FFS/SLM Community Initiative (Uganda)

Farmer Field School

Description

Farmers are organized to promote adoption of sustainable land management best practices within the community

Aims / objectives: To train farmers in land based technologies that improve productivity, land management and are resilient to climate changes

Methods: Planning meetings, agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA), farmer-to-farmer visits, monitoring and evaluation

Stages of implementation: Farmer Field School (FFS) formation to bring together 30 farmers from a catchment area; training in group dynamics; training in best practices to address land degradation problems; AESA; and action planning

Role of stakeholders: District facilitators: Facilitation of FFS formation, training of trainers for AESA, drawing village land use plans, prioritizing enterprises/challenges, making technical recommendations; Local leaders: Passing and implementing bye-laws.

Location

Location: Kijonjo, Katongero, Rakai District, Uganda, Uganda

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 31.69072, -0.96728

Initiation date: 2011

Year of termination: 2015

Type of Approach

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The Approach focused on SLM only (Sustainable Land Management Farmer Cooperative)

To share knowledge, skills and information on establishment of local best practices to improve productivity and biodiversity and reduce soil erosion

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low soil nutrient levels, vegetation loss and soil erosion on steep slopes
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Inadequate resources because farming is mainly subsistent Treatment through the SLM Approach: Farmers formed cooperatives to pool resources
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Little available information on addressing land management issues Treatment through the SLM Approach: Trained facilitators were sourced to provide appropriate knowledge to address relevant constraints
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Increased workload required in the implementation caused expenses on hired labor to rise. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Sharing workload through working together to dig up stones and carry them on steep slopes, lay them along contours and plant Ficus natalensis to stabilize the soil

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 Women constitute the majority of farmers in attendance because most agricultural production in the district is carried out by women, except in cattle-keeping areas where men are the majority
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
local government District facilitators were provided by the district local government
national government (planners, decision-makers) Collaboration with the line Central Government Ministries through the Project Steering Committee at Permanent Secretary level
international organization Kagera TAMP (FAO-GEF) provided funding for specialist facilitators
Lead agency
Kagera TAMP international specialists with the help of national FFS specialists
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
FFS specialist facilitator with prospective FFS members to get farmers organized in FFS (30 members each)
planning
Farmers in their farmer field schools sketched watershed maps and developed action plans with the help of district facilitators
implementation
Facilitators helped FFS members in the dynamics that sustained and strengthened the Approach
monitoring/ evaluation
A few members were co-opted to the monitoring team which comprised local government facilitators, Kagera TAMP Project specialists and the central government Project Steering Committee
Research
FFS members carried out Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) with training and field support from specialists
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
  • Politicians/Policy Makers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Extension Training: use of demonstration plots and AESA to experiment and discover the appropriate methodology for implementation of SLM technologies. A formal session involves a facilitator and farmers. The facilitator guides the farmers on how to investigate a problem using marker-drawn sketches on flip chart. Observations, conclusions and recommendations are reached in a participatory manner.
Extension: FFS members adopt a resolution to carry out the recommended procedures/activities; community members are free to interact with FFS members on field days and copy recommendations. Farmer-to-farmer visits are encouraged and promoted to extend information.
Research: FFS members research together on a given problem/challenge such as soil fertility and arrive at recommendations together. They are guided by facilitators from government or government research institutions with collaborative support from Kagera TAMP/FAO project.
Importance of land use rights: Ownership of land affects land management practices. The attitude towards the recommendation by farmers is usually determined by the FFS members. In Kagera TAMP districts land ownership is customary but the right to use land is governed by national laws.
Incentives:
Labor: Farmer Field School members provide the labor to implement technologies. Hired labor may also be used.
Inputs: Farmers provide the basic tools such as hoes, pick axe etc. Seedlings and seeds may be provided by the project.
Credit: Small amounts may be acquired from the FFS cooperative savings.

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
Training workshops in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) both national and international, seminars, and procurement and training in the use of computers, digital cameras and GPS units
Monitoring and evaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: FFS constantly refines and improves on what and how to achieve objectives, to discover and archive best practices in the most effective forms possible There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Height of stone lines, width between lines
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) by FFS members

Research was carried out on-farm

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 (Kagera TAMP): 18.95%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (District and Sub-county facilitator time): 11.14%; local community / land user(s) (Land users as FFS members): 69.91%
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

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?

Formerly disused land was made productive

Did other land users / projects adopt 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
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome

References

Compiler
  • Wilson Bamwerinde
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: March 22, 2014
Last update: June 26, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International