1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Kabale District Local Government (Kabale District Local Government) - Uganda

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Rakai District - Uganda

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

13/05/2013

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Through community meetings farmers get interest of using mulching on flat area to reduce soil erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main aim of this approach was to reduce soil erosion as well as increasing their products. This approach involved meetings between farmers in their communities , it involves sharing of knowledge related to mulching and the ways of maintaining it.

Methods: The criteria of developing mulching was through meetings. Key farmers organized after every two months, at every village, and disseminated information about the ways and how to maintain it.
Demonstration was also done at one farmers' garden , to show others how to make it.

Stages of implementation: In the process of implementing it, there was clearing of weed from garden, covering of soil with grass and other crop residues. In the space left from one plant to another , the farmer did some composting purposely to increase the rate of fertility, Re-mulching also done ,when cover materials decompose.

Role of stakeholders: Farmers provided the labor during implementation and maintenance process . They also were involved in decision making especially while attending meetings.

Other important information: In the process of implementing mulching , there was gender balance between men and women during decision making and provision of labor. But the high percentage were men of ages ranging from 25 years and above, with involvement of community leaders.

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

-To increase agricultural outputs.
-To reduce soil erosion.
-To provide and share knowledge about mulching.
-To sustain fertility in the soil.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: -Lack of cash to invest in SLM.
-Lack of technical knowledge.
-Low agricultural outputs.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	self-mobilization	Skilled farmers and others.
planning	self-mobilization
implementation	self-mobilization	Land users.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Land users and skilled farmers.
Research	self-mobilization	Farmers themselves.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• land users alone (self-initiative)

Explain:

In making decision on how to implement mulching was through meetings by land users . Key farmers organize meetings at village levels, and other framers picked interest. It was between men and women.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Meetings were held, and one demonstration done in one farmers' garden . Other farmers visited the one who had ever practiced it to share experiences. It was done on local basis.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Aged from 20years and above female and male.

Form of training:

• public meetings

Subjects covered:

All matters related to soil erosion & increase outputs.

Comments:

Training was provided to land users by key farmers facilitated by advisory service but there was no financial support or inputs, given to farmers.

Farmers who attended farmer field schools trained other farmers at local levels , and others picked interest from there.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Training.; Key elements: meetings.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

Give further details:

Training provided to local farmers at village levels by key farmers who ever went to farmer field schools.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: soil erosion reduced.

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Peoples attitude towards mulching increased.

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: farmers income increased due to increased output.

economic / production aspects were None monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Both men and women involved highly.

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by land users through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Some few changes observed where by some few farmers started to adopt extension advisory service.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Few of them now applying mulching at the same time applying composting, this was observed at Katereggas' site.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (6500/= used in purchase of inputs. )

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

Yes they can because they have been doing the approach activities without any external support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It provides conservation knowledge to other farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Adopt technical knowledge. )
It reduces soil erosion. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More conservation approach should be provided. )
It promoted conservation culture among farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Mobilize other community members to participate. )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It promoted awareness to other farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Encourage more awareness and organize farmer field schools. )
Provided conservation skill among farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More conservation meetings should be conducted. )
Sharing of views among farmers increased. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Conducting more meetings. )

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Lacks enough inputs like hoes and pangas.	External support should be provided.
They lack enough technical personnel.	Skilled personnel should be provided.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
It lacks technical personnel.	Technical personnel should be provided.
The approach lacks enough credit to boost the farmers.	External support should be provided.
Experiences are not documented.	Encourage farmers to document experiences.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai District statistical report 2009Rakai District development plan 2010/2013Natural environment action plan (drafted from Kagera).

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai District development plan 2010/2013

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Natural environment action plan (drafted from Kagera).