# 3.2 Training

We now describe the trainings delivered to EAs and CFs in the context of our study. First, all EAs serving administrative posts within our study area received two three-day training courses on SLM techniques in October 2010 and November 2012 (prior to the main planting season). Technical sta from the Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG) developed the educational agenda on SLM practices, and the training was delivered by MINAG's district technical sta with support from one sta from the central project team. Half of the training sessions were devoted to in-class lectures, and the other half consisted of hands-on demonstrations. The syllabus included a thorough review of the advantages of each SLM technique over less-environmentally desirable ones.<sup>8</sup> The EA training also highlighted good practices in fostering interactions between EAs and CFs.

The centralized CF trainings were held a few weeks after those of the EAs. The content of the CF training was similar to that received by EAs, and was delivered by the same district-level and central MINAG sta.<sup>9</sup><sup>_,_10</sup> The cost of a direct training per CF per year was 74 USD. Over three agricultural seasons, this represents a modest 12.8 percent increase in the total salary and training cost of the extension network.<sup>11</sup> After these trainings were completed, all EAs worked with their CFs to disseminate the SLM techniques most pertinent to their local area on their (own or communal) demonstration plots, regardless of their CFs' treatment status. All CFs received a new toolkit (a bicycle, tools to plow the land, and smaller articles).<sup>12</sup> A second toolkit with similar items (including a bicycle) was provided to all CFs again in July 2012. The only dierence between treatment and control CFs is

> 8The main charts from the class can be found here: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEVIMPEVAINI/Resources/Flipchart_deAC_anonymized.pdf. The general curriculum used by the MINAGRI sta is provided on this site: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDEVIMPEVAINI/Resources/Manual_AC_FINAL.pdf. The hands-on component of the training was not recorded but followed closely the techniques discussed in class.

> 9In some districts, district sta relied on their EAs to help during the hands-on sessions. This could contaminate our results by lowering the amount of on-farm attention treatment CFs subsequently received from their EAs. This may lead us to underestimate information ow in the central training arm, and overestimate it in pure CF model. Reassuringly, as mentioned above, we do not nd that EAs devoted more time to visiting CFs in treatment communities, relative to control.

> 10Given the low literacy of farmers, a lm covering all techniques substituted the initial lecture format in the second training of the CFs in 2012.

> 11The monthly EA salary costs were at USD 210 per EA from data provided by the DNPDR and the Smallholders project team, and EA training costs ran at USD 370 per training. Each EA supervised on average 5 treated CFs over the course of 36 months. There are obviously other, non-wage costs to running an extension network. To the extent that we do not account for these additional costs, we overestimate the relative cost of adding a direct CF training.

> 12The toolkit distribution was planned, independently of our intervention, by the project sta. The previous distribution had been done in 2007 and, by 2010, the items were deemed too old to function.

9