1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)', 'template': 'raw'} {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 264, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Makerere University (Makerere University) - Uganda', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

14/11/2017

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

In Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of demonstrations, all the players or stakeholders involved in the implementation of the demonstration come together to carry out a joint monitoring and evaluation of the performance of the technology being implemented.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Demonstration plots established to train farmers are common channels through which recommended farming practice(s) are demonstrated to local farmers. During this process, all the relevant stakeholders in the agricultural sector, for example farmers, local leaders and government extension officers, partner organisations, and the lead implementing agency plan together on how best to implement the demonstration with emphasis on the host community, their roles and responsibilities so as to ensure successful implementation of the demonstration.
Stakeholders involved include:
•Group and community members (women, youth and men)
•Local leaders and authorities
•Civil servants
•Partner Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)
•Lead implementing agencies (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA and International Center for Tropical Agriculture, CIAT)

For the subsequent monitoring and evaluation (M&E) process, the participating stakeholders are invited for a field day on the site of the demonstration. Such M&E process is performed twice or three times during implementation of the demonstration activities depending on necessity, availability of time and resources. The M&E tool is designed by the M&E officer in the organization (IITA/CIAT) supported by the Field Officer/Research Assistant who is responsible for carrying out the field activities. The emphasis of the M&E process is on the goals and objectives, sustainability and adaptive nature, socio-economic and political environment, gender and policy considerations and impacts of the project being implemented. Group members help identifying the stakeholders in their community who can be resourceful in evaluating the demonstrations.

The Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) of the demonstration process, activities and performance is then carried out. It aims to:
•Assess the technology/practice(s) in question in terms of crop vigour and yield
•Understand the resilience of the practice to local prevailing climatic and weather conditions
•Assess whether equal opportunity was given for all community members to participate
•Assess the level of cooperation among group members during meetings
•Understand the gender perspectives with regard to gender equality, woman and youth involvement
•Test for the benefits, performance, pros and cons, and the opportunity cost involved in adopting a demonstrated technology

The PM&E questionnaire is based on IITA/CIAT PM&E tool and is composed of the following chapters:

1.Socio-demographic characteristics: district, sub-county, village, name, telephone contact, age, sex, educational level, employment and group-membership of the participant.
2.Farming characteristics: years of farming experience, total amount of land owned and allocated for farming or particular technology of interest, type of seed (local or improved) and the variety of the crop in question, source of seed and whether or not the participant participated in implementing the demonstration.
3.Implementation performance: Demo-plot location, distance, farmer trainings, demo-management, partnerships in the implementation, participation, cooperation, importance, relevance, monitoring of the demo, involvement in terms of community, gender, youth and the vulnerable groups and attendance.
4.Crop performance: Germination percentage, crop vigour, plant height, number of pods/cobs, pod/cob filling, maturity duration, yield, soil quality, pest occurrence, disease and drought resistance/tolerance.
5.Agro-ecological benefits: This can be ranked in terms of importance of the practice for soil fertility and bio-diversity, adaptation to weather variability and climate change.
6.Socio-economic benefits: This is ranked based on importance for household food and nutrition security, source of income, labour demands and cost of implementation.
7.Participants are then required to rank the technologies monitored.

The scale of ranking ranges from 1 to 5, where 1=Very Unhappy, 2=Unhappy, 3=neither Happy nor Unhappy, 4=Happy, 5=Very Happy. For certain questions, emoji illustrations are also used for the monitoring process.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

All stakeholders appreciate their involvement and hence adopt the technology for purposes of learning and knowledge sharing

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

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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	Farmers and local leaders
planning	external support	Support from IITA
implementation	interactive	Farmers, Local leaders, Partner NGOs, IITA
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Farmers, Local leaders, Partner NGOs, Policy makers
Publication of output	passive	IITA as the organisation implementing the project

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

• Demonstration sites identified by 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
• regional
• national

Specify type of support:

• capacity building/ training

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

It is the exact approach

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

Yes

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

IITA-Climate Smart Agriculture Research. Research focused on increasing food security and farming systems' resilience in East Africa

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:

Refreshments during PM&E and demonstration activities eg. water or soft drinks

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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:

During the PM&E Process, the land users are required to indicate their interest in the adoption of particular technologies and the challenges they would face. Therefore this process enables the farmers to know the requirements for implementing a given technology, pros and cons and how to sustain it economically and environmentally.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It is participatory
All stakeholders are involved
Individual opinions is considered

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It is a research based approach and quantitative data can be obtained from such an approach
Basic sign and labels on the PM&E tool is easy for local farmers to understand

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?
The participants may not understand clearly what information is required of them. This can be due to misunderstanding of questions, indicators and possible responses if they are not properly explained.	Eloquent speaker of the local language should act as enumerator to clearly explain what is required of the participants. This can be coupled with emoji illustrations besides the questionnaire.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Simple, visible and easy to understand attributes or parameters are considered. for example plant yield, vigor, participation. Some factors like long term benefits, cost benefit considerations were not included.	Perceptions and Attitudes, Simple cost benefit considerations can be included in the evaluation.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information