Extension advisory service [Uganda]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Wilson Bamwerinde
- Editor: –
- Reviewer: Fabian Ottiger
Abalimisa
approaches_2475 - Uganda
View sections
Expand all Collapse all1. General information
1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach
SLM specialist:
Lugega Emm
Rakai district
Uganda
SLM specialist:
Kiyingi Jamil
Rakai district
Uganda
SLM specialist:
Mutagubya Joseph
Rakai district
Uganda
SLM specialist:
Mazimakwo Kukundakwe
Kabale district
Uganda
1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT
When were the data compiled (in the field)?
01/08/2011
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
Increasing farmers' outputs through use of extension advisory service on flat area of land.
2.2 Detailed description of the Approach
Detailed description of the Approach:
Aims / objectives: The main aim was to provide technical skills together with knowledge to farmers . It involves organizing of trainings through workshops mainly held on each parish of Kasasa sub county.
Methods: In implementation and adopting this approach various methods were used. These include organizing, training, between the farmers and the extension advisors (NAADS staff).
Demonstration was also used through farmer field schools through which farmers gain knowledge skills on how to apply the technology in their own gardens. This demonstration was at Mr. Kateregga Johnsons' garden.
Role of stakeholders: Farmers provided labour and at the same time acted as decision makers.
2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied
Country:
Uganda
2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach
Indicate year of initiation:
2004
Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):
2025
2.7 Type of Approach
- project/ programme based
2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach
The Approach focused on SLM only
-To provide technical skills to the farmers.
-Ti increase agricultural outputs among farmers.
-To reduce soil erosion.
The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: -Lack of technical knowledge.
-Lack of cash to invest in SLM.
-Low agricultural outputs.
2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach
social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
- hindering
Poverty due to low outputs among some farmers.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Provision of some schools to farmers.
availability/ access to financial resources and services
- hindering
Inadequate money to invest in SLM.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Credit should be provided to farmers in form of loans.
legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
- enabling
The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: most of land in Kasasa sub county is owned by individuals with land tittle , water is communal.
knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
- hindering
Lack of technical skill among the farmers.
Treatment through the SLM Approach: Technical personnel should be provided.
3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved
3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
- local land users/ local communities
They was agroup of farmers between the age of 40 -70 years.
men and women attened individually.
- SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
Provide workshops
- local government
Village farmers council , extension advisors.
- national government (planners, decision-makers)
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 | none | |
planning | none | |
implementation | none | |
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 SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Explain:
Decision made by SLM specialist with consultation of farmers in the community
Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Here decision made by skilled land users with the support from extension advisors, after the training.
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.
farmer groups , both youth, men & women.
Form of training:
- farmer-to-farmer
Subjects covered:
provided conservation techniques and provided financial support to farmers.
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: Field visits., Demonstration of technologies (Farmer field schools); Training conducted effectively.
Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Due to financial support technical knowledge provided to farmers .there quite adequate ensures of land conservation continuation activities.
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:
- financial
- capacity building/ training
- equipment
Give further details:
Groups of farmers, village farmer councils got some financial support and training as well as inputs like hoes.
4.4 Monitoring and evaluation
Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?
Yes
Comments:
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: soil erosion reduced by 65%.
technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: It sometimes performs well .
socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: farmers involvement increased.
economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: yield increased by 68%.
economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: number moved up to 70%.
area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: workshops & trainings provided.
area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements
no. of land users involved aspects were monitored by project staff through observations
management of Approach aspects were monitored by project staff, land users through observations
There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: farmers production increased and some farmers who attended the trainings can now train others.
There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There are some combinations of technologies, where by a farmer can do intercropping , but in the spaces left practices compositing also at the same garden.
4.5 Research
Was research part of the Approach?
Yes
Specify topics:
- technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:
Research was conducted by SLM specialists to find out what kind of technology farmers should adopt to conserve land sustainably.
Research was carried out on-farm
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: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (fuel cost, transport refund, financial support given to farmers, input costs, training fee. ): 98.0%; local community / land user(s) (in provision of some inputs): 2.0%
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)
- equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
machinery | fully financed | hoes,panga |
- agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised | To which extent | Specify subsidies |
---|---|---|
seeds | partly financed | seeds of beans & maize. |
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
- food-for-work
Comments:
Some worked for food-for-work , some heavy labour paid in cash especially the technical ones.
Financial support provided was not enough according to farmers , some needs unmet.
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
Technical knowledge provided to the land users can enable them to improve sustainable land management.
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
There are some few traders of Kijonjo parish like 15 traders.
Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Farmers income raised due to increased yields , health standards also somehow raised.
Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
- No
- Yes, little
- Yes, moderately
- Yes, greatly
Financial support given to farmers enabled them to improve in their agricultural activities which leads to high yields.
6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
- increased production
outputs increased.
- payments/ subsidies
They recieved financial support.
- well-being and livelihoods improvement
income increase
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:
some few farmers especially the rich and those who gained a lot of technical knowledge. 20% can continue without any support, but others cannot manage to continue with approach activities.
6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view |
---|
1. Provides technical skills to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmers should always attend workshops. ) |
2. Provides agricultural inputs like hoes. |
3. Provides financial support to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Lobbying for more financial support. ) |
4. Reduces soil erosion. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Practice more conservation activities. ) |
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view |
---|
1. Reduces soil degradation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increase attitude towards conservation techniques. ) |
2. Provides technical knowledge to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmers should participate in workshops regularly. ) |
3. Stimulating agricultural outputs. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Quality seeds should be provided to farmers. ) |
4. Provides financial support to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Lobying for more support. ) |
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 statistical report 2009Rakai district development plan 2010/2013.Natural environmental action plan (drafted from Kacwera).
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Rakai district development plan 2010/2013
Title, author, year, ISBN:
Natural environmental action plan (drafted from Kacwera)
Links and modules
Expand all Collapse allLinks
No links
Modules
No modules