evaluation on crop productivity enhancement extension ... on crop productivit… · 54 sg 2000 crop...

54

SG2000CropProductivityEnhancementExtensionApproachesinUganda

EvaluationReport

April2013

FrancesNakakawa,RamzyMagamboandJustineWangila

Monitoring,Evaluation,LearningandSharing(MELS)Theme

ii

TableofContents

Acronyms......................................................................................................................................................v

ExecutiveSummary.....................................................................................................................................vi

1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................1

1.1. Background...................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1. AgriculturalEnvironment.......................................................................................................1

1.1.2. AgriculturalExtensionApproaches........................................................................................2

1.1.3. AgriculturalExtension:TheUgandaContext..........................................................................2

1.1.4. UgandaAgriculturalPolicyFramework..................................................................................2

1.1.5. TheNAADSApproaches.........................................................................................................2

1.2. SG2000PrograminUganda.........................................................................................................3

1.2.1. TheSG2000ExtensionApproachesinUganda......................................................................3

Figure1:FlowofWorkintheOSCAApproach............................................................................................5

1.3. TheCropProductivityEnhancementTheme.................................................................................5

1.3.1. TheoryofChangeoftheCPETheme......................................................................................6

1.3.2. FarmerLearningPlatforms(FLPs)ExtensionApproach.........................................................6

1.3.3. ImplementationRoad.............................................................................................................7

Table1:NumberofTechnologyPlots:2009-12inUganda.........................................................................7

1.4. EvaluationRationale......................................................................................................................7

1.5. EvaluationObjectives....................................................................................................................7

2. EvaluationApproach............................................................................................................................9

2.1. Scope.............................................................................................................................................9

2.2. Approach.......................................................................................................................................9

2.2.1. FrameworkandTools.............................................................................................................9

2.2.2. SamplingStrategy...................................................................................................................9

2.2.3. RecruitmentandTrainingofInterviewers...........................................................................10

2.3. DataCollectionandAnalysis.......................................................................................................10

3. EvaluationResults..............................................................................................................................11

3.1. SocioeconomicCharacteristicsofFarmers..................................................................................11

Table3:SocioeconomicCharacteristicsofUgandaFarmers....................................................................11

3.2. NationalversusSG2000CropExtensionApproaches................................................................11

3.2.1. NationalExtensionSystems’Approaches............................................................................11

3.2.2. SG2000–UgandaCPEExtensionApproaches.....................................................................12

3.3. RelevanceandEffectivenessofFarmerLearningPlatforms.......................................................13

3.3.1. UnderstandingofFarmerLearningPlatforms......................................................................13

Table4:ResponsesonElementsofFLPs..................................................................................................14

Table5:EAsKnowledgeofTOPs,WADandPTPFarmers.........................................................................14

Table6:CBFsKnowledgeofTOPs,WADandPTPFLPs..............................................................................15

3.3.2. LearnedTechnologiesandPractices....................................................................................16

Table7:NewTechnologiesLearnedbyClients.........................................................................................16

3.3.3. SG2000–UgandaCropExtensionApproachandtheNationalPriorities............................16

3.3.4. DifferencesbetweenSG2000–UgandaandNationalExtensionApproaches....................16

3.4. InnovativenessofSG2000Approaches......................................................................................16

3.4.1. PlanningwithPartners.........................................................................................................17

3.4.2. UseofExtensionAgentsandCommunityBasedFacilitators...............................................17

3.4.3. Self-supervisionandMonitoring..........................................................................................17

3.4.4. FieldDays.............................................................................................................................17

3.4.5. FarmerExchangeVisits.........................................................................................................17

3.4.6. ManagementStyle...............................................................................................................18

3.4 CostofFLPsandCoverage...........................................................................................................18

Table8:AverageCostofDemonstrationPlotsandTrainingSessions.......................................................18

3.5. UseofSG2000–UgandaPromotedTechnologies.....................................................................18

Table9:UseofTechnologies.....................................................................................................................19

3.6. FarmertoFarmerExtension&MultiplierEffects.......................................................................19

Table10:MultiplierEffects........................................................................................................................19

3.6.1. ImpactonCropProduction..................................................................................................20

Table11:ImpactonCropProductionandProductivity.............................................................................20

3.7. FactorsthatInfluenceTechnologyUse.......................................................................................20

3.7.1. InstitutionalFactors..............................................................................................................20

3.7.2. EconomicFactors.................................................................................................................21

3.7.3. SocialCulturalfactors...........................................................................................................21

3.8. SustainabilityofSG2000–UgandaCropExtensionApproaches................................................22

3.9. AgriculturalExtensionSupportOrganizations.............................................................................23

Table12:Otherorganizations’CropExtensionApproaches.....................................................................23

4. LessonsandGoodPractices...............................................................................................................23

5. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................24

6. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................25

7. References..........................................................................................................................................26

v

AcronymsAFAAS AfricanForumforAgriculturalAdvisoryServicesATAAS AgricultureTechnologyandAgribusinessAdvisoryServicesCAADP ComprehensiveAfricaAgricultureDevelopmentProgrammeCBF CommunityBasedFacilitatorsCRP CommunityResourcePersonsCVPs CommunityVarietyPlotsDSIP DevelopmentStrategyandImplementationPlan-EAS ExtensionandAdvisoryservicesFAAP FrameworkforAfricaAgricultureProductivityProgrammeFAO FoodandAgricultureOrganizationFARA ForumforAgriculturalResearchinAfricaFESs FieldextensionStaffFEWs FieldExtensionWorkersFFS FarmerFieldSchoolFLPs FarmerLearningPlatformsGDP GrossDomesticProductGFRAS GlobalForumforRuralAdvisoryServicesIDEA InvestmentinDevelopingExportAgriculture-MAAIF MinistryofAgricultureAnimalindustryandFisheriesMFPED MinistryofFinance,PlanningandEconomicDevelopmentNAADS NationalAgriculturalAdvisoryServicesNARO NationalAgriculturalResearchOrganizationNRI NaturalResourceInstituteOSCA OneStopCentreAssociationPMA PlanforModernizationofAgriculture-PTP ProductionTestPlotsSAA SasakawaAfricaAssociationSFF Sub-countyFarmersForumNCs NAADSCoordinatorsT&V TrainingandVisitTDS TechnologyDevelopmentSiteTOPs TechnologyOptionsPlotsUBOS UgandaBureauofStatisticsUFAAS UgandaForumforagriculturalAdvisoryServicesUSAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentVADs Voucher-assisteddemonstrationsWADs WomenAssistedDemonstrations

vi

ExecutiveSummary

The primary objective of this evaluationwas to assess the agricultural extension approachesused by SG 2000 - Uganda, highlighting what works well, what does not and what can beimprovedtoachieveCPEThemeobjectivesandenhanceapproaches.TheevaluationassessedSG2000–Ugandacropextensionapproachesinrelationtothenationalextensionapproachesbasedonfarmerselection,trainingapproaches,technologyselectionandtargetingoffarmers.Results show that approaches used by both NAADS and SG 2000 - Uganda share severalfeatures,includinguseoffarmergroupsasentrypoints,trainingsessionsthatareboththeoryand field practicals based, and priority to farmers in selection of crop enterprise of interest(althoughSG2000 -Ugandaprovidesa “menu”). Indeed,88%of respondents stated thatSG2000 – Uganda approaches are in line with national priorities. In addition, according toclassificationofapproachesbyAdemola(2001),bothorganizationsemploytheproblemsolvingapproachthatinvolvesdefiningtheapproachfromtheviewpointoffarmers,andparticipationoftargetgroupsinplanningandimplementationoftheinterventions.FLPs are relevant and to some level, effective in disseminating agricultural extension to thefarmers. This was evidenced by reported learning of new technologies or practices duringtrainingsanddemonstrations.However,thereisneedforfurthertrainingonFLPsforEAsandCBFs to understand concepts and approaches better. There was use and uptake of thepromoted technologies but varied with different technologies or practices promoted by SG2000 - Uganda. Most used technologies or practices include integrated pest managementstrategies, proper seed rates and line planting/spacing. Factors which influence adoption ofpromotedtechnologiesincludeeffectivesupportfromEAs,timelydeliveryofinputs,accessandcostofinputs,farmers’attitudeandperception,educationand,commitmentandtransparencyofthedemonstrationshostfarmersandEAs.SustainabilityofSG2000–Ugandacropextensionapproachesisstillaconcern.Resultsrevealthatrespondentshavehopeofsustainability.NAADShastakenuptheapproachinsomeareaswhereSG2000-Ugandahasexited.Further,therearealreadyinitiativesbybothgovernmentand SG 2000 - Uganda to see this happen. These include 1) creating farmer linkages toagriculturalinputsuppliers;2)continuedmotivationofEAs,bothfinancialandinkindincentivessuchasbicycles toeaseoutreach; and3)Governmentproposed intensificationof trainingoffarmersunderthenewATAASproject.Proposed recommendations include employment of approaches that foster adoption ofpromoted technologies and practices such as participatory planning, monitoring andevaluation; appropriate adult learning skills; as well as use of clearly defined entry and exitstrategies.

1

1. Introduction1.1. Background

Overthepast25years,theSasakawaAfricaAssociation(SAA)anditspartner,theGlobal2000Programof the Carter Center, under the aegis of SG 2000 Programs have worked with tens of thousands offrontlineextensionworkersandseveralmillionfarmersin14sub-SaharanAfricacountriesinpartnershipwithnationalgovernmentsespeciallytheMinistriesofAgriculture(MOA).Currently,SG2000ProgramfocalcountriesareEthiopia,Mali,NigeriaandUganda,andworkinlinewithhostcountry’spolicies.Theprogramsoperatewithin government extension structures;withmemorandaof understanding. SAA’svision of having a more food secure rural Uganda (Africa) with increasing numbers of prosperingsmallholder commercial farmers is in line with that of NAADS II program which is focusing on foodsecurityandcommercializingfarmers..Thereisampledemonstrationthattherearemanymoderncroptechnologiesandpracticessuchasimprovedseeds,fertilizeruse,integratedpestmanagementandlineplantingavailableinAfricathatcansignificantlyincreaseyields.Itisalsoclearthatfarmersarenotonlywillingandabletointensifyproduction–theyare,infact,eagertodoso.However,thereareformidablechallengesandconstraintstoadoptionof improvedtechnologiessuchas lackofqualityandprofitablemarkets. To overcome these challenges, integrated and functional value chains are necessary - frominputsupplythroughproduction,harvesting,storage,processing,marketing(SAA,2008)toconsumption.AgriculturalEnvironment,Goals,PoliciesandStrategiesinUganda1.1.1. AgriculturalEnvironmentAgriculture sector in Uganda has for the last two decades contributed tremendously to nationaleconomicgrowth,povertyreductionandfoodsecurity.Agriculturecontributes22.7%ofGDP,accountsforover48%ofexports,providesasignificantproportionoftherawmaterialsfortheindustrialsectorand employs over 73% of the population (UBOS, 2012). On this basis, the Ugandan government hascomeupwithpolicyframeworkstoensuredevelopmentofthesector.MAAIF has developed the National Agricultural Policy (NAP) with the Development Strategy andInvestmentPlan(DSIP)2011-2015astheroadmaptoguidepublicactionandinvestmentsoverthenextfiveyearsintheagriculturalsector.DSIPsectordevelopmentobjectivesaretoensure:increaseofruralincomesandimprovementoflivelihoods,householdfoodandnutritionsecurity.Toeffectivelyachievethese objectives, a new Program,Agricultural Technology and Agribusiness Advisory Services (ATAAS)hasbeencommissionedtospecificallyensureimproveddeliveryofagriculturalresearchandextensioninUganda.AgriculturalExtensionAgriculturalExtension1isakeyelement toall agriculturaldevelopmentprocessesand it describes theservicesthatprovideruralpeoplewiththeaccesstoknowledgeandinformationtheyneedtoincreaseproductivity and sustainability of their production systems and improve their quality of life andlivelihoods (NRI-www.nri.org; Anderson, 2007 and Anderson and Feder, 2003) and has changed overtime (Swanson, 2008). Extension can contribute to the reduction of productivity differentials byincreasingthespeedoftechnologytransferandbyincreasingfarmers’knowledgeandassistingtheminimprovingfarmmanagementpractices(Federetal.,2004).Agricultureextensionismovingawayfromthedominantemphasisontechnologytransfer,e.g.,trainingandvisitapproachtowardsamuchbroaderconcept that includes developing the skills andmanagement capacities of farming families. The newextensionistisfacedwithchallengesoforganizingfarmers,andlinkingfarmerstobothinputandoutputmarkets(Swanson,2008).

1 Thisisoftenusedsynonymouslywithagriculturaladvisoryservices

2

1.1.2. AgriculturalExtensionApproachesAn extension approach is the style of action within an extension system that guides the structure,methods, techniques, resourcesand linkagesofoperation (Swanson,2008).Over theyears, therehasbeen numerous approaches andmethodologies used for delivery of agricultural services and each isconceived as appropriate in particular circumstances and each has its own advantages anddisadvantages. Therehasbeendifferent categorizationof extensionapproaches,highlightedbyAxinn(1988): general agricultural extension; commodity based; training and visit (T&V); participatoryagriculturalextension;projectapproach;thefarmingsystemsdevelopment;costsharingandeducationinstitutions.According to Axinn (1988), in actual practice any agricultural extension system2, at a particular timeemphasizesoneapproachwithsomecharacteristicsoftheothertypes.Eachapproachischaracterizedbythefollowingdimensions:thedominantidentifiedproblem;purposetowhichitisdesigned;controlofprogrammeplanning;natureofthefieldpersonnelincludingtheirdensityinrelationtotheclientele.The other dimensions include: the level of training, reward system, origin, gender and transfer; theresources required and certain cost factors like manpower, use of media; typical implementationtechniques used; and the variables or outputs bywhich the systemmeasures its success. These aremerelydifferentapproachestothesameagriculturalextensionphenomenon.1.1.3. AgriculturalExtension:TheUgandaContextUganda has finalized its detailed national agriculture investment plan, theDevelopment Strategy andInvestmentPlan-DSIP(MAAIF,2010a).Prior,agriculturalextensioninUgandahasundergoneanumberof transformations from regulatory 1920 - 56, advisory 1956 - 63, advisory education 1964 - 71,dormancy 1972-81, recovery 1982-99, educational 1992-96, participatory education 1997-98,decentralized education 1997-2001 and agricultural services (2002-todate). Agriculture is alsoincreasingly becoming commercial or market oriented with emphasis on modernization and use ofparticipatoryextensionapproaches(Semana,2008).1.1.4. UgandaAgriculturalPolicyFrameworkUp to 2010, the Plan forModernization of Agriculture (PMA) shaped the policy environment for theagricultural sector in Uganda (Uganda, 2010). Currently, there is no specific policy document onAgriculturalextension.TheNationalAgriculturalPolicyisunderpreparationsince2010(MAAIF,2010a).Presently,theNationalAgriculturalAdvisoryServices(NAADS)spearheadsagriculturaladvisoryservicesto farmers inUganda (MAAIF, 2011c).NAADS II nowoperates under theAgricultural Technology andAgribusiness Advisory Services (ATAAS) Program. One of the targets of NAADS II is diversification ofapproachesandmethodologies fordeliveryof theservicesandserviceprovidercapacitydevelopment(NARO-NAADS, 2010). NAADS focuses on a decentralized, farmer-owned and public/private sectorservicedextension.Itenvisionsfarmerempowermenttodemand,payandcontrolextensionservicesinthelongrun(http://www.naads).Sincethetransformationofextensiondidnotbuildonthestrengthsofthepastbutratherreliedmainlyuponforeignexpertadvice,itssustainabilityremainsakeycontentiousissue.1.1.5. TheNAADSApproachesNAADS takes aproject approach, it is ahigh impactprogrammemainly supportedby foreign fundingwith a separate management and accounting structure from MAAIF and a better facilitated staff.Empowerment in NAADS approach is participatory and farmers participate through membership inNAADSfarmergroups(MAAIF,2010b).

2Anagriculturalsystemembodiesaspectsofitsstructure,leadership,programmes,methodsandtechniques,resourcesandthelinkageswithotherorganizations.

3

Under NAADS I, farmers in a Sub-county through NAADS farmer groups chose 3 enterprises: crop,livestock,fisheryorbeekeepingoramixture;requestedspecifictechnologiesandadvisoryservicesandappliedforgrantstoprocurethosetechnologiesandrelatedadvisoryservices. Withthis information,theNAADSSecretariatworkedwiththeSub-countytoprovidethegrants,contractandsuperviseprivateprofessionalserviceproviders.Serviceproviderssetupdemonstrations(technologydevelopmentsite-TDS)onhostfarmers’fields.Thehostfarmerwaschosenbymembersofthegroup.ProceedsfromtheTDS became a revolving fund for members. Select farmers, known as community based facilitators(CBFs)werealsotrainedtoextendfollow-upservices(NAADS,2001).Because of challenges around farmer and enterprise selection inNAADS I, new guidelines have beenformulated for NAADS II.Mainly, farmers are categorized into the food security and commercializingfarmers. FoodSecurity farmersare18yearsandabove,practicing subsistence farmerswithaccess tolandorproductionunit,andcommercializationfarmersserveasmodelsinprogressionfromsubsistencefarmingthroughmarketorientationtocommercialization(MAAIF,2010c).

1.2. SG2000PrograminUgandaSG 2000 - Uganda started operating in Uganda in 1996 in partnership with MOA at the height ofagricultural extension reforms;extensionwasat its lowandpluralismwas in vogue. Thepartnershiprequiredworking alongside and supplementing government extension efforts; and using governmentextension structures. SG2000–Ugandaparticipatedandparticipates innationalagriculturalplanningprocessessuchasthePMAandNAADS.SG2000–Ugandaapproachesandinterventionsareexpectedto fit into the national extension framework, be complementary and in agreement with nationalextensiongoalsaccordingtotheMOUwithMAAIF.1.2.1. TheSG2000ExtensionApproachesinUgandaOvertheyears,SG2000-Ugandahasusedamixed-extensionapproachtodisseminatetechnologiesandinformation.SG2000-Ugandaextensionhasgonethrough3phases:traditionalextension-technologyfocuseddemonstrationplots;OneStopCentreAssociations - farmerbased3andnow, farmer learningplatforms(FLPs).Phase1-TraditionalExtension-TechnologyFocusedDemonstrationPlotsApproach:1997-2002InPhase1,thekeyproblemwaslowproductivityduetoweaklinksbetweenresearchandfarmers,andpooraccesstoinputsespeciallyfertilizersandlabor. SG2000–Ugandaimplementedfarmertrainingsand demonstrations; farm research; seed multiplication; animal traction; postharvest handling andinputsdelivery–stockistsystem.Theapproachusedwastop-down,implementedthroughthenationalextension system that is District Agricultural Officers through District Production Offices, SG 2000 –UgandaDistrictCoordinators,Sub-countyExtensionOfficesdownto farmers,groupsandassociations.Like in the T&V approach, SG 2000 – Uganda staff played the role of the subject matter specialists(SMSs), training assigned government field extension workers in turn trained and visited farmers todisseminatenewtechnologiesfromresearchmainlythroughdemonstrationplotsof0.1ha.Field Extension Specialists (FESs) were equipped withmotorcycles and given salary top-ups to boostmoraleandcommitment.Maizewasthedominantcroppromotedwithasoilimprovementpackageofinorganic fertilizers. Legumes and other cereals were added later in 1999. Activities were seasonal,highlyscheduledandalwaysculminatedinfielddayswithexhibitionofsuccessfultechnologies.In 2002, SG 2000 –Uganda added on voucher-assisted demonstrations (VADs) that targetedwomen,youthandHIV/AIDSvulnerable farmers.VADkitswereusedduringgrouptrainingsessions,giving the

3SecondPhaseoverlappedwiththe1stand3rdPhases.

4

resource-poor participants the opportunity to attend and/or host demonstrations. VADs helped toimprovetheclients’foodandincomesecurity,andboostedsalesofagro-dealerswhodeliveredinputsagainstthevouchers.Measuresof successwerenumberofdemonstrationplots, farmersattendingdemonstration trainingsand field days and adoption rates. Thousands of farmers benefited from the new technologiesdemonstrated and yields increasedmany-fold.However, after sometime, new challenges such as lowimplementation efficiency, low farmer participation and limited institutional framework forsustainabilityoftechnologiesemerged.Amid-termreviewin2001ofSG2000ProgramsinAfricaraiseda critical concern about sustainability of approaches and technologies disseminated to farmers. Itshowedtheneedtoincreasesmallholderaccesstoproductivityenhancingservices(publicandprivate);increaseintensityandscaleofapplicationofimprovedinnovationsbysmallholderfarmersandfacilitatecreation of institutional frameworks and scale out impact of improved innovations beyond projectperiodsandareas.Phase2-OneStopCentreAssociationsApproach:2001-10Inresponsetothe2001mid-termreview,SG2000–Ugandachangedtheapproach;designingtheOneStop Centre Association (OSCA) approach (2002-2003) and aligned to both PMA and NAADS’ PolicyFramework(SG2000,2005).Concurrently,therewasanewgovernmentsector-wideagriculturalpolicythatfocusedonincreasingproductivityandintegratingagriculturalprograms.AnOSCA is a communitymultipurpose infrastructure that facilitates farmers’ organizations and theircommunitiestoaggregatedemandsforservices(e.g.markets)reducestransactioncosts;andbuilttheircapacity to run services on commercially viable and sustainable bases. It aimed at bringing servicescloser to all farmers. It also aimed at strengthening institutions for inputs delivery, production, agro-processing andmarketingwith auxiliary services such as rural finance, literacy, health care andothersocial services. The OSCA approach was participatory, collaborative, market-oriented and integratedsocialandeconomicissuesthatcoulddeliveronorcontributetoSG2000–Ugandagoals(SAA,2006).TheOSCA approach focused on value chains development fromenterprise development to collectivemarketingwitheachcentrefocusingonsinglecrop;riceforZirobwe,maizeforMukono,groundnutsforTororo,etc.ThisprovidedagoodfitbetweenSG2000–Ugandaandnationalagriculturalextension.Measures of success for the OSCA approach included number of associations, member groups, andsuccessfulvaluechainsdevelopedandsustained.TheOSCAapproachwasaviableavenuetoempowerfarmers andprovide a rangeof services. Itwasnotonlybeneficial to farmersbut also to SG2000 –Uganda and other stakeholders, and had potential of a best practice for agricultural extension. Foralmost10years,SG2000-UgandausedthisapproachtoimplementactivitiesanditsworkwasrankedhighbytheGovernmentandotherstakeholderswhodesiredtoadoptthesame.However,high farmers’expectations (and to someextentdependence syndrome);physical structurestakingacentrestageinsteadofbeingenablingfacilities;higheranddisparatemanagementstandardsoftheassociationsascomparedtogroups,andmarketingproblemsduetolowvolumesgreatlythreatenedsustainability(Luzobe,2012).TheflowofworkwasasinFigure1below.

5

Figure1:FlowofWorkintheOSCAApproach

Phase3:SG2000ValueChainApproachIn 2008, SAA embarked on a strategic re-think to address challenges that faced the OSCA approach;emerging extension challenges and the need to reach more farmers. SAA adopted a value chainapproach.Thisresultedinanewvision,missionandstrategicgoals.Thesegoalsweretranslatedinto5Themesforoperationalizationandimplementation:CropProductivityEnhancement(CPE);Postharvestand Agro-processing (PHAP); Public-Private Partnerships and Market Access (PPP&MA); HumanResourceDevelopment(HRD)andMonitoring,Evaluation,LearningandSharing(MELS)(SAA,2008).CPEThemeplaysapivotalandcentralroleinSG2000Programs(SAA/SG2000,2011)duetohistoryandbydesign.

1.3. TheCropProductivityEnhancementThemeCPE Theme aims to establish cost-effective farmer learning platforms that improve productivity insmallholder food systems, especially for resource-poor women farmers and those with low levels oftechnical efficiency, and increase food security and improve livelihoods. Its overall objective is toincreaseagriculturalproductivityandstrengthencapacitiesof farmersandnationalextensionsystems

NAADSSecretariat SG2000–UgandaStaff

DistrictProductionOfficer

DistrictAgriculturalofficer

SG2000–UgandaDistrictCoordinator

DistrictNAADSCoordinator

OSCAManagerSub-countyNAADSCoordinator

NAADSCBFsorOSCACRPs

GroupLeaders

IndividualFarmers

6

byreachingfarmersdirectlythroughtrainingandfielddemonstrationactivities,andindirectlythroughinformationandknowledgespilloverincommunities.1.3.1. TheoryofChangeoftheCPEThemeUntil2009,mostcropextensiondemonstrationsbySG2000Programspromotedstandardizedpackagesof technology, generally among relatively better-off smallholders located mainly in less risky andaccessible agro-ecologies and with reasonably good access to markets. Extension services generallyrecommendedonetechnologypackage(twoatthemost)foreachofthemajorfoodcrops.Thestandarddemonstration and training approach consisted of management training plots (MTPs). SG 2000 -Ugandaalsousedblockfarms,seedmultiplication,onfarmresearchandproductiontestplots(PTPs)toreachsmallholderfarmerswithsignificantimpacts.However,whenastandardizedtechnologypackageisextendedoverdiverseandriskyenvironments,theresultissignificantdeclineintechnicalefficiency.Agreaterarrayoftechnologyoptionsforfarmersisneededtohelpensureincreasedtechnicalefficiencyand productivity. Resource-poor smallholder farmers’ livelihoods are constrained by low cropproductivity which ismainly due to poor access to improved technologies, required inputs and poorinputmanagementwhicharemainlyduetolackofaccesstoinformation,trainingandextensionadvice(SAA,2011c).1.3.2. FarmerLearningPlatforms(FLPs)ExtensionApproachEmergingextensionchallengesandtheneedtoreach-outtomorefarmersespeciallytheunder-servedentailed a re-think and new approaches. Starting 2009, the CPE Theme adopted a Farmer LearningPlatforms(FLPs)approachforcapacitydevelopmentofsmallholderfarmers.AnFLPconsistsoftwomainelements:a)fielddemonstrationofnewand/oradaptedandimprovedtechnologiesandb)trainingoffarmers.FLPsconsistof3or4 typesofdemonstrationplots: technologyoptionsplots (TOPs),womenassisted demonstration plots (WADs) and community variety plots (CVPs) as well as production testplots (PTPs).TOPsandWADshost farmersaresuppliedwith inputs foroneseasonbySG2000,whilePTP farmersuse theirown inputs,butparticipate in trainingsandare supervisedbyextensionagents(SAA, 2005; SAA, 2010a and SAA, 2010b). TOPs and WADs serve as the primary focal points forcommunity-andgroup-basedagronomictrainingandtechnologyevaluation.TOPs,WADsandPTPsaimtobenefit2categoriesofclients:1)farmersincludingwomen,withlowtechnicalcapacityandwhohavenotbenefitedfromextensionadvisoryservices inthepastand2)commerciallyorientedsmallholders;thosewithsurplusproduction.TOPsarenormally1,500m2insize,anddividedintothreecontiguous500m2sub-plots.Thefirstsub-plotisdevotedtodemonstratingtheofficialnationalagriculturalresearchcenters’recommendations,i.e.,NAROrecommendedtechnologypackage.Thesecondisalower-cost(intermediate)variation;halfofNAROrecommendedtechnologypackage.Thethirdplotislocalfarmers’practicethatallowsforcomparisonbetweenSG2000–Ugandainterventionsandfarmers’practices.TOPsandWADsarelearningsitesforfarmersforcontinuoustrainingsessionsduringthegrowthperiod;additionallytheyarealsodemonstrationsofnewtechnologies(SAA,2011b;WADSarethesuccessortoVADsandaresimplifiedversionsofTOPsspecificallyintendedforresource-poorwomenfarmers.WADscompriseoftwo500m2sub-plots.Thefirstplotdemonstratesalower-cost(intermediate) variation; half of NARO’s recommended technology package, One plot is theintermediate technologyand theother farmers’ practice for comparison.AWAD is always1000m² insizeandthesecondisthefarmers’practiceforcomparison.AWADisalways1000m²insize..PTPs are essentially test plots on technologyoptionsby farmerswhoparticipated in FLP training andfielddaysusingtheirowninputsbeforedecidingonuseandscalingupoftechnologieswithneeds-basedtechnicaladvicebySG2000staff(SAA,2011b).

7

1.3.3. ImplementationRoadIn Uganda, FLPs are central to the SG 2000 crop extension approach. Therefore, demonstration oftechnologiesthroughTOPs,WADsandCVPs;technicaladviceandtrainingonPTPsandtrainingsessionswithExtensionAgents(EAs)helptodeveloptheirskillsandknowledge,providesolutionstoconstraintsinagriculturalproductionandinformaboutoptionsandopportunitiestoimprovefarmenterprises(SAA,2011b).Significantprogresshasbeenmadeinreachingsmallholderfarmers.SG 2000 –Uganda promoted crop technologies include improved seeds; new crop varieties; fertilizeruse; timelyplanting; lineplanting/spacing;properseedrates; timelyweeding;useofherbicides;croprotation; integrated pestmanagement; use of timely planting (aversive); chemical pests and diseasescontrol;croppingsystemimprovementandlandpreparationmethodstocontrolmajorweedslikeStriga.SG2000-Ugandahasoverthepast3yearsestablished1,551TOPs,2,216WADsandregistered6,300PTPfarmersinthedifferentinterventionareasasindicatedinTable1.Table1:NumberofTechnologyPlots:2009-12inUganda

FLP CoreProject Totalplots2009 2010 2011 2012

TOPS 495 504 336 216 1,551WADs 660 504 504 648 2,216PTPs 1,650 1,680 2,520 450 6,300

Source:SG2000–UgandaCPETheme

1.4. EvaluationRationaleSG2000–UgandaworkswithMAAIFunderanMOUinUganda.SignificantinvestmentshavebeenmadeinthepromotionandestablishmentofFLPs–TOPs,WADsandCVPsdemonstrationsandtraining,andprovisionoftechnicaladviceonPTPs. It isnowanopportunetimeto lookattherelevanceoftheSG2000 Crop Extension Approach to Uganda’s agriculture goals, agricultural and extension policies andextensionapproaches.Anotherissueofconcernhasbeenthesizeandlocationandhowtheseaffectthevisibilityofdemonstrationplots;i.e.,effectivenessofdemonstrationplots.Theextentanddepthoftechnologytransfer,useandimpactoftechnologiespromotedthroughtheSG2000 – Uganda crop extension approach is not clear. It is therefore important and necessary tounderstand technologies use; multiplier effects; cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the SG 2000approachinreachingfarmers;effectoftrainingsonextensionagentsandfarmers;effectivenessoftheapproachtechnologiesinincreasingyields,foodsecurityandincomes;.It is clear that unanswered questions exist. Is there uptake after demonstrations and trainings? Dofarmersrespondbettertocertainextensionapproaches,andifyes,why?Whydosometargetfarmerskeepoffextensionservices?Thesearesomeofthequestions.

1.5. EvaluationObjectivesThe overall objective of this evaluationwas to assess the use of technologies and effect of trainings,highlightingwhatworkswell,whatdoesnotandwhatcanbeimprovedtoachieveCPEThemeobjectivesand enhance approaches. This evaluation sought to identify changes in the implementationenvironment inUganda andhow these changes affect the CPE Theme theory of change. The specificobjectivesofthisevaluationinclude:

8

1) ToassessifSG2000-UgandacropextensionapproachesfittheUgandanationalextensionsystemsand approacheswith respect to agricultural goals, priorities, fertilizer recommendations, policies,strategiesand/orplans;

2) To evaluate implementation with respect to effectiveness and efficiency of trainings, i.e.,methodology,delivery,knowledgetransfer,etc.;andeffectivenessandefficiencyofdemonstrationsintransferringtechnologytoextensionagentsandfarmers;

3) To understand the use of improved technologies andmultiplier effects of the FLPs in improvingproductionandproductivity;

4) ToassessthesustainabilityoftheSG2000cropextensionapproachandactivitiesinUganda,5) Identifylessonslearnedandbestpractices;areastostrengthen,changeandrefocustoenhanceSG

2000CropExtensionespeciallyonTOPs,WADs,CVPsandPTPs in termsofmanagementofplots,quality,reach,andreplication,gendermainstreamingandempowerment.

Theevaluationwasguidedbyasetofkeyquestionstoaddresstheabovespecificobjectives.Differentquestionsweretargetedtodifferentrespondents.

9

2. EvaluationApproach2.1. Scope

This evaluation is an open, transparent learning process for clients, partners and stakeholders thataimedtounderstandtheinstitutionalandworkingenvironment,achievements,pitfallsandconstraints–as well as opportunities and challenges in Mukono, Luweero, Wakiso, Jinja and Tororo Districts inUganda. The focus was extension as a mechanism or tool for improving farmers’ knowledge andmanagementpractices inways that lead to improvedagricultural productivity and food security. Thiswas specifically on SG 2000 crop extension approaches and activities, i.e., farmer learning platformscovering trainings, TOPs,WADs and CVPs and PTP farmers. As per the evaluation objectives and theneedtoaddress issuesrelatedto implementation,performance,progressandachievements;dataandinformationwascollectedatdifferentintervention,managementandadministrativelevelsstartingwiththefarmandfromdifferentrespondents.

2.2. Approach2.2.1. FrameworkandToolsTheevaluationusedahybridEvaluationFrameworkandamixofquantitativeandqualitativemethods(IFPRI,2010)onthebasisoftheCPEtheoryofchangeandevaluationquestionswhilefollowingstandardevaluationsteps.GenerictoolsweredevelopedbytheMELSThemeinconsultationwithotherSAAandSG 2000 Themes and staff. The MELS Theme followed a two-step consultative process: a) SAAManagement reviewed the evaluation questions, and MELS Theme in consultation with CPE Themeidentifiedrespondents fordifferentquestions.Thetoolswere thenreviewedandadaptedtoUganda-specificconditionsforrelevance.2.2.2. SamplingStrategyA mix of multi-stage stratified and purposive sampling strategy was used to select a representativesample of different respondents at different spatial and implementation levels; i.e., from VillagesthroughParishes,Sub-counties,DistrictstotheNational;andfromfarmersthroughextensionagentstopolicy-anddecision-makers. Beinganevaluation,respondentsconstitutepeoplewhohave interactedwithSG2000–Ugandainonewayoranotherasclients,partnersorstakeholders. TheSampleframeand strategy were discussed extensively within SG 2000 – Uganda and with partners to assurerepresentation,credibilityandbuy-inintotheevaluationprocess.2.2.2.1. FarmersSG2000-Ugandahasworkedinover25districtsinUganda;5districtswheredifferentactivitieswereimplemented by SG 2000 – Uganda under the FLP approach were purposively selected: Mukono,Luweero,Wakiso, Jinja and Tororo. Selectionof respondentswasdone from3 categories of farmersaround an FLP: 1) TOPs andWADshosts; 2) farmers not hosting TOPs andWADsbut from the samefarmergroupsasthosefarmersselectedin1)above;and3)PTPfarmersaroundselectedFLPs..Two Parishes were randomly selected from one purposively selected Sub-county in each of the 5Districts. Therefore, in each Sub-county, 10 WADs and 10 TOPs host-farmers, 10 non-host farmers(membersoffarmergroupsaroundanFLP)and10PTPfarmerswereselectedforthisevaluation.Thisresultedin40farmersfromeachDistrictand200farmersforevaluationinUganda.2.2.2.2. KeyInformantsThree categories of key informantswere included in the sample of respondents: a) District – one SG2000–UgandaDistrictCoordinator,1GovernmentExtensionAgentfromeachselectedSub-countyand2 CBFs from each Parish; b) National (MAAIF) - Minister of State for Agriculture; Commissioner for

10

Agriculture;Director, CropProduction and SAADeskOfficer and c) SG2000 –Uganda staff - CountryDirector,DeputyCountryDirector,CPEThematicCoordinatorandCPEThemeProgramOfficers.2.2.3. RecruitmentandTrainingofInterviewersSeniorMAAIFstaffswereinterviewedbytheMELSThemeDirector.Duetotheurgencyandimportanceofevaluationand limitedSG2000–UgandaMELShumanresources,experienced interviewers indatacollectionwerebroughtonboard.TheseinterviewershavepreviouslyengagedwithSG2000–UgandastartingwiththeCIMMYT/SG2000ImpactAssessmentProject,NeedsAssessmentsandBaselineSurveys.TwoDataEntryTechnicianswerealsorecruited.Aone-daytrainingworkshopwasundertakenforInterviewersandDataEntryTechnicians.

2.3. DataCollectionandAnalysisTheevaluationcollectedandusedbothsecondaryandprimarydata.Thestartingpointwasaliteraturereview of relevant documents; published and grey documents such as the SAA Strategic Plan, CPEThemeConceptsandProcedures,Logframes,BaselineReports,NeedsAssessmentReports,RelevantSG2000Publications,NationalAgricultural Extension and Fertilizer Policies and Strategies amongothers.CPE Theme provided the necessary available data, information and documents. Primary data werecollectedthroughfacetofaceinterviewswithanumberofrespondents.Collecteddatawasanalyzedusingmixed-quantitativeandqualitativeapproaches.

11

3. EvaluationResults3.1. SocioeconomicCharacteristicsofFarmers

Socioeconomic characteristics of farmers play an important role in agriculture, especially extension.Table 3 shows that farmers in all the different categories had an average land size of 1.4 ha. Eachinterviewedhouseholdhadafamilysizeofleast7persons.Inallcategoriesoffarmers,womenwerethemajority:WADS(98.1%),PTPfarmers(53.8%),non-hostgroupmembers(57.1%)andTOPs(52.9%).ThisimpliesthatSG2000–Ugandareachesmorewomenthroughdemonstrations.Educationoffarmersplaysasignificantroleintheacquisitionanduseofinformationandtechnologies.Studies have observed that education creates a favorable mental attitude for acceptance of newpracticesespeciallyrelatedtoinformationandmanagement(Walleretal.1998andCaswelletal.,2001).Most interviewed farmershavesome formaleducation.AllPTP farmers interviewedhadsomeformaleducation.Table2:SocioeconomicCharacteristicsofUgandaFarmers

Characteristic FLPSexofHost(%)

MaleWADs TOPs PTPs Non-hostGroupFarmers1.9 47.1 46.2 42.9

Female 98.1 52.9 53.8 57.1Familysize(#) 7 9 7 8Education(%) Noformaleducation 5.8 5.9 0.0 0.0

DroppedoutinPrimarySchool 40.4 29.4 1.9 9.5StillinPrimarySchool 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4CompletedPrimarySchool 19.2 18.6 44.2 59.5DroppedoutofSecondary 34.6 31.4 53.8 28.6CompletedSecondarySchool 0.0 3.9 0.0 TertiaryEducation 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0DiplomainSecondarySchool 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0University 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0

Landsize(Ha) Average 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.4Minimum 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2Maximum 6.1 8.1 6.5 6.1StandardDeviation 3.0 3.5 3.5 3.0

Source:CPEEnhancementEvaluation2012

3.2. NationalversusSG2000CropExtensionApproaches3.2.1. NationalExtensionSystems’ApproachesNationalAgricultureAdvisoryServices(NAADS)currentlydrivesextensioninUganda.Farmersareleadclientsofextension. NAADSapproach is groundedon farmers’ groups. Farmersareengaged throughmembership in farmers’ groups. Farmers’ groups aggregate into farmers’ fora at Sub-county,Districtand National levels. At whatever level, different fora are responsible for planning, contracting,determining priorities, allocating resources and reviewing local government plans for agriculturaldevelopment.These foraalsomonitor,evaluateandprovide feedbackonperformanceandqualityofserviceand influencepolicydirection in theagricultural sector.Keyaspectsof theNAADSapproachesinclude:Farmer Selection/Criteria - Village Farmer Fora (VFF) meet with farmer groups to select farmers toparticipate in NAADS programs. List of farmers are forwarded to Sub-county Farmer Forum (SFF) for

12

compilationandfinaldecision.Theselectioncriteriaarenotclearbutrequiresomeformofresidenceofhost farmers; no special attention is given towomen. At the center the need is to reach farmers enmasse.UnderNAADsfarmersfallinto4categories:1) FoodSecurityfarmers:withaccesstolandandpracticingsubsistencefarminginthevillage;2) Market-oriented (model) farmers: early adopters/innovators who set the pace for market

orientationbydemonstratingtootherfarmersinthegrouppromisingtechnologiesfortheprioritymarketorientedenterprisesintheParish;

3) Commercializing model farmers or groups: practices commercial farming through enterprisespecializationorenterprisemixwithclearlinkagestomarketsandsupportservicesinSub-countiesorDistricts;and

4) Nucleus farmers or farms employing professional management and labor in farm operations;selectedatthenationallevel.

Uganda’spoorestpeopleincludemanysubsistencefarmersinremoteareaswhodonothaveaccesstoagriculturalservicesandlackinputsandtechnologies(IFAD,2012).PMAstressedextensionservicesandempowerment of these farmers (MAAIF andMFPED, 1997). However, there is no clear demarcationbetweenthepoorandnon-poorfarmers.Enterprise Selection - selection process is initiated by farmers guided by Assistant CommunityDevelopmentOfficers(ACDOs).FarmersingroupsinParishesselectandprioritizeenterprisesbasedonmajority rule. Selected enterprises are forwarded to the SFF that convenes to prioritize 3 or 4enterprisesfromamixofcrop,livestock,fishorbeeenterprises.SFFalsoappliesforgrantstoprocurenecessaryinputs,technologiesandadvisoryservices(NAADS,2009).TrainingApproach-agriculturalserviceproviders(subjectmatterspecialists)aresub-contractedtotrainfarmersonhusbandry, postharvest handling andmarketing. Extension staffs facilitate trainings at theParish. Extension service providers are expected to train farmers after accessing inputs fromNAADS;However,therewasnoorfrequencyoftrainingsandvisitswas lowanddidnotmatchfarmers’needsespeciallyoninputuseandhandling.Thisisproblematicforfarmerswhodonotknowhowtouseinputsproperly.Demonstration Sites –NAADSworkswithSub-counties toprovidegrants,andcontractandsuperviseprivateserviceprovisionfordemonstrationsonhostfarmsortechnologydevelopmentsite(TDS)whicharemanagedandmonitoredbyfarmers’groups.AcombinationofTDSsandadvisoryservicesaremoreeffective. TDS attract more attention and interest farmers compared to ordinary demonstrationsbecausetheyrelatetocommercialfarming.3.2.2. SG2000–UgandaCPEExtensionApproachesSG2000-UgandaaimstohelpsmallholderfarmerstolearnandusenewskillsachievefoodandincomesecuritythroughprovenproductiveandprofitableenterprisesusingtheFLPsapproach.Farmer Selection/Criteria – Districts are selected by SG 2000 –Ugandawithout consultingMAAIF tokeepoutpolitics.SG2000thenengagesDistrictleadershipontheselectionofSub-countieswithintheDistrict. SG 2000 –Uganda involves Sub-county governments andNAADSDistrict Coordinators in thechoiceofParishes. EAsseconded toSG2000–UgandabySub-countiesprovide listof farmergroupsandmembers for selection of demonstration host farmers. Based on information provided to farmergroupsoninterventions;membersselectcompetentfarmersasacommunitybasedfacilitators(CBFs).HostfarmersareselectedbygroupmembersandtheCBFswithguidancefromEAsbasedonSG2000-UgandacriteriaforTOPs,WADs,CVPsandPTPfarmers.TargetingtheRightFarmers–farmerselectionprocesshasdirectimplicationsonreachingtargetclients,smallholderfarmersunderservedbyextensionespeciallywomen.SG2000–Ugandafacesthechallenge

13

ofreachingpoorfarmers.Thisisbecausepovertyisrelativeandvariesfromonecommunitytoanotherandtheassumptionthatwomenarepoor.SG2000–Ugandafarmerselectionortargetingcriteriaexist.But selection and targeting is done by District authorities and oftentimes it is subjective basedexperienceandpreference.TechnologySelection:SG2000–Ugandahasfixedpriorityenterpriseswhicharepresentedtofarmersasa‘menu’composedofmainlycereals,legumesandroottubers;yetitisnotadirectresponsibilityofSG2000–Ugandatoinfluencefarmers.Thisleadstolimitedempowermentoffarmerstoparticipateinselectionofpreferredenterprises.Keyinformantsreportedthatchoiceofpreferredenterprisesfollowsidentificationofproblemsandsolutionsbasedon individual ideas,discussionsandreachingconsensusinaparticipatorymanner;however,incomeconsiderationsweighedinmorethanfoodsecurity..TrainingApproach–SG2000–Ugandastaffgives3trainingstoSG2000–UgandaDistrictCoordinators,EAsandCBFstobetrainersoftrainers(TOTs).Thesewere: a)pre-seasontrainingoncommunicationmethods, agronomy, FLP approach, report writing, etc; b) mid-season to orient EAs on how to trainfarmersandreviewoftheseason;andc)end-seasononseasonreview,yieldsandthefollowingyear’splans.FarmerslearnfromtheCBFswhileExtensionagentsgivetechnicalsupporttoCBFsandfarmers.Other SG2000–UgandaThemesoffer technical trainingon thewholevalue chain in these trainings.Other trainings and promotion activities include field days, exchange visits, agricultural shows, TVdocumentariesandradiotalkshows.AprincipalcomponentofanFLPandavenuetrainingweredemonstrationplots.Combinedtrainingsanddemonstrationsthatisa’learning-by-doing’approachisveryeffective.PTPfarmerswhoaregraduatesofFLPsareexpectedtobetheearlyusersoradoptersoftechnologiesandpractices.EvaluationresultsshowthatonaverageaTOPsfarmersgrouphas9womenand5menandaWADsfarmershas4womenand2men.MorewomenparticipateinFLPs(demonstrations)andsomemenparticipateinWADs.Strengths of Training Approach – SG 2000 – Uganda staff indicated that key strengths include itsparticipatory nature; subject matter specialists are brought on board; espouses theory and practice;usesexistinggovernmentextensionstaffthusreducingrecruitmentandstaffcosts.Onthedownside,itwasfeltthatallocatedtime(1day)fortrainingisnotenoughforthecoursecontextfortrainingofEAsandCBFs...FarmersthoughttrainingbyCBFswaslongandhectic;trainingmaterialsandmanualswerenot in local languagesandwasnotadult learningoriented.ReportingandfeedbackontrainingsbyEAswasweak.ExitStrategyC&PsstatesthatSG2000-UgandaintervenesinaParishfor2seasonsspreadover2years.This evaluation observed that there are no clear terms to guide the process. SG 2000 –Uganda CPEThemehasexitedWakisoDistrictforexample,andinterventionsarenoteasilytraceable.Are2seasonsenoughtoregisterimpactandassuresustainability?

3.3. RelevanceandEffectivenessofFarmerLearningPlatformsSub-objectives of the Agricultural DSIP (1010/11-2014/15) is to ensure increased farmer access torelevant information, knowledge and technology through effective, efficient, sustainable anddecentralized extension services coupled with increasing private sector involvement in line withgovernmentpolicy(MAAIF,2010).SG2000-Ugandaworkswithinthegovernmentextensionframeworkunder an MOU. It was therefore important for this evaluation to find out the relevance andeffectivenessofSG2000–Ugandacropextensionapproaches.3.3.1. UnderstandingofFarmerLearningPlatformsDistrictCoordinators,ExtensionAgentsandCommunityBasedFacilitatorsweretrainedontheconceptoffarmerlearningplatforms,i.e.,WADs,TOPSandPTPsfarmers.Over90%oftherespondentsreportedunderstandingtheprocessofsettingupanFLP.However,DistrictCoordinators,EAsandCBFscouldnot

14

wholly specify the elements or treatments in an FLP; they basically understood an FLP to be ademonstration. This is evidencedby responses in Table 4 below. SG2000 –Ugandahas to putmoreeffortinthetrainingofEAsonFLPapproaches.Table3:ResponsesonElementsofFLPsVariable Frequency SG2000Coordinators ExtensionAgents CommunityBasedFacilitatorsBunds 1 2Differenttechnologyoptions

1 1

Doesnotknow 1 1 1Farmerpractice 1Fertilizer 1 1FullNARO 1 GeneralFarmers 1 Useofchemicals 1 HalfNARO 1 1Improvedseeds 1 2Layoutofinputs 1Preparationoffields 1PTP 1 Siteidentification 1TOP 2 WAD 2

Source:CPEEnhancementEvaluation2012Tables5and6presenttheknowledgeofEAsandCBFsofWADs,TOPsandPTPfarmers.Knowledgewasgaugedby themeaningandpurposeof the2demonstration typesandPTP farmers. Six (6)EAswereinterviewedandamajority(5)knewthemeaningofaTOPand4thataWADbutdidnottheirpurposes.Results further indicatethatonly5ofthe12CBFs interviewedclearlywhataWADis. CBFscouldnotspelloutwhataPTPfarmeris;norcorrectlystatethepurposeofPTPfarmers.Table4:EAsKnowledgeofTOPs,WADandPTPFarmers

Variable Response FrequencyTOPstandsfor TechnologyOptionPlot 5

Doesn’tknow 1PurposeofTOP Compareinputlevelsindifferentplots 1

Introducefarmersto3gardenswithdifferentplots 1Thefarmertakesadecisiononwhatoptionfromexperience 1Tolearnthedifferencebetweenyields 1Farmerscomparebenefitsfromthedifferentinputlevelsfor3plots 1Exposefarmerstooptionsandinfluenceonself-decision 1

WADstandsfor WomenAssistedDemos 4WomenAdoptionDemonstration 1Doesn’tknow 1

PurposeofWAD Introducefarmersto2gardenswithdifferentplots 1 SameasTOPbutthosewhocan’taffordfullpackage 1

Withdifferentresources,thefarmercanyieldmore 1Tolearnthedifferencebetweenyields 1

15

Source:CPEEnhancementEvaluation2012Table5:CBFsKnowledgeofTOPs,WADandPTPFLPs


Comparedifferenttechnologies 1PTPstandsfor

Aboutadopters 2Notsure/Doesn’tknow/forgotten 3

PurposeofPTP

Demonstratepossibleoutput 1Self-selectionafterseeingotherfarmers 1

Notsure 1Tofindoutiftechnologyhasbeenlearned 1

Tomakeotherfarmers/communitylearnfromcopyingothertrainedfarmers 1

Variable Response FrequencyTOPstandsfor TechnologyOptionPlot 5

Agardenthathasallinputsanddifferentoptionstouse 1Doesn’tknow 1Threeplots 1

PurposeofTOP Compareinputlevelsindifferentplots 2Compareoutputsfromdifferentinputlevels 2Threetechnologies 1Helpsfarmersassesstheimportanceoffertilizers 1

WADstandsfor WomenAssistedDemos 6Compareinputlevels 1Smallgardenspreparedbypoorwomen 1Helpwomenadopttechnologies 1

PurposeofWAD Toenablewomenimprovetheiryields 1Tocomparedifferentinputlevelsforwomen 1Totellthedifferencebetweenoldfarmers’practiceandnewfarmingpractice 1Determinefromwhichplottogethighyields 1Doesn’tknow 1

PTPstandsfor

Aboutadopters Knowledgeonmoderntechnologies 1Notsure/forgotten 2

Productiontestplot 1Apersonwhosawanewtechnologyandwentbacktotryitout 1

PurposeofPTP

Demonstratepossibleoutput

Enablefarmerstoadoptnewtechnologies 3Assesfarmers’adoptionoftechnology 1

Notsure 1Remindsfarmerswhattheyhavelearnt 1

Tomakeotherfarmerslearnfromcopyingothertrainedfarmers 1

16

3.3.2. LearnedTechnologiesandPracticesAll the respondents learnedat leastonenewskill, technologyorpractice fromtrainings. LessonsarestatedinTable7below.ResultsindicatethattheEAsmainlylearnedonlineplanting/spacing(41.4%),fertilizer use (24.1%) and timely planting (13.8%). PTP farmers learned lineplanting (14.8%), fertilizeruse (14.8%) and proper seed rates (11.4%). TOPs host farmers learned line planting (13.1%), use ofchemicals (12.8%) and fertilizer use (11.4%). WADs hosts learned line planting (14.8%), proper seedrates (12.3%)and timelyweeding (12.3%).Other farmers in FLPgroups learned fertilizeruse (16.2%),timelyplanting(14.5%)andimprovedseed(11.8%).Table6:NewTechnologiesLearnedbyClients

Technologies/practices

Percentageresponse

EAs Farmers PTPFarmers TOPhosts WADhostsFertilizeruse 24.1 16.2 14.8 11.4 9.7Croprotation 0.0 4.0 5.9 4.6 4.5Timelyplanting 13.8 14.5 9.8 10.6 7.6Lineplanting/spacing 41.4 9.8 14.8 13.1 14.8Properseedratesrecommendations 3.4 5.4 11.4 10.6 12.3Improvedseed 0.0 11.8 10.5 9.2 11.4Timelyweeding 3.4 11.1 7.9 10.1 12.3Useofherbicides 3.4 5.1 4.8 7.0 6.5Integratedpestmanagementstrategies 3.4 1.0 1.5 2.8 1.4Useofchemicalsforpestsanddiseases 3.4 9.8 10.0 12.8 10.5

Source:CPEEnhancementEvaluation20123.3.3. SG2000–UgandaCropExtensionApproachandtheNationalPrioritiesOne of the main challenges in the Ugandan agricultural sector in Uganda is low productivity. DSIP2010/11 - 14/15 is designed to address such constraints by increasing agricultural production andproductivity (MAAIF, 2010). SG 2000 - Uganda extension approaches are expected to fit nationalextension priorities. Results show that 88%of EAs responded that SG 2000 –Uganda crop extensionapproaches are in linewith national priorities. They argued that one of key objectives of SG 2000 –Ugandaistoincreasecropproductivityforfoodandincomesecurityforsmallholderfarmers.3.3.4. DifferencesbetweenSG2000–UgandaandNationalExtensionApproachesAbout57%ofrespondentsstatedthattherewasnotdifferencebetweenSG2000-Ugandaandnationalextension technologies. Reasons for minimal differences include livestock technologies in NAES.Similarities include use of farmer groups as entry points, training sessions that both theory and fieldpractical based, andpriority to farmers in selectionof cropenterpriseof interest although SG2000 -Ugandaprovidesa‘menu’.

3.4. InnovativenessofSG2000ApproachesInnovationistheprocessbywhichorganizationsmasterandimplementdesignandproductionofnewgoodsandservices(Halletal.,2004).Inthiscase,goodsandservicesarenewSG2000–Ugandacropextension approaches, technologies andpractices. Besides use of CBFs to pronounce the presenceofSG2000onthegroundandspreadcoverage,otherinnovativemeansobservedfromthisevaluationarebrieflydescribedbelow.

17

3.4.1. PlanningwithPartnersSG2000–Ugandaorganizesplanningmeetingstoreviewandplanstrategicactivitiesatdifferentlevelsinaparticipatorymanner.Men,womenandyouthwerewellrepresented.However,targetingthepoorwithinthedifferentcategorieswasaconcernofsomeofthekeyinformants.SG2000–UgandaDistrictCoordinatorsplayanimportantroleintheplanningprocess.Resultantplansareavailedtothefarmers.However, SG 2000 – Uganda information sharingmechanisms with farmers is not clear. Twomodesappear toemerge:a)all inclusive - regardlessofparticipationandb)exclusive–FLP farmersonly. Intermsoffeedback,farmersreceiveinformationonimprovableweaknessestoperformbetterinfutureinplanningmeetings,trainingsessionsandasadviceduringfarmvisitstoindividualfarmers.

3.4.2. UseofExtensionAgentsandCommunityBasedFacilitatorsSG 2000 - Uganda commenced activities in Uganda at a time when MAAIF was finalizing therestructuringofpublicextensionintoadevolvedsystemwhoseimplementationprocesswasweakenedby funding lapses. SG 2000 - Uganda motivated and used extension personnel experienced inparticipatory farmerdevelopment; an innovative approach.UseofCBFs is a very effective innovationbecausethesearevolunteer farmerswhocomplementandreinforcethetrainingeffortsofSG2000–Uganda andother partners. This in awayhas reduced SG2000 -Ugandaoperational costs since theCBFsleaveinthesamecommunityasfarmersandhelpreachmorefarmers.CBFsalsomobilizefarmersforplannedeventsandcommunicationespeciallysustainabilityafterSG2000–Ugandaexit.

3.4.3. Self-supervisionandMonitoringThis is undertaken by farmers. CBFs also undertake follow-up visits to their respective groups tosuperviseandmonitorprogressofactivities.Keyinformantsreportedthatthiswasastrategicapproachto smooth implementation. Though SG 2000 – Uganda and Zonal CBFs follow-up on activities; keyinformants reported thatparticipatorymonitoringof impacts is rarelydone.Empowering farmersandgroupleaderstoself-monitorwouldsustainbetterpracticesandcreatehigherimpacts.

3.4.4. FieldDaysFarmer field days are held bi-annually (for the first and second seasons) to reflect on and asses theimplementationoftechnologiesandpractices.SG2000–UgandaDistrictCoordinatorstakeleadoffieldarrangements,while SG 2000 –UgandaCPE Theme assisted by other Themes facilitate and backstopfielddays.Aprequalificationexerciseisundertakenduringwhichashortlistoffarmerstoparticipateisgenerated,andfarmerstoparticipatearenotified inadvance.Farmersareencouragedtoconcentrateonfieldsandpracticesintheirneighborhoods.Onthesedays,bestpracticesorexperiencesweaknessinSG 2000 – Uganda extension approaches are identified and shared including visits to severaldemonstration plots, stalls and farms.However, some farmers do not attend field days and planningmeetings,therebymissingonimportantfeedback.Nevertheless,SG2000–Ugandastafftakenoteandmakeexplicitreferencetoareasofweaknessandsuggestremediesduringon-farmvisits.

3.4.5. FarmerExchangeVisitsExchangevisitshavenotbeenconductedaswidelyorasfrequentlyastheexpectedorasprescribedinCPE Theme concepts and procedures. Few exchange visitswere noted by SG 2000 – Uganda DistrictCoordinators in the Eastern region but not in Central. EAs stated that communities had notimplemented interventions long enough to warrant meaningful exchange visits. In a few instanceswhereexchangevisitshavebeenorganized,onlyCBFsandoneortwofarmersparticipatedinthevisitsduetobudgetaryconstraints.Thosewhoparticipatedreportedthatexchangevisitsenhancedfarmer-to-farmerlearningandaidedemulationofgoodperformingfarmers.

18

3.4.6. ManagementStyleSG2000–Ugandausesahybridstyle-individualandgroupmanagement.Inthisapproach,hostfarmersdo day to daymanagement of the demonstration plots under CBF oversight.WADs aremanaged byfarmers’groups,withmostlyfemalemembers.Harvestfromthedemonstrationplotiskeptbythehost.This incentivizes the host to manage the plot better for higher yields which contributes to betterlearning outcomes and use technologies by other farmers in the neighborhood. This is differs fromorganizations’approach,e.g,CARITASUganda,whereagroupof8-12farmersjointlyownandmanageademonstrationplot;sharelaborandreducemanagementcosts;makingitcost-effective.Inaddition,input costs are shared; risk is spread; and community participation is not only galvanized butparticipatorymonitoringofprogressalso takesplace.Farmerswhoabandontheir responsibilities loseoutmassively;especiallyonproduce.3.4 CostofFLPsandCoverageThecostofsettingupademonstrationplotorconductatrainingsessionasproxiesforefficiencyofCPEextensionapproacharedetailedinTable8below.PracticaltrainingisorganizedinaninterventionParish.Itisattendedbyatleast80farmers:groupandnon-groupmembers.Theobjectiveistoequipfarmerswith practical skills. An FLP consists of 1 TOP, 3WADs, trainings and follow-up and on average costsaboutUS$133.One(1)farmerwouldthereforecostaboutUS$1.7toaccesspracticalknowledgeandskillsrelatedtothepromotedtechnologiesinaseason.In comparison, support for food security farmers under theNAADSprogramme isUS$ 40 per farmerthat covers procurement of agricultural inputs. Target number of farmers under NAADS depends onavailableresourcesbasedonDistrictbudgets.Averagetargetswas6farmhouseholdsperParish(NAADS,2010).Based on data from SG 2000 – Uganda CPE Theme, the cost of setting up a demonstration orconduct a training session is very low per farmer in terms of farmers reached and practical skillstransferredtofarmers.Table7:AverageCostofDemonstrationPlotsandTrainingSessionsFLP AverageCost(US$)Trainingsession 53TOP 50WAD 30

Source:CPEEnhancementEvaluation20123.5. UseofSG2000–UgandaPromotedTechnologies

Uptakeofnewtechnologiesandpracticesisco-determinedbyinstitutional,economicandsocial-culturalfactors. Results show all farmers are using SG 2000 – Uganda promoted technologies to differentextents. Technologies in use include integrated pest management, proper seed rates and lineplanting/spacing.DetailsarepresentedinTable9below.

19

Table8:UseofTechnologies

Technologies Frequency PercentageFertilizeruse 52 25.8Croprotation 54 27.2Timelyplanting 75 37.5Lineplanting/spacing 107 53.5Properseedratesrecommendations 72 35.9Improvedseedsandnewvarieties 76 38.1Timelyweeding 71 35.5Herbicideuse 55 27.7IPMstrategies 95 47.6Chemicaluseforpestsanddiseases 79 39.4ImprovedcroppingandlandpreparationmethodstocontrolmajorweedslikeStriga

64 31.8


3.6. FarmertoFarmerExtension&MultiplierEffectsMultipliereffectsmanifestwhenTOPs,WADsandCVPhostfarmers;membersofTOPs,WADsorCVPsfarmer groups; PTP farmers (direct clients) teach other farmers (indirect clients), most likely in theneighborhoods. This happens via farmer to farmer extension or by indirect clients observingdemonstrations or other farmers’ plots. Multiplier effects are central to the FLP approach and areenshrinedintheCPEThemeC&Ps.This evaluation observed that the transfer of knowledge and skills from one farmer to anotherhappened to some extent. CPE Theme crop extension approach aims to work with a manageablenumber of 4 host farmers - 1 TOP and 3WADs in a given Parish. Each trained farmer is expected totransfertheacquiredknowledgeandskillsontechnologiestoatleast20farmergroupmembers.Resultsindicatethattheproportionoffarmersthathasreceivedknowledgeandskillsfromotherfarmersorthedemonstrationplotsdidnotreach50%ofthetarget.Further,traininganddemonstrationsdirectlyreachaveragenumberof6and14farmersfromWADsandTOPs,respectively(Table10). Inadditionresultsindicatedthatonaverage8farmerslearnedfromobservingWADsandTOPsdemonstrationplots.Table9:MultiplierEffectsFLP No.offarmers

Direct IndirectTOP 14 9WAD 6 8PTPFarmers 5 0


Theimplicationoftheseresultsisthattherateofdiffusiondidnotdependontheintensityofreachbythe CPE Theme but rather seems to have depended much on the willingness of transferor andtransferee of technologies and skills. However, this does not mean that the approach of farmer tofarmer technology transfer is not effective. The rate of transfer of other technologies seems to have

20

dependedmuchonthetypeoftechnologyandnotonthemechanisms.Themosttransferredwaslineplantingandfertilizersuse,followedbytimelyplantinganduseofchemicals.

3.6.1. ImpactonCropProductionResultsindicateanincreaseinproductivityofalmostalltheSG2000promotedcrops.SG2000-Ugandahas contributed to increasedproductivityof client farmers.Except for cassavaandSoyabeanswhoseproductionhavedecreasedbya10%and56%othercropshaveseenincreasedproduction.Beans,maize,rice andmillet are on a steady increase in production after the SG 2000–Uganda interventions andincreases in cultivated land as shown in Table 11. Allocation of more land to some crops probablyindicatesanappreciationforpromotedtechnologies.Table10:ImpactonCropProductionandProductivity

Crop

Area(Ha) Production(MT) Productivity(MT/Ha)

Before After Before After Before AfterBeans 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5Maize 0.4 0.9 0.3 1.2 0.7 1.3Sweetpotatoes

0.8 1.0 1.3 1.9 1.6 1.9Groundnuts

0.3 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6Soybeans 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3Rice 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.0 2.0 2.5Millet 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8Cassava 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 2.6 2.5


Evaluation results indicate that productivity has increased compared to the period before SG 2000 –Ugandainterventionsthoughitwasnotpossibletoquantifytheincreasesinthisevaluation.Thiswasreportedby96.2%oftheinterviewedfarmers.

3.7. FactorsthatInfluenceTechnologyUse3.7.1. InstitutionalFactors

Participatory Approaches used by SG 2000 – Uganda in identification and implementation of theseenterpriseshavecontributedtosuccessachievedbytheCPETheme.Thisgavefarmersfreedominthechoice of enterprises with potential to meet their needs. However, participatory approaches havedown-sides. SG2000 -Ugandapresentsamenuof4 -5priority cropenterprises fromwhich farmershave to chooseapreferredenterprise. Thus, thoughparticipatory selectionandplanningwasanovelidea and greatly applauded by the EAs, CBFs and SG 2000 – Uganda District Coordinators, processhappenedabittoofastandfarmersdidnothaveampletimetologicallythinkthroughenterprisesandbenefitsthereof.Doingselectiononthespot;makesitrushandcanhavedeleteriouseffects.SupportfromCBFsandExtensionStaff -afterinitialsensitizationandtraining,somefarmersreportedeffectiveguidanceand regularbackstoppingbyCBFsandEAscontributing tocontinued interest inSG2000–Ugandapromotedtechnologiesbyfarmers.DemonstrationPlots- inprinciple,SG2000–Ugandasupportsonlyafewhostfarmersandsmall-sizedWADs,TOPsandCVPplotsandPTP farmers.ThisaffectsadoptionbecausevisibilityespeciallybyPTPfarmers who want to commercialize but cannot clearly see benefits except through extrapolation.

21

Further,respondentsfeltthiswastoorestrictive;thisneedwidenedscopeandincreasedsizeofplotssothatarangeofproblemsthatmightarisecanbetackledadequately.Exitandentrystrategies- it isclearthattherearenoclearlydefinedstrategiestoguideentryandexitfroman interventionareas.Specifically, itwasobservedthatasmuchas farmersare informedofexitafter2years,thereisnoclearbasistoindicatesustainabilityonceSG2000–Ugandaexits.Consequently,farmersfeelabandonedandarenotmotivatedtocontinueusingtechnologies.Butthisalsobringsaboutthequestionoftime.DoesSG2000-Ugandaexitwhenfarmershavelearntenoughandareabletotakeupthetechnologies?

3.7.2. EconomicFactorsTimelydeliveryof Inputs -virtually inallDistrictsvisited, inputs fordemonstrationweredeliveredontimebySG2000-Uganda.Theseinputsincludedimprovedseeds,fertilizers,herbicidesandpesticides,etc. Thiswasamajor catalyst foruptakegiven the fact thathost farmershadaccessed the inputsontimeatthestartoftheseason;andisagoodpracticebecausetimelyplantingwasachievedandfarmerspickedthislesson.FlowofinputsfromSG2000–Ugandatofarmersfacedsomechallenges.InWakisoDistrict,somehostfarmersespeciallyforWADs,neitherreceivedsameamountsofinputsnoratthesametime.Thisdelaycaused FLP group farmers and others to fail to plant and follow the cropping calendar in a timelymanner.Evaluators feel thatmuchasSG2000–Ugandadelivers inputson time,host farmers shoulddirectlyaccessinputsfromSG2000-Uganda.ExpensiveandCostlyTechnologies-adoptionisaninvestmentdecision.Thisdecisionrepresentsashiftin farmers’ investment options; adoption depends on cost of technologies and farmers’ purchasingpower(Caswelletal,2001).Cheaperandaffordabletechnologiesare likelytobeadoptedmoreeasilyandquicklyunlikethosethatrequire largeexpenditureoutlays.Farmers inevaluationDistrictsdidnotusesometechnologiesespeciallyfertilizersbecauseofhighcostsandun-affordability.

3.7.3. SocialCulturalfactorsAttitudeandPerception - thisevaluation foundthat theattitudeandperceptionsof farmers towardscertain technologies is a key use factor; it is both a pull and push factor. Such forces are related toearlier experiences with the technologies and approaches used to introduce technologies andimpressionsonperformance(AdesiinaandBaidu-Forson,1995andBaidu-Forson,1999).Education - creates a favorable mental attitude for the acceptance of new practices especially ofinformation- andmanagement-intensivepractices (Caswellet al., 2001). Technology complexity has anegative effect on adoption; however, education reduces perceived complexity in a technology;increasinga likelihoodofadoption(Rogers,1983).Thisevaluationfoundthateducation issignificantlyrelatedtounderstandingoftheSG2000activities;moreeducatedfarmersarebetterplacedtoimproveproductivity.Thisisanopportunityforfarmer-to-farmerextension.Commitment and Transparency – this varied across host farmers, CBFs and EAs during theimplementationperiod. The key issueswere senseof belonging andownershipof thedemonstrationplotsthat iscreatedthroughinvolvementinplanning,early implementation,andrapportbetweentheSG2000–Ugandastaffandfarmers,CBFs,EAsandLocalCouncils.Significantly,farmersattributedthison capacitiesofCBFs andEAs - transparencyandaccountability in thedistributionanduseof inputs.Commitmentistwo-way.DuringclosingstagesofSG2000–Ugandaactivities,uncertaintycreepsinaboutthesustainability,thiswasinallDistricts.Thisledtowaveringincommitmenttoactivitiesbyfarmers.Keyinformantsindicatedthatfarmerswerenotadequatelypreparedtolinkupwithotherpotentialagenciesthatcouldsupport

22

themtosustaintheactivities.Allsaidanddone,SG2000–Ugandaneedsclearentryandexitstrategyandpropercommunicationofdisengagement.Externalities-therearefactorsthatinfluencetheleveloftechnologyuptakeandadoptionsuchweatheranditseffectondemonstrationplots,seedqualityandyieldsfromdemonstrationplots.

3.8. SustainabilityofSG2000–UgandaCropExtensionApproachesMajority (61%) of key informants - District Coordinators, Extension Agents and Community BasedFacilitators felt that thegovernmenthas themeansandwill to carryonwithSG2000cropextensionapproaches.However,perceptionsvariedwithlevelanddegreeofoperationintheSG2000–Ugandaextension chain. CBFs operate in Parishes, EAs at Sub-counties and SG 2000 – Uganda DistrictCoordinatorsattheDistricts.An interesting scenario emerges here. This evaluation suggests that CBFs should be linked andintegrated into government extension systems rather than be siloed in Parishes or Sub-counties.RecognitionofCBFs ispriorityandparamount forsustainabilitybecausefarmer-extension interactionshingeonCBFs.ContinuitySG2000–UgandaCropExtensionApproachesbytheGovernmentsustainabilitymechanismsin all the Districts have not been well thought out and are not very clear. Involvement of otherdevelopment players is not on board. However, somemeasures are in the pipeline in someDistrictsespeciallytosolveproblemsintheinterim;andifsuccessfulcouldensuresomedegreeofsustainability.Linking farmers to stockists and agrodealers for access to necessary agricultural inputs is one of themeasures.InarecentCPEThemeReviewWorkshop(2012)withalltherelevantstakeholdersandidentifiedseveralareasforimprovementwereidentified.Theseinclude:• ContinuedmotivationofEAsandCBFsthroughfinancialbonusesandother incentives likebicycles

toeasetransport;• SG2000–UgandaDistrictCoordinationformtheconvergenceofactivitiesofallSG2000–Uganda

Themes and is good for sustainability. However, SG 2000 – Uganda District Coordinators mostlyworkonCPEThemeactivities.SG2000–UgandawouldbepivotalincoordinatingactivityifSG2000–Ugandaexitedbutwouldneedclarityandspecificityofrolesandresponsibilities.Astartingpointis expandingmandate of SG 2000 –UgandaDistrict Coordinators to significantly engage in otherThemes’ activities beyond those of the CPE Theme. In SG 2000 – Uganda exited districts, somefarmers continued SG 2000 – Uganda with interventions more out of own initiative rather thangovernmentsupport..Discussionswithkeyinformantsrevealedthatsincefarmershavepracticedpromotedtechnologies,theyareabletoaccessinputsoncreditfromtheOSCAssuchasinZirobweDistrictandcouldbealessonforgovernmenttake-over;

• NAADS initially aimed at reachingmany farmers over a short period. However, bureaucracy andlong procedures have not allowed effective and efficient delivery of services to farmers.Governmenthasno structures tomonitor andevaluate interventionsat thegrass roots; thismayimpede farmers’ performance. Unless, the government intensifies farmer visits, supervision andmonitoringvisits,alleffortsbySG2000–Ugandawillwitheronexit;and

• Government aims to intensify training of farmers, and NAADS acknowledges relevance of CBFs.However, CBFs have not yet been empowered or facilitatedwith new innovations,materials andresources. Extension staffs needmore training on SG 2000 – Uganda crop extension approachesbeyond technical aspects and especially onmixed enterprises – crops and livestock and on valuechains.

23

3.9. AgriculturalExtensionSupportOrganizationsIn the areas where SG 2000 – Uganda has operated or operates, there are other organizations thatsupport agricultural extension. This was confirmed by 94% of key informants. Details on theorganizationsandwhattheydoareshowninTable12. Mostoftheseorganizations’approacheshavesome similarities with those of SG 2000 – Uganda.Which approaches are better, is hard to say. Allapproaches stem from previous pilots/experiences, farmer needs/problems and in some cases donorconditionalitiesTable11:Otherorganizations’CropExtensionApproaches

Organization ExtensionApproachFarmConcernInternational ExistingCBFsarerecruitedtoreachouttothefarmers

VoluntaryActionforDevelopment Usescommunityresourcepersonswhocoordinateandtrainfarmersonawiderangeofthemes

AgricultureforIntegratedRuralDevelopment(AFIRD)

• Usescommunityresourcepersonswhocoordinateandtrainfarmersonawiderangeofthemes.

• However,oftenstafftrainfarmersdirectly• Promoteandtrainfarmersonorganicfarming

CommunityDevelopmentProject(CDP) Engagesresourcepersonstotrainfarmerswhoareorganizedingroups

Kulika • Selectsonlyinterestedfarmers• Trainsfarmershaveattainedacertainlevelofeducation.

Theselatergetbacktothecommunitiestotrainotherfarmers

PlanInternational • Targetbeneficiariesarechildren.• Hireextensionagentstotrainfarmersmainlyonlivestock

management.• Mixedfarmingisencouraged,though• Forcontinuity,leadfarmersaretrainedtotrainother

farmersVEDCO Communitybasedpersons


4. LessonsandGoodPracticesAnumberof lessonsandgoodpracticeshavecomeoutofSG2000–Ugandainterventions.Theseinclude:• Farmer selection- SG2000-U’s approach of participatory selection of host farmers and

technologiesencouragesownershipwhicheasesimplementationofthedifferentinterventions;• Training of CBFs to train the farmers – given the fact that the national extension system is

constrained with an extension agent: farmer ratio of about 1:2500; use of the CBFs to trainfarmersisaplusforSG2000-Uganda.CBFsapproachhasensuredmorecoverageandreachoffarmersaswellasreductionsonoperationalcosts;

• Establishment of WADS - WADs specifically target women farmers; this encourages moreparticipation fromwomen. Since Tops also target both women andmen; FLPs are reachingmorewomenthanmen.However,theyouthremainoutofSG2000-Ugandaradar;

• Timingof trainings–trainingsconductedimmediatelyaftertimelydeliveryanddistributionofinputsimprovestechnologyuptake;

24

• Criteriaforareaselection-selectionofnewinterventionareasinadistrictislefttotheDistrictauthoritiesandthis is likelytohavebiases.This isfurtherexacerbatedbyexclusionofNAESinchoiceofnewSG2000–UgandaDistricts.

• Inputdistributionchannels–isadown-side.InputsarecentrallyprocuredbySG2000–UgandaandsnakeslowlythroughSG2000–UgandaDistrictCoordinatorstohostfarmersthroughCBFs.Consequently,insomecasestherearedelays,inadequatequantities,compromisedqualityandtargetfarmersareleftout;

• Lack of exit and entry strategies with clear criteria contributes highly to uncertainty andimpedimentofadoptionandsustainability;

• Limitedresourcesandbudgetaryconstraintsleadtoreducedcoverage,reach,participationandtechnologiesup-take;includingsmall-sizeofdemonstrationplots;

• Use of District extension personnel: SG 2000 – Uganda District Coordinators and EAs forsupervisionisagoodideabuttherearechallenges.CompetinginterestswithorganizationssuchasNAADSimpliesreducedtimeallocatedtoSG2000–Ugandaactivities.Thisisessential.ThereisanassumptionofcommitmentofbySG2000–UgandaDistrictswhichisnotalwaysagiven;and

• HighCostofinputsespeciallyfertilizerslimituseofSG2000–Ugandapromotedtechnologies.5. Conclusion

ThisevaluationaimedatassessingSG2000–Ugandacropextensionapproaches,highlightingwhatworks,whatdoesnotandwhatcanbe improved toachieveCPEThemeobjectivesandenhance approaches. The evaluation period was 2009-12 using both purposive and randomsamplingtechniquestocollectdatafromSG2000-Ugandafarmers,extensionagentsandCBFsas well as key informants from 5 Districts of Luwero, Wakiso, Mukono, Jinja and Tororo.Highlightsofresultsinclude:• SG2000-Ugandaisworkingin linewithnationalprioritiesbyaligningits interventionsto

theAgriculturalDSIP.SG2000–UgandaFLPextensionapproachesshareseveral featureswith national (NAADS) extension as both use farmer groups as entry points, trainingsessionsaresessionsareboththeoryandpracticalbased.

• Farmers select priority crop enterprises from an SG 2000 – Uganda menu. FollowingAdemola (2001), both organizations employ a problem solving approach that entailsfarmers expressing needs and preferences and being involved in planning andimplementation;

• FLPs-trainingsanddemonstrationsarerelevantandtosomelevel,effectiveapproaches indisseminatingagriculturalextensiontofarmers.Thiswasevidencedbyreportedlearningofnewtechnologiesorpracticesbyfarmers,CBFsandEAs;

• There isevidenceofuseanduptakeofthepromotedtechnologiesthoughvariableacrosstechnologies and practices. Most popular ones adopted include integrated pestmanagement,properseedratesandlineplanting/spacing;

25

• FactorswhichinfluenceadoptionofpromotedtechnologyincludedeffectivesupportfromEAs,timelydeliveryof inputs,accessandcostof inputs, farmers’attitudeandperception,educationlevelaswellascommitmentandtransparencyofthehostfarmers,CBFsandEAs;

• Sustainability of SG 2000 – Uganda crop extension approaches is still a concern. Resultsshow that sustainability is uncertain and rests more on hope. NAADS has taken up theapproachinsomeareaswhereSG2000-Ugandahasexited;and

• TheGovernmentandSG2000–Ugandahaveputsomeinitiativessuchas1)creatingfarmerlinkagestoagriculturalinputsuppliers,2)continuedmotivationofEAs,bothfinancialandinkind incentives such as bicycles to ease and increase reach, and 3) government hasproposedintensificationoftrainingoffarmersunderthenewATAASProject.

6. Recommendations

Thisevaluationmadethefollowingrecommendations:• Participatoryplanningapproachesshouldbegivenenoughtimeandresourcestoensureall

target farmersandgroupmembersparticipate inall the stages.Measures shouldalsobetakentoensurethatmendonotdominatetheprocessandthattheoutcomereflectstheneedsofthewomenandthepoor;

• Management approaches that foster sustained commitment should be employed. Thisentails emphasis away from individually hosted and managed TOPs andWADs to groupmanagementandultimatelytocommunitymanageddemonstrationplotsundercommunitysetguidelines.Thisisparticularlyimportantforrapidmultiplicationofseedforusebymorefarmersandforwidercoverage;

• ItisveryclearthatSG2000–Ugandalacksclearentryandexitstrategieswhichareneededtotakecareofdeleteriousimpacts,increaseuseandadoptionoftechnologiesandpracticesand increase chances of sustainability. As such, these should be clearly documented andshared.

• Adult education should beorganized for non-literate farmers and adult learning skills forCBFsandEAstoenhancetheircapacitytotransferinformationandknowledgetofarmers;andincreaseuseanduptakeoftechnologiesandpractices;

26

7. ReferencesAFAAS(2012).TheAfricaForumforAgriculturalAdvisoryServices:StrategicPlan(2012-16)Axinn,G.H.(1988).Theguideonalternativeextensionapproaches:Preparedundertheguidanceofandsponsorshipof theAgriculturalEducationandExtensionServices (ESHE)HumanResources InstitutionsandAgrarianReformsDivision.Rome:FAO.CAADP (2010). News: Uganda signs CAADP Compact http://www.caadp.net/news/?p=639 asdownloadedon3rdOctober2012Caswell, M., K. Fuglie., C. Ingram., S. Jans and C. Kascak (2001). Adoption of Agricultural productionpractices:LessonslearnedfromtheUS.DepartmentofAgricultureareastudiesproject.WashingtonDC.US Department of Agriculture. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research service, AgricultureEconomicReportNo.792.January2001.DirectorateofExtensionServices(nd):AgriculturalExtensionApproachesbeingimplementedinGhanaFARA(2006).FrameworkforAfricaAgriculturalProductivityGGRAS (2012). Global Forum Rural Advisory Services Annual Report 2011 http://www.g-fras.org/en/knowledge/gfras-publications/file/72-gfras-annual-report-2011 as downloaded on 3rdOctober2012Hall.Andy,Mytelka.L,Oyeyeinka.B.2004.TheAgricultural InnovationsSystemdiagnosticassessmentmethodologypaper:UnitedNationsUniversity,InstituteforNewTechnologies(UNU-INTECH).IFAD. 2012. Enabling Poor Rural People to overcome Poverty. International Fund for AgriculturalDevelopment,Rome,ItalyIsaac M. B. Shinyekwa (2011) The Implementation of the Comprehensive Agricultural DevelopmentProgram in East Africa, the Case of Small Scale Farmer’ Participation in Uganda: A Desk Study forEasternandSouthernAfricaSmallScaleFarmersForum(ESAFF).Luzobe B. N. (2011). The Genesis and Evolution of the One Stop Centre Concept and Approach inUganda(2001-2010):SasakawaGlobal2000MAAIF(2010a).AgricultureSectorDevelopmentStrategyandInvestmentPlan2010/11-2014-15MAAIF(2010b).AgriculturalTechnologyandAgribusinessAdvisoryServicesProject(ATAAS)MAAIF(2010c).NAADSImplementationGuidelines:FarmerSelectionAndSupportforProgressionFromSubsistence To Commercialization. http://www.drt-ug.org/book_files/NAADS PHASEII ImplementationGuidelines.pdfasat3rdOctober2012MAAIF(Draft).ThedraftAgriculturalpolicyMAAIFandMFPED(1997).PlanForModernisationofAgriculture(PMA).DocumentfortheGovernmentofUgandaNAADS(2001).PRE-APPRAISAL-WorkingPapersNAADS website: http://www.naads.or.ug/about-naads/naads-phase-ii/vision-mission-and-strategic-elements/asat8thOctober2012NARO-NAADS(2010).TheNARO-NAADSPartnershipFrameworkSAA(2011).T1–Cropenhancement,ConceptsandProceduresSAA(2008)TheSAAExtensionProjectUgandaActionPlanSAA(2011):StrategicPlan2012-2016SAA(2012).SasakawaAfricaAssociation:StrategicPlan

27

SasakawaAfricaAssociation.(2006).OneStopCentreAssociation:ImplementationManual.Sasakawaglobal2000(2008b).ProfilingofOneStopCentreAssociations(OSCAs)inUgandainTermsofFunctionalAttributesandEconomicViability.SasakawaGlobal2000(2009).SasakawaGlobal2000–SAAExtensionPrograminUganda:2009AnnualReport.Sasakawa Global 2000. (2005a). Mid-Term Evaluation of a One-Stop Centre Model as a Tool forEmpoweringFarmersforFoodandIncomeSecurity.Semana, A. R. 2008. “Agricultural Extension Services at Crossroads: Present Dilemma and PossibleSolutions for Future in Uganda.” Mimeo, Department of Agricultural Extension/Education, MakerereUniversity,Kampala,Uganda.Swanson, B.E. (2008) Global Review of Good Agricultural Extension and Advisory Services Practices.Rome:FAO.UBOS(2012):2012StatisticalabstractUFAAS(2011).TheAfricaForumforAgriculturalAdvisoryServices:StrategicPlan(2011-16)Uganda(2010).TheNationalDevelopmentPlanWaller, B.E., C.W. Hoy., J. L Henderson., B. Stinner and C.Welty (1998). “Matching Innovations withPotential Users: A Case Study of Potato IPM practices.” Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment.70(1998):203-215.

evaluation on crop productivity enhancement extension ... on crop productivit… · 54 sg 2000 crop...

Documents