Approches

Promoting farmer innovation [Ouganda]

approaches_2418 - Ouganda

État complet: 89%

1. Informations générales

1.2 Coordonnées des personnes-ressources et des institutions impliquées dans l'évaluation et la documentation de l'Approche

Personne(s) ressource(s) clé(s)

Spécialiste GDT:
Spécialiste GDT:
Nom du projet qui a facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)
Book project: where the land is greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation Initiatives Worldwide (where the land is greener)
Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)
FAO (FAO) - Italie
Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)
CIS-Centre for International Cooperation (CIS-Centre for International Cooperation) - Pays-Bas
Nom du ou des institutions qui ont facilité la documentation/ l'évaluation de l'Approche (si pertinent)
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MoA) - Kenya

1.3 Conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées

Le compilateur et la(les) personne(s) ressource(s) acceptent les conditions relatives à l'utilisation par WOCAT des données documentées:

Oui

1.4 Références au(x) questionnaire(s) sur les Technologies de GDT

Improved trash lines
technologies

Improved trash lines [Ouganda]

Weeds and crop residues laid in bands across the slope of annual crop fields to conserve soil and water, and to incorporate organic matter into the soil after decomposition.

  • Compilateur: Unknown User

2. Description de l'Approche de GDT

2.1 Courte description de l'Approche

Identification of farmer innovators in SWC and water harvesting, and using them as focal points for visits from other farmers to spread the practices and stimulate the process of innovation.

2.2 Description détaillée de l'Approche

Description détaillée de l'Approche:

Aims / objectives: The Promoting Farmer Innovation (PFI) approach seeks to build on technical initiatives - innovations in the local context - developed by farmers themselves in dry/marginal areas where the conventional approach of transfer of technology from research to extension agents, and then on to farmers, has so often failed. The approach basically comprises identifying, validating and documenting local innovations/initiatives. Simple monitoring and evaluation systems are set up amongst those innovative farmers who are willing to co-operate. Through contact with researchers, extra value is added to these techniques where possible. Farmer innovators are brought together to share ideas. Finally, best-bet technologies, in other words those that are considered to be good enough to be shared, are disseminated through farmer-to-farmer extension. This takes two forms. First, farmers are brought to visit the innovators in their farms. Secondly farmer innovators are used as teachers/trainers to visit groups of farmers - including FAOs farmer field schools in some cases. Only in this second form of extension is an allowance payable to the innovator. A ten-step field activity methodology has been developed.

Methods: At programme level, there is capacity building of in-line extension and research staff, who are the main outside actors in the programme. In each of the countries the project has been implemented through a government ministry, which partners various NGOs in the field. The principle, and practice, is not to create separate project enclaves, but to work through existing personnel, sharing buildings and vehicles that are already operational in the area. A programme development process methodological framework shows how the ultimate goal of institutionalisation can be achieved. PFIs first phase, completed in 2000, was financed by the Government of The Netherlands, through UNDP, and was active in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

2.3 Photos de l'approche

2.5 Pays/ région/ lieux où l'Approche a été appliquée

Pays:

Ouganda

Région/ Etat/ Province:

East Africa (parts of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda)

2.6 Dates de début et de fin de l'Approche

Indiquez l'année de démarrage:

1996

Date (année) de fin de l'Approche (si l'Approche n'est plus appliquée):

2000

2.7 Type d'Approche

  • fondé sur un projet/ programme

2.8 Principaux objectifs de l'Approche

The Approach focused mainly on SLM with other activities (Better land husbandry practices (eg composting, crop selection))

Improve rural livelihoods through an increase in the rate of diffusion of appropriate SWC/water harvesting technologies based on farmer innovation, and through farmer-to-farmer exchange visits. At a higher level: to demonstrate the effectiveness of such an approach so that it can be institutionalised.

The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - poor supply of relevant recommendations from research for small scale farmers in marginal areas - poor delivery of SWC technologies (where they exist) to farmers - lack of motivation of research and extension staff - isolation of promising ???innovative??? SWC/water harvesting ideas which address low crop yields, land degradation and poverty - lack of exchange of this knowledge

2.9 Conditions favorisant ou entravant la mise en œuvre de la(des) Technologie(s) appliquée(s) sous l'Approche

normes et valeurs sociales/ culturelles/ religieuses
  • entrave

Favoured farmer syndrome: where too much attention is given to particular innovative farmers and jealousy is aroused in others

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Avoid working with innovators who are so exceptional that they are outside society and others cannot relate to them. Rotate the farmers who are used as learning points: in other words once another farmer has adopted the technology, use him or her as the focal point.

disponibilité/ accès aux ressources et services financiers
  • entrave

Danger of identifying innovations that are good technically but too expensive for ordinary farmers to implement.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Linked to point (1) above: beware of farmers who are too exceptional/too rich.

cadre institutionnel
  • entrave

Lack of motivation of research and extension institutions

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Bringing them together with farmer innovatiors

cadre juridique (régime foncier, droits d'utilisation des terres et de l'eau)
  • entrave

Who gets the credit for the particular innovation?

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Important to make sure that an innovation is traced back within the locality to its roots, identifying the 'owner'. Especially important when a name is attached to an innovation.

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights hindered a little the approach implementation Farmers will only invest time and effort in innovation when they have secure land use rights (though not necessarily ownership), which is the case in all the areas where PFI has been operational. Access to land for women was a problem which inhibits women innovating.

autre
  • entrave

Cultural: Gender imbalance in identification of innovators: women overlooked

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Gender sensitisation and training: bring together the identifiers with the farmers - male and female.

3. Participation et rôles des parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche

3.1 Parties prenantes impliquées dans l'Approche et rôles

  • exploitants locaux des terres / communautés locales
  • Spécialistes de la GDT/ conseillers agricoles
  • ONG

All involved et different levels: after implementation mainly government and NGO

  • gouvernement national (planificateurs, décideurs)

All involved et different levels: after implementation mainly government and NGO

  • organisation internationale

All involved et different levels: after implementation mainly government and NGO

Si plusieurs parties prenantes sont impliquées, indiquez l'organisme chef de file ou l'institution responsable:

International specialists in collaboration with/after discussions with national specialists and land users

3.2 Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales aux différentes phases de l'Approche
Participation des exploitants locaux des terres/ communautés locales Spécifiez qui était impliqué et décrivez les activités
initiation/ motivation passive public meetings, interviews/questionnaires, workshops/seminars, rapid/participatory rural appraisal; interviews/Participatory Rural Appraisals etc
planification passive rapid/participatory rural appraisal, interviews/questionnaires, public meetings, workshops/seminars; interviews/Participatory Rural Appraisals etc
mise en œuvre interactive Mainly: farmer-to-farmer exchange, responsibility for minor steps; partly: responsibility for major steps; interviews/Participatory Rural Appraisals etc
suivi/ évaluation interactive Mainly: public meetings, measurements/observations; partly: workshop/seminars; monitoring, using forms designed mainly by specialists
Research interactive on-farm

3.3 Diagramme/ organigramme (si disponible)

Description:

Farmer innovation methodology left: Field activities: the ten steps– from identification through to using innovators as trainers. (Critchley, 2000) right: Programme development processes: the framew

3.4 Prises de décision pour la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies

Indiquez qui a décidé de la sélection de la Technologie/ des Technologies à mettre en œuvre:
  • principalement les exploitants des terres soutenus par des spécialistes de la GDT
Expliquez:

???Best -bet??? technologies chosen by extension agents/researchers based on the selection of innovative farmers??? technologies identified in the field - but the farmers choose (develop) which technology to implement.

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by by land users* alone (self-initiative / bottom-up)

4. Soutien technique, renforcement des capacités et gestion des connaissances

4.1 Renforcement des capacités/ formation

Une formation a-t-elle été dispensée aux exploitants des terres/ autres parties prenantes?

Oui

Spécifiez qui a été formé:
  • exploitants des terres
  • SWC specialists, extensionists/trainers
Formats de la formation:
  • réunions publiques
  • cours
Formats de la formation:
  • farm visits
Thèmes abordés:

Staff seconded from Ministries of Agriculture/NGOs provide: (1) methodology training for participating staff (2) presentational skill training for farmer innovators and (3) training in gender aspects.

4.2 Service de conseils

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils accès à un service de conseils?

Oui

Spécifiez si le service de conseils est fourni:
  • dans des centres permanents
Décrivez/ commentez:

Name of method used for advisory service: Farmer innovator approach; Key elements: There are new roles for government/NGO extension staff under this methodology - as trainers and faci, Identify farmer innovators, form networks of farmer innovators, which meet, Bring farmers to se 'best bet' innovations; 1) Advisory service was carried out through: government's existing extension system, non-governmental agency; Extension staff: mainly government employees 3) Target groups for extension: land users

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities

4.3 Renforcement des institutions (développement organisationnel)

Des institutions ont elles été mises en place ou renforcées par le biais de l'Approche?
  • oui, modérément
Spécifiez à quel(s) niveau(x), ces institutions ont été renforcées ou mises en place:
  • local
Précisez le type de soutien:
  • renforcement des capacités/ formation
Donnez plus de détails:

training (see also Annex A3)

4.4 Suivi et évaluation

Le suivi et l'évaluation font ils partie de l'Approche? :

Oui

Commentaires:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: soils, moisture

technical aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: inputs

socio-cultural aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through measurements; indicators: number of men/women participating

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: yields

area treated aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

no. of land users involved aspects were ad hoc monitored by 0 through observations; indicators: None

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Some changes, for example (a) increased numbers of women identified as innovators in response to gender sensitisation/training and (b) ???rotation??? of farmer innovators used for training - that is not using the same farmers all the time, as this can create envy. E.g. also better integration with government services/system for technical backstopping and extension

4.5 Recherche

La recherche a-t-elle fait partie intégrante de l’Approche?

Oui

Spécifiez les thèmes:
  • technologie
  • socio-economics
Donnez plus de détails et indiquez qui a mené ces recherches:

Theoretically, researchers should respond to the farmers??? research agenda, though this has proved difficult to achieve in practice. Apart from process monitoring of the methodology, which has led to improvements, technical research into the innovations has been relatively weak.

Research was carried out on-farm

5. Financement et soutien matériel externe

5.1 Budget annuel de la composante GDT de l'Approche

Si le budget annuel précis n'est pas connu, indiquez une fourchette:
  • 100 000-1 000 000
Commentez (par ex. principales sources de financement/ principaux bailleurs de fonds):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (national government): 20.0%; international (International agency): 60.0%; local community / land user(s) (-): 20.0%

5.2 Soutiens financiers/ matériels fournis aux exploitants des terres

Les exploitants des terres ont-ils reçu un soutien financier/ matériel pour la mise en œuvre de la Technologie/ des Technologies?

Non

5.3 Subventions pour des intrants spécifiques (incluant la main d'œuvre)

Si la main d'œuvre fournie par les exploitants des terres était un intrant substantiel, elle était:
  • volontaire
Commentaires:

done by the farmers themselves

plant materials - farmers often are given or collecting planting.
Support to institutions has been moderate: it has mainly taken the form of transporting existing groups (for example womens groups/church groups) to learn from farmer innovators.

5.4 Crédits

Des crédits ont-ils été alloués à travers l'Approche pour les activités de GDT?

Non

6. Analyses d'impact et conclusions

6.1 Impacts de l'Approche

Est-ce que l'Approche a amélioré les questions foncières et des droits d'utilisation qui entravent la mise en œuvre des Technologies?
  • Non
  • Oui, un peu
  • Oui, modérément
  • Oui, beaucoup

Gender sensitisation training may have helped. The problem is unlikely to be overcome in the near future.

6.3 Durabilité des activités de l'Approche

Les exploitants des terres peuvent-ils poursuivre ce qui a été mis en œuvre par le biais de l'Approche (sans soutien extérieur)?
  • incertain
Si non ou incertain, spécifiez et commentez:

There are examples of spontaneous voluntary continuation of farmer innovator groups in all three countries - but on a reduced level after initial project support ended.

6.4 Points forts/ avantages de l'Approche

Points forts/ avantages/ possibilités du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé
Builds on local ideas (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue the approach and institutionalise.)
Revitalises the extension service (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Train and make use of existing Government extension agents.)
attractive to stakeholders at all levels (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Involve and inform stakeholders at all levels of plans and progress.)
Gives land users more confidence in their own abilities (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continue to prioritise farmers and keep them at centre of activities.)
Offers new locally tested ideas/technologies which work (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Keep the focus on the farmers??? initiatives and use participatory technology development processes to improve these technologies.)

6.5 Faiblesses/ inconvénients de l'Approche et moyens de les surmonter

Faiblesses/ inconvénients/ risques du point de vue du compilateur ou d'une autre personne ressource clé Comment peuvent-ils être surmontés?
Dependent on individual commitment and flexibility Training in skills and methodologies.
Does not follow the conventional institutional chain of command Considerable training in skills and methodologies required.
Sometime confers too much prestige on a particular group of ???favoured farmers??? Rotate??? farmers who are the focus of attention.
Researchers reluctant to respond to farmers??? agenda Effort needed to convince research staff of the need for, and potential benefits from, joint Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3, pp 285??¡§288research with farmers.

7. Références et liens

7.1 Méthodes/ sources d'information

  • visites de terrain, enquêtes sur le terrain
  • interviews/entretiens avec les exploitants des terres

7.2 Références des publications disponibles

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Critchley WRS (2000) Inquiry, Initiatives and Inventiveness: Farmer Innovators in East Africa. Phs Chem Earth (B), Vol 25, no 3,Mutunga K and Critchley W (2001) Farmers??? initiatives in land husbandry. Regional Land Management Unit, Nairobi, KenyaCritchley W and Mutunga K (2003) Local innovation in a global context: documenting farmer initiatives in land husbandry through WOCAT.Critchley et al. (1999). Promoting farmer innovationPromoting farmer innovation VIDEO

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Mutunga K and Critchley W (2001) Farmers initiatives in land husbandry. Regional Land Management Unit, Nairobi, Kenya

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Critchley W and Mutunga K (2003) Local innovation in a global context: documenting farmer initiatives in land husbandry through WOCAT.

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Critchley et al. (1999). Promoting farmer innovation

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)

Titre, auteur, année, ISBN:

Promoting farmer innovation VIDEO

Disponible à partir d'où? Coût?

RELMA, Nairobi (cost free)

Modules