Approaches

Peer farmers as a village resource person for scaling Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practices [Uganda]

Lawang Lupur (Rwot Kweri)

approaches_3323 - Uganda

Completeness: 92%

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)

land user:

Odong Kilama

0777229172

Farmer

Laliya, Agung, Akaka Sub-county

Uganda

Sunday Micheal

+256782139465

Farmer

gweno twom south, Nwoya village, Alero sub county, Nwoya District

Uganda

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6127, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Uganda Landcare Network (ULN) - Uganda', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

12/12/2017

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

Yes

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

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A prosocial behavior approach, where a peer farmer identified by other local farmers is trained on a technology and then used as a trainer for the fellow farmers (farmer group or neighbors).

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices requires an in-depth understanding of the implementation, sustainability and the opportunity cost involved. Empowered local resource persons known as peer farmers are used by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Northern Uganda as channels to ensure that farmers understand the importance and implementation of Climate Smart Agricultural (CSA) Practices such as using conservation farming (CF) permanent basins.
A peer farmer in this case is a local community member whom the farmers identify as a potential trainer, very cooperative and, if trained would be willing to share the knowledge with other farmers in that community. After training the peer farmers, an incentive is promised to them based on their performance over time. This incentive is a commodity that is very cheap, but valuable, and not usually a farm input. In this case weighing scale was used as an incentive.
The peer farmer then uses all available methods and channels to pass on to the knowledge to other folks. The acquired knowledge and skills are usually shared through community meetings, religious gatherings, market places and so on.
The process of implementing this approach includes: Identifying the place of implementation, working with the farmers to identify a potential peer farmer, training the peer farmer, the peer farmer training other farmers over time and monitoring the progress of knowledge spill over. Stakeholders involved: Field staff - Work with farmers to identify and train peers, monitor activities; local leaders - organize community members; peer farmer - attend training, train other farmers.
This method is cheap, farmers identify someone with fairly good pro-social behavior, and farmers would be willing to learn from their own village member.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

Country:

Uganda

Region/ State/ Province:

Nwoya District

Further specification of location:

Alero Sub-county

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2015

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:

less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

Promoting adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture through prosocial behaviour

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

traditional relations among local communities

  • hindering

limited cooperation among some communities

institutional setting
  • enabling

Agricultural Advisory services in the country, more NGOs operating in the agricultural sector

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

Participatory involvement of all the stakeholders in the agricultural sector

policies
  • enabling

PMA-Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture, a Government policy aimed at ensuring adoption of modern farming technologies.
Policy Action on climate change adaptation
Vision 2040 - A government policy aims at transforming Uganda's agriculture from subsistence to commercial farming.

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

Trainings from different agencies

  • hindering

costs to fund the training of peer farmers

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • enabling

high demands for food produce and favorable market prices with good roads

  • hindering

middle men cheat poor farmers

workload, availability of manpower
  • enabling

use local people at their own times

  • hindering

illiteracy

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

farmers and local leaders

implement the technology

  • community-based organizations

farmer groups

used as a channel

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

extension workers

train on the SLM technologies

  • researchers

CIAT/IITA

Assess the degree of resilience

  • international organization

CIAT/IITA

funding research activities

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

CIAT

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 CIAT project promoting food security and farming systems resilience in East Africa through wide-scale adoption of climate smart agriculture. The project is implemented in Nwoya district, designed by CIAT and funded by IFAD.
planning external support CIAT/IITA: IITA became partner organisation for the project. Staffing was done through IITA, implemented in collaboration with IITA Uganda.
implementation interactive CIAT, IITA, Local government, National Agricultural Research Organisation, ZOA, Farmers, Extension agents
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Participatory monitoring and evaluation involving all parties through farmers field days

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

{'additional_translations': {}, 'content_type': 'image/png', 'preview_image': '/media/fd/e/fde5b50c-92c4-4425-bd1a-9213feb8d7fd.jpg', 'key': 'Flow chart', 'value': '/media/41/7/41767fc7-5576-4032-96bb-7aa333d5ab57.png', 'template': 'raw'}
Description:

detailed chart showing the different planyers in the approach

Author:

Amale Balla Sunday

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings

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.

adults

Form of training:
  • public meetings

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:

planned visits to peer farmers fields to observe what they are doing and advising them accordingly.

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
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

local farmer groups

Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

CIAT/IITA Research in Northern Uganda under the project; Promoting food security and farming systems resilience in East Africa through wide scale adoption of climate smart Agriculture (CSA)

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:
  • 2,000-10,000

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

No

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • none
 
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify:

weighing scale for best performers

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

yes, improved group work

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

decision made by community members

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

incentive driven

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

farmers working with each other

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

promoted group work but directed towards technology transfer

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

new technologies

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

mostly farmers involved

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

different stakeholders participated

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

improved social relations

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

did not focus on well off farmers, just anyone whom the community thinks has the potential to train local members

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

50% of trainers were women and at the end they performed better than the men trainers

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

ensure transfer to local people

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

much higher increase in production

Did the Approach improve access to markets?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

good quality products

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

farm based

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

farm based

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

to trainers of peer farmers

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

reduced crop failure since farmers learnt better water conservation methods

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

higher yields with lower investments

  • reduced land degradation

reduced erosion and surface flow

  • reduced risk of disasters

crops do not fail during dry spells

  • reduced workload

performed once every 3 years, no need for irrigation

  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

working and training each other

  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks

local group driven approach

  • environmental consciousness

farmers learnt how important it is to conserve soils

  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

through trainings and social group work

  • aesthetic improvement

good quality product

  • conflict mitigation

good community relations

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:

The knowledge becomes local to the farmers; observes direct benefits whitin the shortest time of implementation, learn other things from neighbors without need for any motivation

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
farmers can easily learn from each other
peer trains farmers within their local environment
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
All available methods of passing information about the technologies are at the peer farmers disposal eg. market points, church, group meetings, tribal gatherings
farmers use their local language to teach/demonstrate to each other

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?
difficult to train peer farmers use practicals
peer farmers may not retain all the knowledge about the technology use charts/pictures
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
costly to organise trainings for peers use local education facilities such as schools for training peer farmers

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

2

  • interviews with land users

3

  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts

1

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules