Participatory learning
(Uganda)
Abantu boona kwegyesibwa(Rukiiga)
Description
Participatory learning approach involves all stakeholders to cooperate with researchers during innovation process
Aims / objectives: To share knowledge and skills about technologies for preventing landslides and floods to land users in Kyantobi village.
Methods: -Consultation
-Meeting
-Demostrations
Stages of implementation: -Land users consulted NGO(ICRAF)at district level
-Groups were formed in Kyantobi village
-Distribution of calliandra seedlings to farmer groups
-planting calliandra seedlings
-monitoring and evaluation
Role of stakeholders: landuser
-provided land
-participate in nursery bed establishment and planting of seedlings
NGO(ICRAF)
-provided calliandra seedlings
-provided technical assistance
-monitoring and evaluation
Other important information: land user usually participate in other NGO's like ICRAF and Africa 2000 Natwork
Location
Location: Kabale, Uganda, Uganda
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 1998
Year of termination: 2003
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Improved crops and animal production)
-Control soil erosion and landslide prevention
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: The land users has full rights over the control of her plot whether to get involved in training or not.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: -low agricultural production
-poverty
-landslide problem
-Technical knowledge
Treatment through the SLM Approach:
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: -lack of funds to purchase tools like hoes and fertilizers
Treatment through the SLM Approach: -selling calliandra feeds for animal to get income
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: -lack of technical knowledge on making barriers
Treatment through the SLM Approach: -Land users to keep on working with other groups
Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? |
Specify stakeholders |
Describe roles of stakeholders |
local land users/ local communities |
Adult men and women involved |
|
NGO |
ICRAF,Africa 2000 Network |
|
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
local concils I,III involved. |
|
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
NGO such as ICRAF involved in motivation
planning
Land users also participated in planning
implementation
Land users only would implement
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology
Decisions were taken by
-
land users alone (self-initiative)
-
mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
-
all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
-
mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
-
SLM specialists alone
-
politicians/ leaders
Decisions were made based on
-
evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
-
research findings
-
personal experience and opinions (undocumented)
Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management
The following activities or services have been part of the approach
-
Capacity building/ training
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
-
land users
-
field staff/ advisers
Form of training
-
on-the-job
-
farmer-to-farmer
-
demonstration areas
-
public meetings
-
courses
Subjects covered
-Soil erosion control.
-Land slide prevention.
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Training; Key elements: Flip charts, Markers; All interested local community (land users) met for advisory service.
Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is limited technical staff in a community
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
-
no
-
yes, a little
-
yes, moderately
-
yes, greatly
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
-
financial
-
capacity building/ training
-
equipment
Further details
Demostration plots were put up and farmer groups ,local institutions were targeted ,trained and then work on their own plots
Monitoring and evaluation
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: Calliaendra trees properly planted
technical aspects were monitored by project staff through measurements
no. of land users involved aspects were monitored by None through observations
There were no changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: -Caliandra trees properly put up.
-Livelihood increased.
There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Technology remained constant as it has been designed.
Research
Research treated the following topics
-
sociology
-
economics / marketing
-
ecology
-
technology
Financing and external material support
Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
-
< 2,000
-
2,000-10,000
-
10,000-100,000
-
100,000-1,000,000
-
> 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
Approach costs were met by the following donors: national non-government (ICRAF): 54.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Local council): 6.0%; local community / land user(s) (Land user): 40.0%
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
-
Financial/ material support provided to land users
-
Subsidies for specific inputs
-
Credit
-
Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
partly financed
fully financed
Labour by land users was
-
voluntary
-
food-for-work
-
paid in cash
-
rewarded with other material support
Impact analysis and concluding statements
Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
Land users were trained on how to prevent soil from erosion and to make nursery beds for calliandra trees.
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
People with disabilities were not involved.
Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
The approach motivated the intereted land users through provision of calliandra seedlings to farmers.
The problem is likely to be overcome in the near future. If the local council implements laws forcing all land users to use the approach.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
N/A
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
-
increased production
-
increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
-
reduced land degradation
-
reduced risk of disasters
-
reduced workload
-
payments/ subsidies
-
rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
-
prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
-
affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
-
environmental consciousness
-
customs and beliefs, morals
-
enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
-
aesthetic improvement
-
conflict mitigation
-
well-being and livelihoods improvement
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
-
Exposure visits on site enable user to learn more. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue such visits from farmer to farmer. )
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
There is sharing of experiences which increases knowledge. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: To continue meeting as a group.)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
-
Extension workers are relunctant to respond to land users.
Extention workers to keep on responding to land users.
References
Date of documentation: April 12, 2013
Last update: June 26, 2017
Resource persons
-
Iwona Piechowiak (iwona.piechowiak@yahoo.co.uk) - SLM specialist
-
Jovanice Twongyeirwe - SLM specialist
-
Enoch Taremwe - SLM specialist
-
Honest Tumuheirwe - SLM specialist
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) - Italy
Project