Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation of Demonstration Plots [Uganda]

Lwak kamoko ber pa diro

approaches_3370 - 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)

SLM specialist:
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)
Makerere University (Makerere University) - 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

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



Region/ State/ Province:

Northern Uganda

Further specification of location:

Nwoya District

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

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

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

Corperation among all stakeholders

  • hindering

Time and resource needed to bring all stakeholders together

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • enabling

This approach enables joint presentation and contribution of projects for funding

institutional setting
  • enabling

Local farmer groups are activated , share knowledge and information

  • hindering

Bureaucratic processes in decision making to participate in the process

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

Common interest in sustainable agriculture and support to farmer activities

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

Presence of rules and regulations that bind the stakeholders to jointly monitor and evaluate as a team

  • hindering

Poor and weak implementation and enforcement of rules and regulations

  • enabling

Local and national policies on bottom up approach where all stakeholders are involved in decision making, starting from the lowest

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
  • enabling

People are able to come together to participate in an activity that is related to land management

  • hindering

Divergent interests and expectations during monitoring and evaluation

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

Learning about SLM from the process of monitoring and evaluation

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

Affordable prices and quality inputs

  • hindering

Exploitation by middle men and use of expired inputs on demonstration plots

workload, availability of manpower
  • enabling

Shared roles and responsibilities among men and women during monitoring and evaluation

  • hindering

Dominance resulting into conflicts over roles and responsibilities

  • enabling

Presence of monitoring and evaluation committee

  • hindering

Understanding roles and responsibilities of the participatory monitoring and evaluation committee

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities


Establish the demonstration, carry out activities in demonstrations, monitor and evaluate the demonstration

  • community-based organizations

Local CBOs

Partipate in M&E of the demonstration

  • researchers

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)

Introduced the monitoring / evaluation approach, participate in the monitoring process

  • teachers/ school children/ students

Teachers from local schools

Participate in monitoring / evaluation

  • NGO

Organisation ZOA - from relief to recovery (, other local NGOs

Participate in monitorng / evaluation

  • local government

Subcounty and District officials

Participate in monitorng / evaluation

If several stakeholders were involved, indicate lead agency:

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture-IITA

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)


Flow chart showing process that leads to the implementation of participatory monitoring and evaluation


Sunday Balla

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. 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
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training:
  • demonstration areas

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?


  • 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?



It is the exact approach

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


4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?


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. 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?


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?


5.5 Other incentives or instruments

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


If yes, specify:

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

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

Local users understand what kind of paramenters can be considered for an evaluation

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

The approach enables farmers to take decisions based on what they observed during the evaluation process

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

All stakeholders took part in the implementation and PM&E process. This improved coordination and resource sharing

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

Stakeholder platform helps to share and identify potential sources of resource and fund mobilisation

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

Each participant understood in depth the process involved in implementing a given technology

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

Participants learned important indicators for demonstrations and how to assess them

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

Many stakeholders were part of the platform, ranging from local schools and institutions as part of the civil society

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

Participants learned how to collaborate in groups

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

All community members were invited to learn and participate hence acquiring knowledge

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

The approach involved all age groups and gender with focus on widows

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

Youth were at the forefront of implementation

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

Participants learned about the importance of learning and the allocation for various activities. ZOA carried out land and conflict resolutions and helped farmers acquiring land titles from the Government

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

Participants identify which technology addresses their food and nutrition security needs

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

Farmers identify which technology is a suitable income basing on the available market opportunities

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

The approach utilized local community group which also carry out Savings, borehole maintenance and community Village Health teams

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

Farmers identify technologies, resilient to weather variability and weather extremes

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

High yields of crops

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

Market available for the products from SLM technology

  • reduced land degradation

Soil and fertility management

  • reduced risk of disasters

Reduced risks of drought, pest and disease incidences, floods

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. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys

All stakeholders involved during the field day activity should participate in the PM&E

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all