Community development appraoch (Uganda)

Okulakulanya Ebitundu (Luganda).

Description

The approach involves the community and other development partners identifying opportunities, challenges and appropriate solutions through collective action.

Aims / objectives: To mobilize community members work together to find solution to community problems like environmental degradation , hunger and others with assistance of development partners.
To mobilize community resources to help in solving community problems e.g. labor, water. etc.

Methods: Community meeting between community leaders and SLM specialists.
Music , dance and drama to sensitize communities on sustainable land management.
Poster and IEC materials to sensitize farmers.
Hands on methods where farmers and other community members learnt by doing.

Stages of implementation: Initiation stage: This involved orientation meeting with community member & leaders to orient them about the project and roles of stakeholders.
Implementation stage; Each stakeholder carried out his/her role. This involved active participation /hand on of the farmers /land users.

Role of stakeholders: Community leaders ; Their role was mobilization of land users.
Farmers/land users: Participation in the implementation of the technology .Resource mobilization (local resources).
SLM Specialists (VI-Agroforestry): Provision of technical advice and information .Decision making, and making IEC materials.

Location

Location: Rakai, Uganda, Uganda

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Initiation date: 2003

Year of termination: 2008

Type of Approach

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Household income, increased production )

To mobilize land users /community members to find a solution to community problems using community resources.
To sensitize communities on sustainable land management and environmental conservation.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The problems include environmental degradation caused by deforestation . Low agricultural production , inadequate wood fuel.
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 moderately helped the approach implementation: The individual ownership of the land moderately help the approach as it made decision making easy.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Inadequate resources to purchase seedlings & tools by the land users Treatment through the SLM Approach: Local resource mobilization by land users

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 Kijonjo parish -Kasasa Sub-county Rakai district Both men and women, also the PWDs , widows, and orphans. Poor and average income.
international organization VI-Agro-forestry
Lead agency
The international specialists (VI-Agro forestry staff) designed the approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
Local leaders mobilized land users. SLM Specialists sensitized land users & their leaders on SLM .
planning
Land users were involved in information sharing. SLM Specialists provided technical guidance.
implementation
SLM Specialists gave technical advice to land users who were involved in active implementation of the project.
monitoring/ evaluation
The SLM Specialists were involved in M&E in consultation with land users.
Research
No research was conducted.
Flow chart

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
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
  • Village leaders.
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Agroforestry and its significance in conservation, Climate change , Afforestation.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Name of method used for advisory service: Extension; Key elements: Technical advice. , Community empowerment.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; There is not enough advisory services to contribute to sustainable land conservation activities . There is one extension staff for each sub county who is not facilitated to visit the farmers.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Village leaders.
Monitoring and evaluation
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: Goals and objectives economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: increased output and household income. no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by land users through observations; indicators: No. of male and female involved. There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Yes there were few changes in the approach .e.g.. the consultations of land users in planning and monitoring of the SLM approach. There were no changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation

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: international non-government (VI-Agroforestry): 40.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (Village councils): 5.0%; local community / land user(s) (Farmers): 55.0%
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

Labour by land users was

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?

There was improvement in SLM like increased vegetation cover, increased afforestation, and reduction of soil erosion & deforestation.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

PWDs and orphans improved availability of food and other basic needs.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

The ownership /land user and water user rights had insignificant hindrance to the implementation of the technology.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Land users in Kasasa & Kakuuto sub counties , about 50% of land users in the sub counties have gradually adopted the approach.

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)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Through community and farmers groups, and through community resource mobilization.

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • The approach encourages involvement of farmers and other land users (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increased involvement of farmers /land users in all stages of projects. )
  • The approach units the land user towards fighting community problems. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Deployment of more extension and advisory officers to work with land users. )
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • It enhances peoples participation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increased active participation of land users in all stages of the project. )
  • The approach encourages community resource mobilization. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Supplementing community resources with external support and subsidies. )
  • The approach encourages capacity building of land users. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmer field schools to enhance participatory learning that will lead to project sustainability. )
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Inadequate external support for SLM activities. Provide adequate external support to supplement local resources to enhance SLM activities.
  • Inadequate training and awareness of SLM activities. More training and awareness creation on SLM activities through IEC materials like posters.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • The approach did not involve external support & subsidies to enhance local resources. Providing subsidies & external support to enhance local community resources.
  • The training was short and had little lasting impact to SLM land users. Setting up farmer field schools to provide participatory learning to land users.
  • The approach dis not involve research on various aspects of the approach and technology. Conduct research before implementation of the project.

References

Compiler
  • Wilson Bamwerinde
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: May 6, 2013
Last update: June 26, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Rakai District Developement Plan 2010-2013 Rakai District Statistical Report 2009Natural Resources Evironmentaal Action Plan:
  • Rakai District Statistical Report 2009:
  • Natural Resources Environmental Action Plan:
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International