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

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

Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)

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

Uganda Landcare Network (ULN) - Uganda

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

12/09/2016

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

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Improve knowledge-sharing and dialogue among relevant actors in addressing a multi-stakeholder natural resource management challenge

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	external support	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	interactive	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	interactive	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	interactive	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.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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

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

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

Several meetings are held in which all actors deliberate the technological options available and a voting stage decides which of the options is to be selected for implementation. There are also situations when more than one option is considered if they do not contradict.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

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

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

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.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, moderately

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

• local
• 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.

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give 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.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Nee

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• sociology
• economics / marketing
• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

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.

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):

Support from Global Environmental Facility (GEF), through NARO

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Tools and implements for establishing contour bunds (hoes, pangas, mattocks)

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• rewarded with other material support

Comments:

Each household owning land in the micro catchment was allowed access to the tools whenever needed. The tools were stored in a joint place where all farmers in the micro-catchment would have access to.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Nee

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:

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.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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

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?
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 in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be 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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Integrated Agricultural Research for Development ...from concept to practice, ISBN: 978-9988-1-1639-0

Available from where? Costs?

http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/Articulos_Ciat/biblioteca/Integrated_agricultural_research_for_development_from_concept_to_practice.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Guidelines for innovation platforms: Facilitation, monitoring and evaluation

URL:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.856.4244&rep=rep1&type=pdf