Farmers working collectively under an Innovation Platform in order to control soil erosion in Bugobero, Uganda (Bernard Fungo)

Innovation Platform Approach (IPA) for Collective Action in SLM (Uganda)

Tubaana Group

Description

Critical actors in a certain area come together, articulate the perceived challenge, identify solutions, allocate responsibilities and work together towards overcoming the challenge

Efficient use of natural resources is a critical pathway to achieving green growth. Mountain ecosystems are an example of natural resources that need to be sustainably managed to continue providing economic, social and environmental benefits to the large number of dependent communities. The challenge is that these ecosystems are fragile and highly susceptible to natural disasters and their management requires multi-sectoral, transboundary, interdisciplinary and landscape level interventions. Although several technologies to address land degradation exist, adoption remains low. This has been attributed mainly to a dysfunctional extension system and weak implementation of land management policies/regulations. Working at landscape-scale and ensuring inter-sectoral coordination and cooperation is crucial for effective land management responses.

An Innovation Platform (IP) approach is a mechanism to enhance communication and innovation capacity among mutually dependent actors, by improving interactions, coordination, and coherence among all actors to facilitate learning and contribute to production and use of knowledge. The IP approach is a coalition, collaboration, partnership and alliance of agricultural research and development (ARD) actors. That is, public and private scientists, extension workers, representatives of farmers, farmers’ associations, private firms and non-governmental organizations and government policy makers.

Documentation of this approached is based on experience from a study conducted in the eastern highlands of Uganda. The aim of this study was to improve the understanding of how IPs can enhance adoption of soil and water conservation technologies in the fragile highland ecosystems of eastern Uganda. Control of soil erosion was identified as a challenge to be addressed by the IP. The process involved the key principles as follows:

1. Establishment of an effective leadership – An IP committee was established and trained on critical skills required in group dynamics
2. Facilitating formation of lower-level groups (IP clusters) – this is not a necessary step but was important to implement soil erosion control in Bugobero micro-catchments
3. Capacity building – mainly on soil erosion control using contour bunds stabilized with multipurpose trees (Calliandra and Grevillea). This was done through the Farmer Field School (FFS) approach. Farmers were able to collectively establish 4,000 meters of contour bunds and reduce run-off and erosion significantly
4. Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
5. Development and implementation of an effective communication strategy among stakeholder; and
6. Facilitating the formulation of by-laws to foster implementation of soil erosion control. A by-law on maintenance of the established contour bunds was initiated and the process is still on-going.

From this experience, the IP intends to implement the FFS approach on other technologies such as fodder-bank establishment from Calliandra along contours bunds, manure management for production and collective marketing of bananas. These interrelated technologies are contributing towards improving the banana value chain, which plays a significant role in the food and income security of a majority of households in eastern Uganda. Data collection on information flow and knowledge sharing among stakeholders is on-going to provides empirical evidence about the potential of this approach. The benefits demonstrated by the IP are a motivation for stakeholders to participate in collective action. The cycle of benefits can lead to a self-sustaining community.

The need to establish an IP can originate from various actors including researchers, farmers, development agencies, NGOs, private companies, entrepreneurs and agricultural artisans, among others. Once a common challenge has been identified, the vision bearer can begin to mobilize other actors and share visions.

The advantages of this approach include:
1. direct and continuous interaction, communication and knowledge sharing among the IP actors
2. quick and continuous feedback from end users (farmers) at all stages of research for development and;
3. timely integration of new knowledge into the innovation process using experiential learning, monitoring and evaluation and the continous feedback

One limitation of this approach is that it requires continuous motivation of the various actors to maintain their interest the IP. Often times the benefits of Natural Ressources Management, NRM are long-lived while most actors look for shorter term benefits, making it difficult to maintain motivation. Conflict is a common occurrence in such multi-stakeholder platforms and only transparent and accountable leadership can overcome this. Examples of situation where conflict situations arise include technology selection, labour distribution, financial and gender biases.

Location

Location: Khabungu Parish, Bugobero Sub county, Manafwa District, Mount Elgon Region, Uganda

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 34.26499, 0.87381

Initiation date: 2016

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
Farmers receiving training from an SLM specialist on how to construct contour stone bunds for collective soil erosion control in Bugobero, Eastern Uganda (Bernard Fungo)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
Improve knowledge-sharing and dialogue among relevant actors in addressing a multi-stakeholder natural resource management challenge
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Social capital in form of community cohesiveness encourages people to support the less-privileged such as the elderly, who cannot afford labour to construct contour bunds on their own
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Several microfinance institutions have be created with support from government of Uganda to farmer groups, although their priority is not much into natural resource management
  • Institutional setting: Existence of several farmer groups can support knowledge sharing
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Decentralization policy in the country
  • Policies: Decentralization policy in Uganda allows for establishment of local rules of engagement between farmers and local government
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Several NGOs and projects are promoting land management practices due to frequent occurrence of landslides in the area
  • Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: Increasing population in has driven up the demand for food and agricultural supplies and this creates new markets for farmers' produce
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Stringent rules on payback periods and collateral make it difficult for most farmer groups on SLM to access
  • Institutional setting: Enforcement of land management laws inadequate
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: The largely demand-driven farmer-paid extension system in Uganda does not allow for farmers to seek technical support on land management practices
  • Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: The difficult terrain makes access to markets terribly difficult for farmers
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Shortage of labor due to youth migration to urban areas yet land management technologies are labor intensive

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 Farmers Implement land management practices on their farms
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Agricultural Extension staff Provide technical advise to farmers
researchers National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) Study the technological, institutional and market approaches and processes for improving the functioning of the IP approach
NGO Mbale Coalition Against Poverty (Mbale-CAP) Provision of farm inputs such as tree seedlings of appropriate species
private sector Input dealers, product dealers and banks Provision of input such as seedlings to farmers and buying of produce such as bananas from farmers. Banks provide low-interest loans to farmers.
local government Sub county local government Support the process of preparation and enactment of by-laws of land management
international organization International Research Centers (e.g. World Agroforetry Center) Support research by providing extra expertise to national research centers and sometime laboratory facilities where needed
Lead agency
National Forestry Resources Research Institute (NaFORRI), National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Some groups had already initiated some actions but were not very progressive. A research team came from the the National Research Institute to stimulate the organization of the group on soil erosion control.
planning
Farmers participated in the elections to establish the steering committee of the IP. They also participated in the visioning and articulation of the soil erosion challenge and the means to address it. Farmers also participated in the selection of technological options for soil erosion control.
implementation
Local leaders (Local Councils) participated in the formation of lower level IP clusters in each sub catchment and mobilizing households to participate in joint activities on designated days. Farmers participated in the collective action to establish soil erosion control structures across the landscape.
monitoring/ evaluation
Farmers and local leaders were part of the monitoring and evaluation committee of the IP and participated in periodic activities to asses progress towards the set targets such as the extent and quality of contour bunds completed, the rate of soil erosion and the performance of the crops after the bunds are created.
Flow chart

Flow Chart of the process that the IP approach needs to go through to be effective

Author: Bernard Fungo
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
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Soil erosion control using contour bunds, types of bunds, size and spacing between them

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Where the demonstration lots are established, technical staff visit the site and provide support on-site. The zonal research center is also available for interested farmers to visit and learn more about the technological options suitable for the area.
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.
National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) operates at district level through formation and training of farmers groups. Mainstream extension workers at the sub-counties provide training to farmers and farmers groups that are not part of the NAADS groups. The training was augmented by NARO and other NGOs.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
The IP actors, including local government staff, farmer groups and extension staff were trained on various aspects of group dynamics in order to improve their management skills. The sub-county local government was provided with tools (pangas, mattocks and hoes) for use in establishing stone lines.
Monitoring and evaluation
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

One of the objectives of the research was to understand how the IP processes can be improved to achieve more positive development outcomes (e.g. knowledge, attitude change). The other objective was to find out how effective short-rotation shrubs would perform in stabilizing contour bunds for soil erosion control in hillsides. The economic study aimed at assessing the marginal income from establishing contour bunds for soil erosion control.

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.
Support from Global Environmental Facility (GEF), through NARO
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
Financial/ material support provided to land users
Tools and implements for establishing contour bunds (hoes, pangas, mattocks)

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?

Training provided on technological options for soil erosion control and leadership training to local leaders. All stakeholders contributed to the selection of appropriate technologies.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?

Farmers were part of the establishment of the contour bunds and also part of the M&E committee. Field days organized were used to show evidence of effectiveness of contour bunds at landscape level.

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

Farmers were able to establish 4000 meters of contour bunds in one of the micro catchments

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?

Various stakeholders were able to meet in one place and collectively discuss a common challenge of soil erosion

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?

Both the training and demonstration site on soil erosion enlightened land users about the various soil erosion control practices

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?

The other stakeholders appreciated the importance of collective action at landscape level after soil erosion was reduced significantly

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?

Extension staff, researcher and local government were able to realize the technologies generated by NARO such as Calliandra for livestock, which had not been known to local leaders before

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?

Improvements in yield of bananas and maize was reported. This is part of food security improvement.

Did the Approach improve access to markets?

Traders participated in the IP with the hope of accessing a steady supply of bananas at stable prices if farmers agree to sign contracts with them. This commitment was not binding and did not show much success.

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?

Before the project, soil erosion destroyed property and killed people in the catchment but this was avoided after the project implemented contour bunds. Heavy rains no longer affect the people negatively.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

After realizing the benefits, farmers can be encouraged to work together to maintain the soil erosion control structures. Local leaders can ensure that the by laws are enforced to ensure compliance by land owners.

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • The approach ensures that every land user implements the soil erosion control structures since erosion affects everyone
  • Collective action is good because where some land users are unable to comply, either rules are enforced or they are supported to comply
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Direct and continuous interaction, communication and knowledge sharing among the IP actors
  • Quick and continuous feedback from end users (farmers) at all stages of research and extension
  • Timely integration of new knowledge into the innovation process using experiential learning, monitoring and evaluation and the continual feedback from stakeholders
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Sometimes some farmers do not approve of the technology being promoted and choose not to participate in collective action Allowing for multiple options for addressing the same challenge is important in encouraging collective action
  • Lack of transparency and committed leadership can discourage participation Capacity building on effective leadership is important
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • It requires continuous motivation of the various actors to maintain their interest the IP. Often times the benefits of NRM are long-lived while most actors look for shorter term benefits, making it difficult to maintain motivation. The leadership should properly articulate the short term as well as the long term benefits of the approach
  • Conflict is a common occurrence in such multi-stakeholder platforms and only transparent and accountable leadership can overcome this Implementing the effective communication strategy is important in ensuring transparency and reducing distrust ad conflict situations

References

Compiler
  • Bernard Fungo
Editors
  • Dr. Patrick Musinguzi
  • Moses Makooma Tenywa
  • Kamugisha Rick Nelson
Reviewer
  • Nicole Harari
  • Udo Höggel
Date of documentation: Sept. 7, 2018
Last update: Sept. 2, 2020
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Integrated Agricultural Research for Development ...from concept to practice, ISBN: 978-9988-1-1639-0: http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/Articulos_Ciat/biblioteca/Integrated_agricultural_research_for_development_from_concept_to_practice.pdf
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International