Peer farmers as a village resource person for scaling Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) Practices [Uganda]
- Creation:
- Update:
- Compiler: Sunday Balla Amale
- Editors: JOY TUKAHIRWA, Kamugisha Rick Nelson
- Reviewers: John Stephen Tenywa, Nicole Harari
Lawang Lupur (Rwot Kweri)
approaches_3323 - 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
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
Conservation Farming Basins In Annual Crops For Water … [Uganda]
CF basins are constructed in the field to act as water storage containers. Water is conserved within the basins and plants can survive with this conserved water during periods of little rainfall and dry spells.
- Compiler: Sunday Balla Amale
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
Map
×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)
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 allLinks
Conservation Farming Basins In Annual Crops For Water … [Uganda]
CF basins are constructed in the field to act as water storage containers. Water is conserved within the basins and plants can survive with this conserved water during periods of little rainfall and dry spells.
- Compiler: Sunday Balla Amale
Modules
No modules