FFS/SLM Community Initiative (Ouganda)

Farmer Field School

Description

Farmers are organized to promote adoption of sustainable land management best practices within the community

Aims / objectives: To train farmers in land based technologies that improve productivity, land management and are resilient to climate changes

Methods: Planning meetings, agro-ecosystem analysis (AESA), farmer-to-farmer visits, monitoring and evaluation

Stages of implementation: Farmer Field School (FFS) formation to bring together 30 farmers from a catchment area; training in group dynamics; training in best practices to address land degradation problems; AESA; and action planning

Role of stakeholders: District facilitators: Facilitation of FFS formation, training of trainers for AESA, drawing village land use plans, prioritizing enterprises/challenges, making technical recommendations; Local leaders: Passing and implementing bye-laws.

Lieu

Lieu: Kijonjo, Katongero, Rakai District, Uganda, Ouganda

Géo-référence des sites sélectionnés
  • 31.69072, -0.96728

Date de démarrage: 2011

Année de fin de l'Approche: 2015

Type d'Approche

Objectifs de l'approche et environnement favorable

Principaux objectifs de l'Approche
The Approach focused on SLM only (Sustainable Land Management Farmer Cooperative)

To share knowledge, skills and information on establishment of local best practices to improve productivity and biodiversity and reduce soil erosion

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: Low soil nutrient levels, vegetation loss and soil erosion on steep slopes
Conditions favorisant la mise en oeuvre de la/(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche
Conditions entravant la mise en oeuvre de la/(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche
  • Disponibilité/ accès aux ressources et services financiers: Inadequate resources because farming is mainly subsistent Treatment through the SLM Approach: Farmers formed cooperatives to pool resources
  • Connaissances sur la GDT, accès aux supports techniques: Little available information on addressing land management issues Treatment through the SLM Approach: Trained facilitators were sourced to provide appropriate knowledge to address relevant constraints
  • Charge de travail, disponibilité de la main-d'œuvre: Increased workload required in the implementation caused expenses on hired labor to rise. Treatment through the SLM Approach: Sharing workload through working together to dig up stones and carry them on steep slopes, lay them along contours and plant Ficus natalensis to stabilize the soil

Participation et rôles des parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche

Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles
Quels acteurs/ organismes d'exécution ont été impliqués dans l'Approche? Spécifiez les parties prenantes Décrivez le rôle des parties prenantes
exploitants locaux des terres / communautés locales Women constitute the majority of farmers in attendance because most agricultural production in the district is carried out by women, except in cattle-keeping areas where men are the majority
Spécialistes de la GDT/ conseillers agricoles
gouvernement local District facilitators were provided by the district local government
gouvernement national (planificateurs, décideurs) Collaboration with the line Central Government Ministries through the Project Steering Committee at Permanent Secretary level
organisation internationale Kagera TAMP (FAO-GEF) provided funding for specialist facilitators
Organisme chef de file
Kagera TAMP international specialists with the help of national FFS specialists
Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche
aucun
passive
soutien extérieur
interactive
auto-mobilisation
initiation/ motivation
x
FFS specialist facilitator with prospective FFS members to get farmers organized in FFS (30 members each)
planification
x
Farmers in their farmer field schools sketched watershed maps and developed action plans with the help of district facilitators
mise en œuvre
x
Facilitators helped FFS members in the dynamics that sustained and strengthened the Approach
suivi/ évaluation
x
A few members were co-opted to the monitoring team which comprised local government facilitators, Kagera TAMP Project specialists and the central government Project Steering Committee
Research
x
FFS members carried out Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) with training and field support from specialists
Diagramme/ organigramme

Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie de GDT

Les décisions ont été prises par

  • les exploitants des terres seuls (auto-initiative)
  • principalement les exploitants des terres soutenus par des spécialistes de la GDT
  • tous les acteurs concernés dans le cadre d'une approche participative
  • principalement les spécialistes de la GDT, après consultation des exploitants des terres
  • les spécialistes de la GDT seuls
  • les responsables politiques/ dirigeants

Les décisions ont été prises sur la base de

  • l'évaluation de connaissances bien documentées en matière de GDT (prises de décision fondées sur des preuves tangibles)?
  • les résultats de recherches?
  • expériences et opinions personnelles (non documentées)

Soutien technique, renforcement des capacités et gestion des connaissances

Les activités ou services suivants ont fait partie de l'approche
Renforcement des capacités/ formation
La formation a été dispensée aux parties prenantes suivantes
  • exploitants des terres
  • personnels/ conseillers de terrain
  • Politicians/Policy Makers
Formats de la formation
  • sur le tas
  • entre agriculteurs (d'exploitants à exploitants)
  • zones de démonstration
  • réunions publiques
  • cours
Sujets abordés

Extension Training: use of demonstration plots and AESA to experiment and discover the appropriate methodology for implementation of SLM technologies. A formal session involves a facilitator and farmers. The facilitator guides the farmers on how to investigate a problem using marker-drawn sketches on flip chart. Observations, conclusions and recommendations are reached in a participatory manner.
Extension: FFS members adopt a resolution to carry out the recommended procedures/activities; community members are free to interact with FFS members on field days and copy recommendations. Farmer-to-farmer visits are encouraged and promoted to extend information.
Research: FFS members research together on a given problem/challenge such as soil fertility and arrive at recommendations together. They are guided by facilitators from government or government research institutions with collaborative support from Kagera TAMP/FAO project.
Importance of land use rights: Ownership of land affects land management practices. The attitude towards the recommendation by farmers is usually determined by the FFS members. In Kagera TAMP districts land ownership is customary but the right to use land is governed by national laws.
Incentives:
Labor: Farmer Field School members provide the labor to implement technologies. Hired labor may also be used.
Inputs: Farmers provide the basic tools such as hoes, pick axe etc. Seedlings and seeds may be provided by the project.
Credit: Small amounts may be acquired from the FFS cooperative savings.

Renforcement des institutions
Institutions ont été renforcées ou mises en place
  • non
  • oui, un peu
  • oui, modérément
  • oui, beaucoup
au niveau suivant
  • local
  • régional
  • national
Décrivez l'institution, ses rôles et responsabilités, ses membres, etc.
Type de soutien
  • financier
  • renforcement des capacités/ formation
  • équipement
Plus de détails
Training workshops in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) and Land Degradation Assessment (LADA) both national and international, seminars, and procurement and training in the use of computers, digital cameras and GPS units
Suivi et évaluation
bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, soil nutrients, biodiversity economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government, land users through observations; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor economic / production aspects were regular monitored by government through measurements; indicators: Measurement of crop yield, vigor area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through observations; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government through measurements; indicators: Measure by attendance, morale no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None no. of land users involved aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: None management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: None There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: FFS constantly refines and improves on what and how to achieve objectives, to discover and archive best practices in the most effective forms possible There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Height of stone lines, width between lines
Recherche
La recherche a traité les sujets suivants
  • sociologie
  • économie/ marketing
  • écologie
  • technologie

Agro-ecosystem Analysis (AESA) by FFS members

Research was carried out on-farm

Financement et soutien matériel externe

Budget annuel en dollars US de la composante GDT
  • < 2 000
  • 2 000-10 000
  • 10 000-100 000
  • 100 000-1 000 000
  • > 1 000 000
Precise annual budget: sans objet
Approach costs were met by the following donors: international (Kagera TAMP): 18.95%; local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (District and Sub-county facilitator time): 11.14%; local community / land user(s) (Land users as FFS members): 69.91%
Les services ou mesures incitatives suivantes ont été fournis aux exploitants des terres
  • Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres
  • Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques
  • Crédits
  • Autres incitations ou instruments

Analyses d'impact et conclusions

Impacts de l'Approche
Non
Oui, un peu
Oui, modérément
Oui, beaucoup
Est-ce que l'Approche a aidé les exploitants des terres à mettre en œuvre et entretenir les Technologies de GDT?

Formerly disused land was made productive

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

x
Principale motivation des exploitants des terres pour mettre en oeuvre la GDT
Durabilité des activités de l'Approche
Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en oeuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur) ?

Conclusions et enseignements tirés

Points forts: point de vue de l'exploitant des terres
Points forts: point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne-ressource clé
Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques: point de vue de l'exploitant des terrescomment surmonter
Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques: point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne-ressource clécomment surmonter

Références

Compilateur
  • Wilson Bamwerinde
Editors
Examinateur
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date de mise en oeuvre: 22 mars 2014
Dernière mise à jour: 26 juin 2017
Personnes-ressources
Description complète dans la base de données WOCAT
Données de GDT correspondantes
La documentation a été facilitée par
Institution Projet
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International