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

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Rakai 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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/08/2011

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

Increasing farmers' outputs through use of extension advisory service on flat area of land.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: The main aim was to provide technical skills together with knowledge to farmers . It involves organizing of trainings through workshops mainly held on each parish of Kasasa sub county.

Methods: In implementation and adopting this approach various methods were used. These include organizing, training, between the farmers and the extension advisors (NAADS staff).
Demonstration was also used through farmer field schools through which farmers gain knowledge skills on how to apply the technology in their own gardens. This demonstration was at Mr. Kateregga Johnsons' garden.

Role of stakeholders: Farmers provided labour and at the same time acted as decision makers.

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

The Approach focused on SLM only

-To provide technical skills to the farmers.
-Ti increase agricultural outputs among farmers.
-To reduce soil erosion.

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

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	none
planning	none
implementation	none
monitoring/ evaluation	none
Research	none

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

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users

Explain:

Decision made by SLM specialist with consultation of farmers in the community

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists. Here decision made by skilled land users with the support from extension advisors, after the training.

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.

farmer groups , both youth, men & women.

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer

Subjects covered:

provided conservation techniques and provided financial support to farmers.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Training.; Key elements: Field visits., Demonstration of technologies (Farmer field schools); Training conducted effectively.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Due to financial support technical knowledge provided to farmers .there quite adequate ensures of land conservation continuation activities.

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

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

Groups of farmers, village farmer councils got some financial support and training as well as inputs like hoes.

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 by 65%.

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: It sometimes performs well .

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: farmers involvement increased.

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: yield increased by 68%.

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements; indicators: number moved up to 70%.

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through observations; indicators: workshops & trainings provided.

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff through measurements

no. of land users involved aspects were monitored by project staff through observations

management of Approach aspects were monitored by project staff, land users through observations

There were several changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: farmers production increased and some farmers who attended the trainings can now train others.

There were several changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: There are some combinations of technologies, where by a farmer can do intercropping , but in the spaces left practices compositing also at the same garden.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• technology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Research was conducted by SLM specialists to find out what kind of technology farmers should adopt to conserve land sustainably.

Research was carried out on-farm

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• > 1,000,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: local government (district, county, municipality, village etc) (fuel cost, transport refund, financial support given to farmers, input costs, training fee. ): 98.0%; local community / land user(s) (in provision of some inputs): 2.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• food-for-work

Comments:

Some worked for food-for-work , some heavy labour paid in cash especially the technical ones.

Financial support provided was not enough according to farmers , some needs unmet.

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:

some few farmers especially the rich and those who gained a lot of technical knowledge. 20% can continue without any support, but others cannot manage to continue with approach activities.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
1. Provides technical skills to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmers should always attend workshops. )
2. Provides agricultural inputs like hoes.
3. Provides financial support to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Lobbying for more financial support. )
4. Reduces soil erosion. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Practice more conservation activities. )

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
1. Reduces soil degradation. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Increase attitude towards conservation techniques. )
2. Provides technical knowledge to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Farmers should participate in workshops regularly. )
3. Stimulating agricultural outputs. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Quality seeds should be provided to farmers. )
4. Provides financial support to farmers. (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Lobying for more support. )

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai district statistical report 2009Rakai district development plan 2010/2013.Natural environmental action plan (drafted from Kacwera).

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Rakai district development plan 2010/2013

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Natural environmental action plan (drafted from Kacwera)