Approaches

Extension advisory service [Uganda]

Abalimisa

approaches_2475 - Uganda

Completeness: 75%

1. General information

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
SLM specialist:

Lugega Emm

Rakai district

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Kiyingi Jamil

Rakai district

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Mutagubya Joseph

Rakai district

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Mazimakwo Kukundakwe

Kabale district

Uganda

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Rakai District - Uganda
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Kabale District Local Government (Kabale District Local Government) - Uganda

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/08/2011

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

Ja

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Increasing farmers' outputs through use of extension advisory service on flat area of land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main aim was to provide technical skills together with knowledge to farmers . It involves organizing of trainings through workshops mainly held on each parish of Kasasa sub county.

Methods: In implementation and adopting this approach various methods were used. These include organizing, training, between the farmers and the extension advisors (NAADS staff).
Demonstration was also used through farmer field schools through which farmers gain knowledge skills on how to apply the technology in their own gardens. This demonstration was at Mr. Kateregga Johnsons' garden.

Role of stakeholders: Farmers provided labour and at the same time acted as decision makers.

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

Country:

Uganda

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2004

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2025

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

-To provide technical skills to the farmers.
-Ti increase agricultural outputs among farmers.
-To reduce soil erosion.

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

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

Poverty due to low outputs among some farmers.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Provision of some schools to farmers.

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Inadequate money to invest in SLM.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Credit should be provided to farmers in form of loans.

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: most of land in Kasasa sub county is owned by individuals with land tittle , water is communal.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lack of technical skill among the farmers.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Technical personnel should be provided.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

They was agroup of farmers between the age of 40 -70 years.

men and women attened individually.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

Provide workshops

  • local government

Village farmers council , extension advisors.

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
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 none
planning none
implementation none
monitoring/ evaluation none
Research none

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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Explain:

Decision made by SLM specialist with consultation of farmers in the community

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Here decision made by skilled land users with the support from extension advisors, after the training.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

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.

farmer groups , both youth, men & women.

Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
Subjects covered:

provided conservation techniques and provided financial support to farmers.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Training.; Key elements: Field visits., Demonstration of technologies (Farmer field schools); Training conducted effectively.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Due to financial support technical knowledge provided to farmers .there quite adequate ensures of land conservation continuation activities.

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
Specify type of support:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Give further details:

Groups of farmers, village farmer councils got some financial support and training as well as inputs like hoes.

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 by 65%.

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: It sometimes performs well .

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: farmers involvement increased.

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: yield increased by 68%.

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: number moved up to 70%.

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: workshops & trainings provided.

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored by project staff through observations

management of Approach aspects were monitored by project staff, land users through observations

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: farmers production increased and some farmers who attended the trainings can now train others.

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There are some combinations of technologies, where by a farmer can do intercropping , but in the spaces left practices compositing also at the same garden.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Ja

Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was conducted by SLM specialists to find out what kind of technology farmers should adopt to conserve land sustainably.

Research was carried out on-farm

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • > 1,000,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (fuel cost, transport refund, financial support given to farmers, input costs, training fee. ): 98.0%; local community / land user(s) (in provision of some inputs): 2.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Ja

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
machinery fully financed hoes,panga
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed seeds of beans & maize.
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • food-for-work
Comments:

Some worked for food-for-work , some heavy labour paid in cash especially the technical ones.

Financial support provided was not enough according to farmers , some needs unmet.

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Technical knowledge provided to the land users can enable them to improve sustainable land management.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

There are some few traders of Kijonjo parish like 15 traders.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Farmers income raised due to increased yields , health standards also somehow raised.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Financial support given to farmers enabled them to improve in their agricultural activities which leads to high yields.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

outputs increased.

  • payments/ subsidies

They recieved financial support.

  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

income increase

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:

some few farmers especially the rich and those who gained a lot of technical knowledge. 20% can continue without any support, but others cannot manage to continue with approach activities.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1. Provides technical skills to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmers should always attend workshops. )
2. Provides agricultural inputs like hoes.
3. Provides financial support to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Lobbying for more financial support. )
4. Reduces soil erosion. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Practice more conservation activities. )
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1. Reduces soil degradation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increase attitude towards conservation techniques. )
2. Provides technical knowledge to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmers should participate in workshops regularly. )
3. Stimulating agricultural outputs. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Quality seeds should be provided to farmers. )
4. Provides financial support to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Lobying for more support. )

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai district statistical report 2009Rakai district development plan 2010/2013.Natural environmental action plan (drafted from Kacwera).

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai district development plan 2010/2013

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Natural environmental action plan (drafted from Kacwera)

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules