Community development appraoch [Uganda]

Okulakulanya Ebitundu (Luganda).

approaches_2473 - Uganda

Completeness: 81%

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:
{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 'Wilson Bamwerinde', 'user_id': '2470', 'unknown_user': False, 'template': 'raw'}
SLM specialist:

Mazimakwo Kukundakwe

Kabale District


SLM specialist:

Kiyingi Jamil

Rakai District


SLM specialist:

Kategga Matia

Rakai District


SLM specialist:

Mutagubya Joseph

Rakai District


{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 9, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'The Transboundary Agro-ecosystem Management Project for the Kagera River Basin (GEF-FAO / Kagera TAMP )', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1206, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rakai District - Uganda', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 1206, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Rakai District - Uganda', 'template': 'raw'}

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

Ficus Natalensis Agroforestry System

Ficus Natalensis Agroforestry System [Uganda]

Ficus natalensis based agroforestry system protects crops on windy hill slopes facing Lake Victoria and reduce runoff towards the meandering Kagera River Valley.

  • Compiler: Wilson Bamwerinde

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

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

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

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.

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 (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.

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Inadequate resources to purchase seedlings & tools by the land users

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Local resource mobilization by land users

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

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.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • 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


If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

The international specialists (VI-Agro forestry staff) designed 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 interactive Local leaders mobilized land users. SLM Specialists sensitized land users & their leaders on SLM .
planning interactive Land users were involved in information sharing. SLM Specialists provided technical guidance.
implementation interactive SLM Specialists gave technical advice to land users who were involved in active implementation of the project.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive The SLM Specialists were involved in M&E in consultation with land users.
Research none No research was conducted.

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

The decision on the SLM technology choice was made by land users under the guidance of SLM specialists.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by SLM specialists with consultation of land users. The decision on the method of implementing the SLM technology was largely made by SLM specialists in consultation of the land users and their leaders.

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
  • Village leaders.
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

The training involved both men and women of working age.

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

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

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


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

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.

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:

Village leaders.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



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

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:
  • 10,000-100,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

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%

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
Software activities like trainings
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • paid in cash

Casual laborers paid in cash on a salary basis.

The SLM Specialists only financed software activities like trainings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was incomes of the people s moderate improvement in the household incomes of the people. There was also improved food security among households.

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

The approach helped to reduce the poverty levels by improving the household incomes, and food among various land users.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio

increased production & income.

  • environmental consciousness

Deforestation causes shortage of fuel.

  • well-being and livelihoods improvement

Improved household incomes.

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

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

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

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

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?
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 in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be 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.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai District Developement Plan 2010-2013 Rakai District Statistical Report 2009Natural Resources Evironmentaal Action Plan

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai District Statistical Report 2009

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Natural Resources Environmental Action Plan

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all