Promoting intercropping through baby demos [Uganda]

poto matino

approaches_3327 - Uganda

Completeness: 89%

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:

okello Martin

Local Farmer

Oporlacen-Olwiyo, Purongo Sub-county, Nwoya District


Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Uganda Landcare Network (ULN) - Uganda

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:


2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

A demonstration site is established where farmers come and learn about good intercropping practices. They are then tasked to replicate this practice at their homes in the baby demos.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The baby demo approach involves establishing a mother demo in one location where members of the farmer group can come and learn about the technology of interest (intercropping in this case). The farmers who participate in the demo are then tasked to replicate what is carried out in the demo by establishing smaller baby demos at their homes so that whatever is performed in the mother demo, they transfer the knowledge to their own baby demos. This helps to take the ideas in the demonstration to the farmers' homes so that they can appreciate what is being done on the demo and own the technology being implemented.
This approach was promoted because most farmers in northern Uganda practice inappropriate intercropping methods where they plant together two cereals in the same garden and call it an inter crop e.g maize and rice or millet and sorghum. Baby demo helps the farmers to know that they can implement the practices on their own hence increasing sustainability of the approach. It also helps neighbours and family members who are not participating in the demonstration activities to learn from the baby demo.
During the project activities, a demonstration site was identified in collaboration with the farmer group, a field was established by the group members consisting of 35 people on average (composed of men, women and youth). The demo area measured about 10m x 10m. Each participant was then given a handful of seeds to go and establish their demo of approximately 8m2 on estimate.
The farmers then implemented the demo and baby demos with intercropping of maize and beans. Joint monitoring and evaluation was later carried out.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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



Region/ State/ Province:

Northern Uganda

Further specification of location:

Alero, Koch Goma, Anaka and Purongo Sub-County, Nwoya District

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:


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

less than 10 years ago (recently)

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



three years project

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

improving farming systems resilience, farmers appreciation of the technology within their own farms

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

community group membership

institutional setting
  • enabling

good institutional framework

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

more than 3 parties involving government and non governmental, local farmers

  • enabling

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

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

various agencies,

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

good market access and transport network

  • hindering

middle men cheating producers

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities


implementing the demo

  • community-based organizations

farmer groups, Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA) groups

work as a team at the demo

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

District Agriculture/extension officers,

organise farmers

  • researchers


Monitoring and evation output, analysis of effectiveness of the method

  • teachers/ school children/ students


part of farmer groups

  • NGO

ZOA, Rural Initiative for community Empowerment (RICE), Forum for comunity transformation (FCT)

Participatory monitoring and evaluation (PME)

  • private sector

business community


  • local government

District, sub county and parish officials

liase with local communities, PME

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)


Policy framework analysis

  • international organization


initiation, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the project activities

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:


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-draft of project for increasing food security and farming systems resilience in East Africa through wide scale adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practices
planning external support CIAT/IITA/IFAD-establishment of objecttives, sourcing of funds.
implementation interactive farmer groups formed, then they implement the demo at demo site and baby demos at their own homes. Stakeholders at village, sub-county, district and national levels also involved.
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Participatory monitoring and evaluation where farmers were able to rank the performance of their crops under the demo and baby demos, challenges, and possible solutions.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)


flow chart of implementation of baby demos


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

Rappid appraisal with farmers to establish the needs of the farmers

Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

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
If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

all gender, age group and people of different status quo

Form of training:
  • demonstration areas
Subjects covered:

intercropping with legumes and cereals

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


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

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
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Farmer groups for implementation of of technology, involvement of different age groups and gender in the implementation of technologies.

Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?



Participatory Monitoring and evaluation (PME)

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


4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


Specify topics:
  • technology
Give further details and indicate who did the research:

CIAT based research output

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
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

IFAD funded. 5 different demonstration groups were considered, one in each of the sub-county. Actual implementation cost could be obtained from CIAT.

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)

  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed handful of seed for the baby demo
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary

farmers worked in groups

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?


5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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


If yes, specify:

refreshments during demonstration activities

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

made participatory

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

farmers selected what should be implemented

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

implemented in their own gardens in the baby demos

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

other farmers not able to be part of the demo learn from the baby demos

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

directed towards technology transfer

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

obtained training from the demo, then able to implement in their farms

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

through PME

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

many institutions involed

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

group membership and social relations in the demos

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

voluntary participation involving all categories of people

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

all gender equally participated, disadvanteaged women were highly encouraged to be part

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

youth involved

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

not part of objective

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

better farm output as a result of the technology

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

marketing skills were taught

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

not part of the objective

no part of the objective

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

technology is specifically CSA practice

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

to field staff

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

higher yields

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

more produce

  • reduced land degradation

intercrop maintains soil fertility

  • reduced risk of disasters

intercrop functions such as reduced erosion, reduce crop failures

  • reduced workload

easy management

  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks

group membership. people from one group worked hard to ensure good output from their demo

  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

trainings provided to farmers

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:

simple and easy

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Farmers appreciate the technology from within their homestead
Other neighboring farmers or family members who did not participate in the demo can learn from the baby demo
Farmer can easily reflect on the demo and compare with his baby demo
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Knowledge spillover has a wider coverage as people who did not get opportunity to participate in the main demo would learn from their neighbors.
Project can be sustained for a longer period since the farmers can be tasked to do the baby demo in the following years.

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?
Farmer overlook the importance of baby demos saying it looks like children playing garden. establish a sizeable baby demo
Domestic animals eat the crops in the baby demos. control the animals

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys


  • interviews with land users


  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts


Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all