ABSTRACT
During the last twenty years, in the same way to their
disengagement of some functions of support to agriculture as the credit,
provision in inputs or the merchandising, many States put in work of the
programs of extension based on "Training and Visit» approach. Today, most
of these programs based on the backing of the administrative devices and a
transfer of technologies standardized are not more functional.
In the same way, some initiatives have been put in place to
test and develop new methods of extension then to the producers based on the
development of family farming advice encouraging the involvement of the
producers. These initiatives in progress since about ten years concern the
countries of West Africa of which Benin. They mobilize producers, organizations
farmers, Non Governmental Organisation, state-controlled structures. But they
stay badly known and information them concerning little accessible.
From then on, it becomes important to know the constants and
the variables in the setting in work of the two approaches by the extension
workers in the township of Kandi and the collaborations that must be
sought-after in the setting of a better definition of the finalities and the
fields of intervention of the different actors.
It is in this perspective that enrolls the present survey on
these extension approaches that took place in the township of Kandi. The
specific objectives of the survey are
- identify the role and the place of the producers in every
approach;
- analyze the interactions between the producers and the
extension workers; and,
- present the effects of the different approaches on the
exploitation, the household and the environment of the producers.
The theoretical considerations as well as the objectives and
hypotheses of survey brought us to make the option of a mainly qualitative
gait. However, it was essential to us to assort the interpretation of our
results by quantitative data in order to concretize some aspects. The tools and
methods of data collection used are the structured interviews, semi structured
and the participating observations.
The results of our investigations allowed us to succeed to the
following findings
In the T&V, the producers do not have a formal tool for
the definition of the objectives of their exploitation. It is some in the same
way for the all other tasks of the exploitation. The producer is only a
performer put in margin of the realities of his own exploitation, of his
enterprise. He is not considered therefore like being a key point of his
exploitation. As for producer CEF, he has many tools allowing him the
definition of the objectives, the scheduling, and the execution. These tools
manipulated by the producer him even permit him to know his family conditions
better and to have a clear vision of it. The producer is a key point of the
system of information, decision and piloting of these decisions in support with
the extension agent. This last has as knowledge of his system of production or
operation and help to find a progress of improvement on several years through
tactical and strategic decisions whose producer is at the center. Therefore
family farming advice approach puts the producer more in the center of his
activities.
In the T&V approach it has a complex of superiority
existing between the extension agent and his producers, a bad knowledge of the
needs and real problems of the producers. These same capacities are built. It
is about a repetitive action without previous analysis concerning the past. The
lack of accountability of the producers and of the extension worker maybe due
to helper's relation to recipient of aid and to the complex raised higher. The
producer in the T&V system is considered like a recipient. In the CEF
approach, the thanks to the tools put at the disposal of the producer define
his needs. Therefore the capacities are built where the need is identified.
Help received then in this case on demand make the producers aware of their
responsabilities who must fill the documents that are to the basis of the
advice; and the extension agent also made a report to his producers in an
individual way or in room. There is deletion of helper's notion therefore to
recipient of aid who lets place to the one of the partnership. We can say
therefore that the producer is considered like a partner within the CEF
approach.
Producer in CEF has some knowledge on the reality of his
exploitation and his household that he can exploit. From a technical viewpoint,
the writing allows him to keep the formations, the dates and enough knowledge
that can be consulted if the need makes itself feel. The CEF allows an easier
access the stations of responsibilities in the organizations and therefore a
better social status. But the set of this new knowledge doesn't have that of
the kindness; one notes the tendency indeed toward the individualization of the
producers and the risk to disconnect them of their society. As for the Training
Visit and, certainly the level of technical knowledge of the operators improved
but, it stays helper's relation to recipient of aid demonstrated by the backing
of the capacity building chosen by one the parts and an absence of
accountability of the actors.
To the term of this survey, it comes out again that
complementarities must be sought-after between the two approaches, of such sort
to recenter the producers in the devices of support while conferring them the
capacities to ask for the services that they estimate necessary.
Keys words: Family Farming Advice, Training
&Visit, producers, capacity building and decision.
| 
