Approaches

Participatory learning [Uganda]

Abantu boona kwegyesibwa(Rukiiga)

approaches_2470 - Uganda

Completeness: 78%

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:

Twongyeirwe Jovanice

Kabale district

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Taremwe Enoch

Kabale district

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Tumuheirwe Honest

Kabale district

Uganda

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
FAO (FAO) - Italy

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

12/04/2013

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Participatory learning approach involves all stakeholders to cooperate with researchers during innovation process

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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

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

Country:

Uganda

Region/ State/ Province:

Uganda

Further specification of location:

Kabale

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1998

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

2003

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 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

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

-low agricultural production
-poverty
-landslide problem
-Technical knowledge

Treatment through the SLM Approach:

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

-lack of funds to purchase tools like hoes and fertilizers

Treatment through the SLM Approach: -selling calliandra feeds for animal to get income

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

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.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

-lack of technical knowledge on making barriers

Treatment through the SLM Approach: -Land users to keep on working with other groups

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • 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.

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 interactive NGO such as ICRAF involved in motivation
planning interactive Land users also participated in planning
implementation self-mobilization Land users only would implement
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 land users, supported by SLM specialists
Explain:

SLM specialists provided technical assistance to land users

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by SLM specialists alone (top-down). It was by SLMs specialists alone who were experienced about the method of implementation.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Adult males and female.

Form of training:
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

-Soil erosion control.
-Land slide prevention.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

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

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

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:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

Demostration plots were put up and farmer groups ,local institutions were targeted ,trained and then work on their own plots

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

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.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

N/A

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:
  • 100,000-1,000,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

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%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

Land user were self mobilized .

Calliandra seed were fully financed by NGO to all members of the group.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

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

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?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

People with disabilities were not involved.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

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?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

N/A

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

Improved crop and animal production

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

It improved wealth through high crop and animal production.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

Land user wanted to increase in animal and crop production.

  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

Land user wanted to increase in wealth.

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

Land users need support from government that increases motivation which results from the approach activities being implemented.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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/ advantages/ opportunities in the 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.)

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?
N/A
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Extension workers are relunctant to respond to land users. Extention workers to keep on responding to land users.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules