Approaches

Meetings. [Uganda]

approaches_2474 - Uganda

Completeness: 69%

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:
SLM specialist:

Lubega Emm

Rakai District

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Kiyingi Jamil

Rakai District

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Mutagubya Joseph

Rakai District

Uganda

SLM specialist:

Mazimakwo Kukundakwe

Kabale District

Uganda

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Kabale District Local Government (Kabale District Local Government) - Uganda
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Rakai District - Uganda

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

13/05/2013

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

Yes

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Through community meetings farmers get interest of using mulching on flat area to reduce soil erosion.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main aim of this approach was to reduce soil erosion as well as increasing their products. This approach involved meetings between farmers in their communities , it involves sharing of knowledge related to mulching and the ways of maintaining it.

Methods: The criteria of developing mulching was through meetings. Key farmers organized after every two months, at every village, and disseminated information about the ways and how to maintain it.
Demonstration was also done at one farmers' garden , to show others how to make it.

Stages of implementation: In the process of implementing it, there was clearing of weed from garden, covering of soil with grass and other crop residues. In the space left from one plant to another , the farmer did some composting purposely to increase the rate of fertility, Re-mulching also done ,when cover materials decompose.

Role of stakeholders: Farmers provided the labor during implementation and maintenance process . They also were involved in decision making especially while attending meetings.

Other important information: In the process of implementing mulching , there was gender balance between men and women during decision making and provision of labor. But the high percentage were men of ages ranging from 25 years and above, with involvement of community leaders.

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

Country:

Uganda

Region/ State/ Province:

Uganda

Further specification of location:

Rakai

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

1988

2.7 Type of Approach

  • recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

-To increase agricultural outputs.
-To reduce soil erosion.
-To provide and share knowledge about mulching.
-To sustain fertility in the soil.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: -Lack of cash to invest in SLM.
-Lack of technical knowledge.
-Low agricultural outputs.

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

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

Lack of enough money to purchase inputs like hoes.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Government should provide some credit in terms of loans.

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

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights moderately helped the approach implementation: Some farmers have land tittles -for example 50% of them have access to water and other few of them pay some money to land lords (one with land tittle).

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • hindering

Inadequate agricultural advisors.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Government should provide enough extension advisors to improve in their activities.

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Both men & women involved in the local meetings.

Family members aged 23 years and above. Especially the youth had not enough money to purchase the inputs. Community members, both men and women.

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 self-mobilization Skilled farmers and others.
planning self-mobilization
implementation self-mobilization Land users.
monitoring/ evaluation self-mobilization Land users and skilled farmers.
Research self-mobilization Farmers themselves.

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

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • land users alone (self-initiative)
Explain:

In making decision on how to implement mulching was through meetings by land users . Key farmers organize meetings at village levels, and other framers picked interest. It was between men and women.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up). Meetings were held, and one demonstration done in one farmers' garden . Other farmers visited the one who had ever practiced it to share experiences. It was done on local basis.

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.

Aged from 20years and above female and male.

Form of training:
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

All matters related to soil erosion & increase outputs.

Comments:

Training was provided to land users by key farmers facilitated by advisory service but there was no financial support or inputs, given to farmers.

Farmers who attended farmer field schools trained other farmers at local levels , and others picked interest from there.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Training.; Key elements: meetings.

Advisory service is inadequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

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
Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
Give further details:

Training provided to local farmers at village levels by key farmers who ever went to farmer field schools.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: soil erosion reduced.

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: Peoples attitude towards mulching increased.

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by land users through observations; indicators: farmers income increased due to increased output.

economic / production aspects were None monitored by land users through measurements; indicators: Both men and women involved highly.

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by land users through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Some few changes observed where by some few farmers started to adopt extension advisory service.

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Few of them now applying mulching at the same time applying composting, this was observed at Katereggas' site.

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):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local community / land user(s) (6500/= used in purchase of inputs. )

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

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

Indigenous knowledge, some farmers adopted through attending meetings on using mulching improved sustainable land management.

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

Especially among the youth who have adopted it , and their level of income has increased.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Some traders who are around this village -like 5 of them adopted the approach after realizing the economic benefits.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Farmers income increased due to high yields , health standard also boosted due to good feeding among them.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

After some farmers applied mulching in their gardens , soil became fertile , which contributed to high yields thus increase in income.

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • Well-being and livelihoods improvement

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:

Yes they can because they have been doing the approach activities without any external support.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
It provides conservation knowledge to other farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Adopt technical knowledge. )
It reduces soil erosion. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More conservation approach should be provided. )
It promoted conservation culture among farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Mobilize other community members to participate. )
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
It promoted awareness to other farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Encourage more awareness and organize farmer field schools. )
Provided conservation skill among farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: More conservation meetings should be conducted. )
Sharing of views among farmers increased. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Conducting more meetings. )

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?
Lacks enough inputs like hoes and pangas. External support should be provided.
They lack enough technical personnel. Skilled personnel should be provided.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
It lacks technical personnel. Technical personnel should be provided.
The approach lacks enough credit to boost the farmers. External support should be provided.
Experiences are not documented. Encourage farmers to document experiences.

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai District statistical report 2009Rakai District development plan 2010/2013Natural environment action plan (drafted from Kagera).

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai District development plan 2010/2013

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Natural environment action plan (drafted from Kagera).

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules