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)?

12/12/2017

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

A prosocial behavior approach, where a peer farmer identified by other local farmers is trained on a technology and then used as a trainer for the fellow farmers (farmer group or neighbors).

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices requires an in-depth understanding of the implementation, sustainability and the opportunity cost involved. Empowered local resource persons known as peer farmers are used by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Northern Uganda as channels to ensure that farmers understand the importance and implementation of Climate Smart Agricultural (CSA) Practices such as using conservation farming (CF) permanent basins.
A peer farmer in this case is a local community member whom the farmers identify as a potential trainer, very cooperative and, if trained would be willing to share the knowledge with other farmers in that community. After training the peer farmers, an incentive is promised to them based on their performance over time. This incentive is a commodity that is very cheap, but valuable, and not usually a farm input. In this case weighing scale was used as an incentive.
The peer farmer then uses all available methods and channels to pass on to the knowledge to other folks. The acquired knowledge and skills are usually shared through community meetings, religious gatherings, market places and so on.
The process of implementing this approach includes: Identifying the place of implementation, working with the farmers to identify a potential peer farmer, training the peer farmer, the peer farmer training other farmers over time and monitoring the progress of knowledge spill over. Stakeholders involved: Field staff - Work with farmers to identify and train peers, monitor activities; local leaders - organize community members; peer farmer - attend training, train other farmers.
This method is cheap, farmers identify someone with fairly good pro-social behavior, and farmers would be willing to learn from their own village member.

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

Promoting adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture through prosocial behaviour

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	CIAT project promoting food security and farming systems resilience in East Africa through wide-scale adoption of climate smart agriculture. The project is implemented in Nwoya district, designed by CIAT and funded by IFAD.
planning	external support	CIAT/IITA: IITA became partner organisation for the project. Staffing was done through IITA, implemented in collaboration with IITA Uganda.
implementation	interactive	CIAT, IITA, Local government, National Agricultural Research Organisation, ZOA, Farmers, Extension agents
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Participatory monitoring and evaluation involving all parties through farmers field days

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

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings

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.

adults

Form of training:

• public meetings

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:

planned visits to peer farmers fields to observe what they are doing and advising them accordingly.

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

local farmer groups

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

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

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

CIAT/IITA Research in Northern Uganda under the project; Promoting food security and farming systems resilience in East Africa through wide scale adoption of climate smart Agriculture (CSA)

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 2,000-10,000

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Nee

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• none

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?

Ja

If yes, specify:

weighing scale for best performers

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:

The knowledge becomes local to the farmers; observes direct benefits whitin the shortest time of implementation, learn other things from neighbors without need for any motivation

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
farmers can easily learn from each other
peer trains farmers within their local environment

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
All available methods of passing information about the technologies are at the peer farmers disposal eg. market points, church, group meetings, tribal gatherings
farmers use their local language to teach/demonstrate to each other

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?
difficult to train peer farmers	use practicals
peer farmers may not retain all the knowledge about the technology	use charts/pictures

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
costly to organise trainings for peers	use local education facilities such as schools for training peer farmers

7.1 Methods/ sources of information