Extension advisory service [Uganda]

approaches_2471 - 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:

Mubangizi John

Mbarara district


Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?


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


1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Grass strips

Grass strips [Uganda]

Napier grass strips control soil erosion on annual and perennial cropland on moderately-angled to highly-angled slopes.

  • Compiler: Wilson Bamwerinde

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Through ULAMP by agricultural extensions ,adopted to conserve land degaradation by practicing grass strips.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: It was initiated by ULAMP through agric extensions, through group working/participation . Training by doing and aimed at land conservation by reducing soil erosion , increasing fodder production , mulches and producing building materials.

Methods: -Demonstrations
-Training /practicing
-Group work/team working

Stages of implementation: Mobilisation-through ULAMP as initiator.
Commencement meeting-by agricultural extension workers as the implementors
Demonstration-Monitors and evaluators(Team work).
Monitoring: Land users as the beneficiaries and at the same time as monitors and evaluators.

Role of stakeholders: Extension staff provided the training and training materials,and participated in monitoring.
Land users provided one demostration site and participated in monitoring
Local leaders participated in monitoring

Other important information: The stakeholders stopped funding on the demonstration site and others just transfered the knowledge and funded themselves with their local implements like hoes , pangas and the species of napier grass.

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



Region/ State/ Province:


Further specification of location:


2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:


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


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 (Grazing,mulching and building materials)

-To reduce soil erosion and conserve land.
-To inrease fodder production
-To increase mulching materials
-To make building materials available
-To give knowledge to farmers on land planning.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: The approach wanted to address the problem of soil erosion and fodder production-plus low mulching materials.

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Lacks money to finance all the activities involved

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Still need government help or intervention inform of grants and donations.

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 were free to use their land in any way they wanted

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Lacks monitoring staff in order to make changes where necessary.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Having enough agricultural extension staff.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

beneficiaries through groups

as implementers

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

At the subcounty to do the training

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)


If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

Specialists from the district and the centre came with the approach

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 Local leaders for mobilisation
planning interactive group leaders for guiding specialists
implementation interactive attending meetings
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Together with specialists
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

Land users played a big part in decision making and choice making. Specialists gave tehnical guidance.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. The land users through groups decided on the SLM technology implementation.

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?


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

Training was done for all people.

Form of training:
  • on-the-job
Subjects covered:

Group formation,Group dynamics, soil and water management .

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • at permanent centres
  • Meetings
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Meeting; Key elements: Land management, Fertility mangement, Layout of conservation structures

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; They came like once in a month

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
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

Land users were supported in mobilisation of meetings and on job training.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: attendance lists

management of Approach aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: number of activities done

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There was inrease in the number of people attending meetings.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: soil erosion has reduced and top cover plus the crops planted haved improved

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

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (in providing training materials or demonstration materials.): 70.0%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (payment of technical staff): 30.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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


5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • other
Other (specify) To which extent Specify subsidies
Training materials fully financed
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

Land users were doing their own work(for their own benefit) to check soil loss

Land users were fully supplied with training materials.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


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

Continous production of fodder has given manure ,and improved soil fertility of the soil.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

No improvement on feeding habits/regime

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

About 20% have adopted the technology and improved livelihoods

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

There is increased food production and surplus for sale have improved food security and household income

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

The approach encouraged group work and many income generating activities were accomplished

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

Foreseen yield increase

  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

Farmers were competing

  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks

Efficient networking

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:

household income is still low

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
-It helped in technology implementation
-helped in mobilisation of meetings
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It helped in technology implementation (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Regular monitoring of the approach)

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
They are less available to every individual increasing the number of extension advisory staff

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