
to engage with markets [Grant Agreement number 66421].
Notes on contributors
Davina Boyd is a research fellow with the Centre for Sustainable
Farming Systems at Murdoch University. She is an applied social
researcher, community development practitioner and not-for-
profit director. Working in the research for development
space, her research combines interests in capacity development,
sustainable intensification, rural livelihoods and agricultural
extension.
Rochelle Spencer is a founding co-director of the Centre for
Responsible Citizenship and Sustainability at Murdoch Univer-
sity and a co-chair of the Research for Development Impact
Network. Her research spans the anthropology of development,
gender and rural livelihoods, Indigenous social enterprise,
capacity development and development tourism.
ORCID
Davina Boyd http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2094-6728
Rochelle Spencer http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7910-7844
References
Ashby, J., Heinrich, G., Burpee, G., Remington, T., Wilson, K.,
Quiros, C. A., Aldana, M., & Ferris, S. (2009). What farmers
want: Collective capacity for sustainable entrepreneurship.
448 D. BOYD AND R. SPENCER
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(2), 130–
146. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.2009.0439
Bavois, M. (2013). Private service provider implementation
manual. Baltimore, MD: Catholic Relief Services.
Bavois, M. (2018). Pricing and payments in the Private Service
Provider (PSP) model. Baltimore, MD: Catholic Relief Services.
Cieslik, K. (2016). Moral economy meets social enterprise com-
munity-based Green energy project in rural Burundi. World
Development, 83, 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.
2016.03.009
Creech, H. (2008). Scale up and replication for social and environ-
mental enterprises. SEED Initiative and IISD.
CSO [Central Statistical Office]. (2016). 2015 Living conditions
monitoring survey report. Lusaka: Republic of Zambia.
https://www.zamstats.gov.zm/.
Davis, K. E., Babu, S. C., & Ragasa, C. (Eds.). (2020). Agricultural
extension: Global status and performance in selected countries.
Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/9780896293755.
Ferguson, M. (2012a). Agent productivity in Fee-for-service
savings groups. In SILC innovations. Baltimore: Catholic
Relief Services.
Ferguson, M. (2012b). An evaluation of household impact
among fee-for-service savings groups. In SILC innovations.
Baltimore, MD: Catholic Relief Services.
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
Kalafatas, J. (2006). Approaches to scaling social impact. Durham,
NC: Duke University, Centre for the advancement of social
entrepreneurship.
Kiara, J. K. (2011). Focal area approach: A participatory commu-
nity planning approach to agricultural extension and market
development in Kenya. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability, 9(1), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.3763/ijas.
2010.0566
Kiptot, E., & Franzel, S. (2019). Developing sustainable farmer-to-
farmer extension: Experiences from the volunteer farmer–
trainer approach in Kenya. International Journal of
Agricultural Sustainability, 17(6), 401–412. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14735903.2019.1679576
Kiptot, E., Karuhanga, M., Franzel, S., & Nzigamasabo, P. B. (2016).
Volunteer farmer-trainer motivations in East Africa: Practical
implications for enhancing farmer-to-farmer extension.
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 14(3),
339–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2015.1137685
Klerkx, L. (2012). The role of innovation brokers in the agricultural
innovation system. Improving agricultural knowledge and
innovation systems: OECD Conference Proceedings, OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264167445-
19-en
Linn, J. (Ed.). (2012). Scaling up in agriculture, rural development,
and nutrition. Washington, DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Malima, G., Eshetie, S., Rahaman, A., Mrosso, P., & Witteveen, L.
(2020). Purchasing and up-scaling of the privatized advisory
services: An innovation perspective on privatized soil
testing in Africa. Community Development, 51(3), 230–242.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2020.1758737
Masangano, C., & Mthinda, C. (2012). Pluralistic extension system
in Malawi (IFPRI Discussion paper -1171). International Food
Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
McNamara, P. (2014). A review of sustainable financing for exten-
sion services in developing countries (MEAS Discussion Paper).
University of Illinois.
McNamara, T. (2017). They are not understanding sustainability:
Contested sustainability narratives at a northern Malawian
development interface. Human Organization, 76(2), 121–
130. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.76.2.121
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A
critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41
(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.10.007
Shilomboleni, H., & De Plaen, R. (2019). Scaling up research-for-
development innovations in food and agricultural systems.
Development in Practice, 29(6), 723–734. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09614524.2019.1590531
Simpson, B., Franzel, S., Degrande, A., Kundhlande, G., & Tsafack,
S. (2015). Farmer-to-farmer extension: Issues in planning and
implementation (MEAS Technical Note). University of Illinois.
Spencer, R., Mthinda, C., Masangano, C., Boyd, D., & Davis, J. K.
(2018). Uptake and resistance: The rural poor and user-pays
agricultural extension in Malawi. World Development
Perspectives, 9, 48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2018.
04.005
Wigboldus, S., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). Toward responsible scaling up
and out in agricultural development. An exploration of con-
cepts and principles. Wageningen, UR: Wageningen
University and Research Centre.