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)

Euregio-East Africa Livelihood Improvement Programme (EEALIP)

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

Caritas Masaka Diocesan Development Organisation (Caritas MADDO) - Uganda

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

14/07/2021

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

Ja

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2.1 Short description of the Approach

This integrated soil fertility management approach aims at identifying and promoting practices in land management that can increase soil fertility, reduce land degradation and improve production. Under this specific example, organic manure from a piggery was applied to banana and coffee plantations.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The main objective of the MADDO approach is to test and promote, in a pilot area, the advantages for small-scale farmers of organic manure from piggeries in coffee and banana plantations. The approach aims not only to increase farmers' production through multiple income streams from the integrated production systems but also to secure those income streams by enhancing soil fertility and decreasing land degradation for long-term sustainability. One distinct feature of the approach is the emphasis on cost-effective technologies for small-scale farmers. In the case of the piggery-banana-coffee enterprise, the investment capital needed is very low and the technology is not complicated.
The focus was on small-scale farmer groups of 30-35 members (roughly 200 farmers in 6 groups participated) and was coordinated by Caritas MADDO (one project coordinator and three field staff officers) and agriculture officers from the subcounty level. Groups were identified and implementation concentrated on various trainings for farmers on piggery management, banana and coffee production. In particular, the production of organic manure was highlighted in training, with emphasis on collection, storage and application. After basic training, farmers are led through the one-year production cycle which includes the following stages: rearing of the pigs; manure collection; storage in a pit for decomposition (one to two months); application of the manure during the rainy season when the plants are healthy and actively growing; and then ongoing monitoring, and if needed repetition of the stages and reapplication of the manure (two times per year).
The small-scale farmers appreciate the technology because of the higher production and income they are gaining. It is easy and cheap - particularly because the enterprise can be spread by beneficiary farmers passing on piglets to new farmers. Nevertheless, there is the possibility of the pigs catching diseases (African swine fever) and once infected the farmers have no options for relief as an entire piggery can be wiped out. Moreover, farmers have complained that water scarcity and unsuitable weather conditions can affect production.

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main objective of the approach from an organizational perspective was to test in a pilot area the advantages of organic manure from piggery in a coffee and banana plantation. The approach aims not only to increase farmers' production through multiple income streams from piggery, banana and coffee but also to secure those income streams by enhancing the soil fertility and decreasing land degradation for long-term sustainability.

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	interactive	The project team involved the community leaders and farmers from prior project phases as well as governmental extension officers have been involved in the initiation of the approach. Activities encompasses the joint group formation and mobilization of fellow farmers to discuss the training needs and capacities.
planning	interactive	The above people then continued with jointly discuss the modus operantes with creating a training schedule and actively participating in the learning journey.
implementation	self-mobilization	The implementation mainly encompasses the adoption of the SLM technology, and the farmers were the main implementors and actors with offering pilot land and labor. The project contributed advisory support, monitoring and financial support.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	M&E was done by the project staff, extension officers and the farmers together with the community leaders themselves on a regular basis.

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:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

Mainly land users, supported by implementing organization

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• 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
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

Land and soil management
Sustainable agricultural practices
Piggery management

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

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:

Input support

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?

Ja

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Project staff was during minor research on soil improvement and in particular on fitting livestock integrations. Due to this research pigs were chosen as preferred livestock.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

50000.00

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

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

The budget includes staff salary, transport, training costs and inputs for the farmers. In total the approach reached around 200 farmers within six groups in Bukomansimbi (30-35 participants each).

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):

Land users were given input support (coffee seedlings, banana suckers, pigs)

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

• agricultural

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

• voluntary

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:

With the pass on mechanisms of the pigs and the capacity building through the extension officers. The pass on mechanisms works similar to the Heifer pass on, where participating farmers have to contribute their newborn piglets to other members within the group that have not benefited from the prior project input.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The pilot small-scale farmers appreciate the approach because of the higher production and income there are gaining. The approach is easy and cheap to be implemented and in particular because a pass-on mechanisms of the pigs were applied.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Advantages was in the participatory approach, and it was an interactive learning experience

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?
The approach is unfortunately affected by the possibility of the pigs catching diseases (African swine fever) and once infected the farmers have no options for relief as entire piggery will be wiped out.	Hygiene training was given and practiced
Moreover, farmers have complained that water scarcity and unsuitable weather conditions have affected the approach.	Farmers mobilized for underground water tanks

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
For the compilers it was difficult to access some of the Information from farmers (e.g., basic records on feeding or construction)	Training was given and also information was collected together with farmers (e.g. calculation made together on construction costs)

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Not used

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Not used