A cluster of innovators in Kabale District, Uganda, with the national coordinator, Alex Lwakuba (far left).

Promoting farmer innovation (Uganda)

Description

Identification of farmer innovators in SWC and water harvesting, and using them as focal points for visits from other farmers to spread the practices and stimulate the process of innovation.

Aims / objectives: The Promoting Farmer Innovation (PFI) approach seeks to build on technical initiatives - innovations in the local context - developed by farmers themselves in dry/marginal areas where the conventional approach of transfer of technology from research to extension agents, and then on to farmers, has so often failed. The approach basically comprises identifying, validating and documenting local innovations/initiatives. Simple monitoring and evaluation systems are set up amongst those innovative farmers who are willing to co-operate. Through contact with researchers, extra value is added to these techniques where possible. Farmer innovators are brought together to share ideas. Finally, best-bet technologies, in other words those that are considered to be good enough to be shared, are disseminated through farmer-to-farmer extension. This takes two forms. First, farmers are brought to visit the innovators in their farms. Secondly farmer innovators are used as teachers/trainers to visit groups of farmers - including FAOs farmer field schools in some cases. Only in this second form of extension is an allowance payable to the innovator. A ten-step field activity methodology has been developed.

Methods: At programme level, there is capacity building of in-line extension and research staff, who are the main outside actors in the programme. In each of the countries the project has been implemented through a government ministry, which partners various NGOs in the field. The principle, and practice, is not to create separate project enclaves, but to work through existing personnel, sharing buildings and vehicles that are already operational in the area. A programme development process methodological framework shows how the ultimate goal of institutionalisation can be achieved. PFIs first phase, completed in 2000, was financed by the Government of The Netherlands, through UNDP, and was active in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

Location

Location: East Africa (parts of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda), Uganda

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 33.892, 1.88

Initiation date: 1996

Year of termination: 2000

Type of Approach
A cluster of innovators in Kabale District, Uganda, with the national coordinator, Alex Lwakuba (far left).
Farmer-to-farmer extension: a female innovator shares her skills.

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Better land husbandry practices (eg composting, crop selection))

Improve rural livelihoods through an increase in the rate of diffusion of appropriate SWC/water harvesting technologies based on farmer innovation, and through farmer-to-farmer exchange visits. At a higher level: to demonstrate the effectiveness of such an approach so that it can be institutionalised.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - poor supply of relevant recommendations from research for small scale farmers in marginal areas - poor delivery of SWC technologies (where they exist) to farmers - lack of motivation of research and extension staff - isolation of promising ???innovative??? SWC/water harvesting ideas which address low crop yields, land degradation and poverty - lack of exchange of this knowledge
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Favoured farmer syndrome: where too much attention is given to particular innovative farmers and jealousy is aroused in others Treatment through the SLM Approach: Avoid working with innovators who are so exceptional that they are outside society and others cannot relate to them. Rotate the farmers who are used as learning points: in other words once another farmer has adopted the technology, use him or her as the focal point.
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Danger of identifying innovations that are good technically but too expensive for ordinary farmers to implement. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Linked to point (1) above: beware of farmers who are too exceptional/too rich.
  • Institutional setting: Lack of motivation of research and extension institutions Treatment through the SLM Approach: Bringing them together with farmer innovatiors
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): Who gets the credit for the particular innovation? Treatment through the SLM Approach: Important to make sure that an innovation is traced back within the locality to its roots, identifying the 'owner'. Especially important when a name is attached to an innovation. The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation Farmers will only invest time and effort in innovation when they have secure land use rights (though not necessarily ownership), which is the case in all the areas where PFI has been operational. Access to land for women was a problem which inhibits women innovating.
  • Other: Cultural: Gender imbalance in identification of innovators: women overlooked Treatment through the SLM Approach: Gender sensitisation and training: bring together the identifiers with the farmers - male and female.

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
NGO All involved et different levels: after implementation mainly government and NGO
national government (planners, decision-makers) All involved et different levels: after implementation mainly government and NGO
international organization All involved et different levels: after implementation mainly government and NGO
Lead agency
International specialists in collaboration with/after discussions with national specialists and land users
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
public meetings, interviews/questionnaires, workshops/seminars, rapid/participatory rural appraisal; interviews/Participatory Rural Appraisals etc
planning
x
rapid/participatory rural appraisal, interviews/questionnaires, public meetings, workshops/seminars; interviews/Participatory Rural Appraisals etc
implementation
x
Mainly: farmer-to-farmer exchange, responsibility for minor steps; partly: responsibility for major steps; interviews/Participatory Rural Appraisals etc
monitoring/ evaluation
x
Mainly: public meetings, measurements/observations; partly: workshop/seminars; monitoring, using forms designed mainly by specialists
Research
x
on-farm
Flow chart

Farmer innovation methodology left: Field activities: the ten steps– from identification through to using innovators as trainers. (Critchley, 2000) right: Programme development processes: the framew

Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • SWC specialists, extensionists/trainers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
  • farm visits
Subjects covered

Staff seconded from Ministries of Agriculture/NGOs provide: (1) methodology training for participating staff (2) presentational skill training for farmer innovators and (3) training in gender aspects.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Farmer innovator approach; Key elements: There are new roles for government/NGO extension staff under this methodology - as trainers and faci, Identify farmer innovators, form networks of farmer innovators, which meet, Bring farmers to se 'best bet' innovations; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system, non-governmental agency; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
training (see also Annex A3)
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: soils, moisture technical aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: inputs socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: number of men/women participating economic / production aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: yields area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Some changes, for example (a) increased numbers of women identified as innovators in response to gender sensitisation/training and (b) ???rotation??? of farmer innovators used for training - that is not using the same farmers all the time, as this can create envy. E.g. also better integration with government services/system for technical backstopping and extension
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology
  • socio-economics

Theoretically, researchers should respond to the farmers??? research agenda, though this has proved difficult to achieve in practice. Apart from process monitoring of the methodology, which has led to improvements, technical research into the innovations has been relatively weak.

Research was carried out on-farm

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national government): 20.0%; international (International agency): 60.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 20.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Gender sensitisation training may have helped. The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future.

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Builds on local ideas (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue the approach and institutionalise.)
  • Revitalises the extension service (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Train and make use of existing Government extension agents.)
  • attractive to stakeholders at all levels (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involve and inform stakeholders at all levels of plans and progress.)
  • Gives land users more confidence in their own abilities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to prioritise farmers and keep them at centre of activities.)
  • Offers new locally tested ideas/technologies which work (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Keep the focus on the farmers??? initiatives and use participatory technology development processes to improve these technologies.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Dependent on individual commitment and flexibility Training in skills and methodologies.
  • Does not follow the conventional institutional chain of command Considerable training in skills and methodologies required.
  • Sometime confers too much prestige on a particular group of ???favoured farmers??? Rotate??? farmers who are the focus of attention.
  • Researchers reluctant to respond to farmers??? agenda Effort needed to convince research staff of the need for, and potential benefits from, joint Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288research with farmers.

References

Compiler
  • Kithinji Mutunga
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Deborah Niggli
Date of documentation: Jan. 12, 2009
Last update: April 4, 2018
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3,Mutunga K and Critchley W (2001) Farmers??? initiatives in land husbandry. Regional Land Management Unit, Nairobi, KenyaCritchley W and Mutunga K (2003) Local innovation in a global context: documenting farmer initiatives in land husbandry through WOCAT.Critchley et al. (1999). Promoting farmer innovationPromoting farmer innovation VIDEO: RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)
  • Mutunga K and Critchley W (2001) Farmers initiatives in land husbandry. Regional Land Management Unit, Nairobi, Kenya:
  • Critchley W and Mutunga K (2003) Local innovation in a global context: documenting farmer initiatives in land husbandry through WOCAT.:
  • Critchley et al. (1999). Promoting farmer innovation: RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)
  • Promoting farmer innovation VIDEO: RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International