Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing prod

An Environmental Alert Publication, 2007. P.O. Box 11259 Kampala, Uganda, Tel: 0412510215; Website: http://www.envalert.org

1

Community Testimony The experiences and lessons shared herein were presented at the round table meeting on the theme ‘Integrating Local with Scientific Knowledge’ by representatives of farmers from village level community based organizations in an International Forum ‘the World Social Forum’ in Nairobi, Moi International Sports Centre, Kasarani 20th-25th January, 2007. The theme for the event was, ‘Another World is Possible.’ The round table was a side event organized by Environmental Alert. It provided opportunity for farmers to speak out and share their experiences widely for up-scaling. Community representatives brilliantly shared their inspirational experiences in the forum on how they had interfaced their local knowledge with scientific knowledge in their farming systems and the resultant blend of knowledge working better for them given their low income levels. Participating in the world event was not just any other event. According to them, critical aspects that resulted into the achievements during and after the event were: information sharing and exchange with participants from all over the World, the mentoring and exposure to the International event and several side events within the forum. Providing such spaces to communities to share and speak out their views is an approach commonly used by Environmental Alert in building strong constituents with capacity to demand for rights and hold duty bearers responsible to peoples’ needs and rights.

Integrating local and scientific knowledge: an opportunity for addressing production constraints for improved community livelihoods in Uganda

Background Agriculture in Uganda employs over 80% of the population and contributes about 45% of the gross domestic product (MFPED, 2002). Agricultural production in Uganda is based on smallholder farming with about three million households cultivating less than two hectares each (UBOS, 2002). Over half (56%) of the total agricultural gross domestic production is subsistence and for household consumption (MFPED, 2002). Smallholder farmers in Uganda are faced with various challenges in agricultural production such as poor soils, pests and disease infestation, prolonged droughts, unreliable marketing systems and structures, and lack of adequate access to appropriate agricultural finance. This results in low farm productivity and has implications to food security, nutrition, household incomes thus capacity for households to meet their basic needs and requirements for sustainable livelihoods is increasingly harder. Amidst these challenges, both scientists and farmers are looking for solutions to address these constraints. Most of the time both parties are working independently and there is limited opportunity for farmers to influence the scientists research agenda to solve the real problems affecting them but also their involvement in the development and evaluation of appropriate technologies to overcome the constraints. This is largely due to the stereo type and myths between scientists and farmers. Some of these include: (i) Farmers’ thinking that the scientists know it all and hence have all the answers; (ii) Scientist’s thinking that the farmers do not know anything, they are helpless and have failed to find solutions to solve their problems or challenges and hence are the only ones who can provide the solutions; (iii) Scientist’s thinking that the


2

farmers’ have probably tried out some innovations/solutions to solve their problems but these require validation and statistical evidence to prove that they work. Consequently, farmer knowledge (innovations/solutions) to problems affecting them exists among communities but they rarely come out to present them. Therefore, it’s upon the scientists to observe them while in the field or through probing them to find out how farmers are coping. Likewise, the scientists have developed various technologies at their stations to address agricultural constraints. But many times these remain on the shelf. This therefore leaves much desire for exploring opportunities for integration of local and scientific knowledge in solving challenges/constraints in agricultural production. Fortunately, in Uganda recently, there has been a paradigm shift towards research for development and involvement of all stakeholders including farmers in research. This will be achieved through implementation of the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) which was established through an act of Parliament. The implementation of NARS in Uganda should therefore be monitored and evaluated closely to ensure that the anticipated intentions are achieved. This publication therefore, shares lessons and experiences of Environmental Alert and farmers towards integration of local and scientific knowledge in solving agricultural production and natural resource management constraints. It also describes processes, steps, principles and recommendations to increase opportunities for integration of local and scientific knowledge in development initiatives in Uganda. The process for integrating local and scientific knowledge The process for integration of local and scientific knowledge involves a number of steps which are implemented in a sequence as follows: Step 1: Participatory identification of the constraints and opportunities (PDCO). Farmers’ involvement in any development initiative from the start triggers ownership. Step 2: Participatory development of solutions (technologies, technique or practice) both by the farmer and scientist. Step 3: Enhancing knowledge and skills of farmers and scientists and other stakeholders. This gives opportunity for exchanging and sharing ideas. These trainings can take the form of farmer to farmer through field days, exhibitions and exchange visits. Secondly, farmers should be linked to research and development organizations to provide opportunities for enhancing knowledge and skills but also support towards sustainability of the development initiatives. Step 4: Evaluation of solutions considering what is practical in prevailing situations (social, economic, cultural, and environmental) from which the most practical options are selected and tried out.


3

Step 5: Practically trying out the selected options on farm through season long observations to compare the performance of farmers’ practices with new practices/technologies. Step 6: Participatory evaluation of tested options after the seasons based on observations made which could be qualitative or quantitative considering environmental and social economic factors. This gives an appropriate technique, practice, technology to the problem which is a blend of both local and scientific knowledge. Step 7: Taking grass roots’ experiences into policy and decision making processes. After a long time of working with communities using empowering approaches, communities are confident and ready to interface with government policy making processes.

This process is guided by principles derived through the piloting of Farmer Field Schools (FFS)1 and Participatory Innovations Development (PID) approaches in solving soil fertility depletion and validation of innovations in sustainable agriculture and natural resources management under the INMASP2 and PROLINNOVA3 projects, respectively. The principles for effective integration of local and scientific knowledge include:

• Scientist/Extension worker as a facilitator • There must be a change in attitudes of both the farmers and the

scientist/extension worker • Farmers also considered as experts with knowledge to solving the problem • Equal opportunity for all (including farmers and scientists) in sharing

information, knowledge and possible solutions to the constraints/problems • Effective participation of different stakeholders including Local leaders,

Farmers, Extension workers and Policy makers at different levels 1 FFS is a ‘school’ without walls located at the farmers’ field under a tree shed. It comprises of 25-30 farmers who come together to solve a common problem (FAO, 2000). 2 Integrated Nutrient Management to attain Sustainable Productivity increases in East African Farming Systems. This was an action research project implemented by Environmental Alert in Lukwanga parish, Wakiso district, Central Uganda. It focused on integrated soil and nutrient management for improved food security among smallholder farmers. It involved various stakeholders at different levels including local farmers, local leaders, policy makers, NGO’s and International stakeholders such as Wageningen University, National Agricultural Research Foundation-Greece, ETC-East Africa, Kenya Agriculture Research Institute, Makerere University, Debub University and SOS-Sahel. http://www.inmasp.nl 3 Promoting Local Innovation in ecologically oriented agriculture and natural resources management. It is a global NGO led partnership Programme whose main activities include: identification, documentation and validation of local innovations; information exchange and networking; institutionalization of participatory approaches. Environmental Alert is the Secretariat for PROLINNOVA Uganda. http://www.prolinnova.net/


4

• Action oriented. The interventions should deliver short term benefits to the farmers to maintain their moral and motivation for effective participation in the processes as the long term solutions are being developed.

Additionally, both the scientists and the farmers have specific interests hence the scientist knows it all, it has been tested, reinforces own knowledge to prove scientific evidence right whereas the farmer-has a particular problem/constraint that requires an immediate and practical solution, and is ready to experiment because they have to get a solution. Therefore these interests should be balanced for successful integration of local and scientific knowledge. Conclusions The experiences of Environmental Alert and the corresponding community testimonies and scientific evaluations demonstrate that the integration of local with scientific knowledge works and can have a positive change on community livelihoods and there is potential to contribute more significantly to Uganda’s agricultural growth and development. The key success factors in this integration include openness, respect and equal opportunity for all stakeholders including farmers, extension workers, researchers and leaders given that they are all knowledgeable and have a contribution to make to development. In addition, interests of both the scientists and farmers should be balanced but also active participation and involvement of all stakeholders in planning, decision-making and implementation, monitoring and evaluation of plans are equally important. In such a setting, extension worker/ researchers are facilitators whereas the farmers are experts.

Recommendations Development projects and programs should be built on existing local knowledge and or levels of social organization and explore opportunities for integration with new scientific knowledge or thinking for successful implementation and sustainability in communities. Change in attitudes of farmers and scientists and or extension workers through continuous trainings and sensitization. Policy dialogues and lobbying with targeted stakeholders including researchers, academia and policy makers for continuous support for integrating local and scientific knowledge. Curricula for agriculture and natural resources management for institutions of learning at different levels should be reviewed to produce desired profiles of scientists and extension workers with appropriate training and skills for promotion of integration of local and scientific knowledge in development work. Empowerment of farmers and their institutions is critical for continuous engagements


5

and scaling up and out of lessons and experiences learnt through the integration of local and scientific knowledge.

Integrating local with scientific knowledge; a case of smallholder farmers in Wakiso and Kabale districts, Uganda

Abstract This paper highlights Environmental Alert’s experiences and lessons learnt in relation to integration of local with scientific knowledge for solving challenges/constraints in agriculture and natural resource management for poverty reduction and improved livelihood among the smallholder farming communities in Central Uganda. It demonstrates how these experiences can be linked to policy making platforms to influence policies and practices at different levels but also empowering smallholder farmers to manage their resources more sustainably for improved livelihood. It also discuses and presents recommendations for strengthening integration of local and scientific knowledge in sustainable agriculture and natural resources management at different levels. Introduction Poor farmers have continued to struggle amidst policy interventions especially within the agriculture and natural resource sectors and this has been enabled through use of knowledge generated by themselves over time referred to in this paper as local knowledge as copying mechanism to extension and research inadequacies. Land degradation for instance has continued to threaten survival and existence of humankind in Africa. It undermines the livelihoods of the poor who depend on agriculture for a living. It is estimated that the cost of natural resource degradation is as high as 17% of the gross national income per year of which 6% is forest degradation and 11% is soil degradation (PEAP, 2004). Land degradation is a major constraint to food security and economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa Uganda inclusive. There is significant increase in soil erosion, loss of soil fertility, salinization, soil compaction and desertification, all of which are affecting different life forms. Land degradation in Uganda is due to poor land use and management namely: Continuous cultivation and crop harvest (nutrient mining) without fertility replenishment and conservation; Lack of terraces, and or mulching in plantations resulting in soil erosion; Monocropping; Excessive tillage; Un controlled burning of bushes and crop residues; Inappropriate use of agro chemicals; Brick laying on agricultural soils; Cultivation of marginal and fragile ecosystems; Poor waste disposal especially the non-biodegradable (e.g. polyethene) among others (Akello, 2000; Olson et al., 2003; Land, Land use and Soils Issues Paper, 2006).


6

Various studies have established declining soil productivity and relatively low nutrient stocks and negative nutrient balances4 for major soil nutrients including Nitrogen (N)5, Phosphorus (P)6, Potassium (K)7 (Stoorvogel et al., 1993; Wortman et al., 1998) critical for crop growth. Nutrient balances for Sub-Saharan African are 10 kg N per hectare per year, 4 kg P2o5 hectare per year and 10 kg K2o5 kg per hectare per year (Stoorvogel et al., 1993). For Uganda, the extent of national nutrient depletion is described as high for major nutrients critical for crop productivity. The loss is estimated to range between 20-40 kg per hectare per year for N, 3.5-7 kg per hectare per year for P and 17-33 kg per hectare per year for K (Stoorvogel and Smailing, 1990). It is therefore important to maintain positive nutrient balances if productivity is to improve. In Uganda, the nutrient balances are negative with respect to major nutrients (N, P and K) thereby implying low land productivity resulting into food insecurity, poor nutrition and health, poverty, failure to meet basic needs and generally poor livelihoods among smallholder farming communities (Land, Land use and Soils Issues Paper, 2006). Hence, 38% of the population in Uganda is below the poverty line, of these 41% are in rural areas were as 12% are in urban areas (PEAP, 2004). Subsequently 19% of Uganda’s population is food insecure and undernourished (FAO, 2006). This situation is aggravated by limited options for smallholder farmers due to ignorance about locally available opportunities. Secondly, even were external options such as improved crop varieties, livestock breeds and mineral fertilizers among others are introduced through the extension systems over a long period of time; they have not reached the majority of desired users and where they have reached, the desired needs are not addressed. In addition they rarely fit within the social-economic capacities of smallholder farmers. Therefore, ownership and adoption is still low (Opondo et al., 2005; Lutalo et al., 2006). For instance, reports have highlighted that there is limited use of mineral fertilizers by smallholder farmers for soil fertility replenishment for reasons that they are not readily available; limited knowledge for their appropriate use; myths that they destroy the environment; and have to be applied season after season and are costly and not affordable by farmers (Zake, 1999; Zake et al., 2002).

4 Nutrient balances are derived from a summation of nutrient flows (fertilizers, grazing, atmospheric deposition and biological nitrogen fixation) and out flows (crop harvests, leaching, soil erosion, gaseous loss and human excreta). They are used to estimate the extent of soil depletion. Negative nutrient balances depict soil nutrient depletion thus implying low soil fertility and subsequently low productivity. On the other hand positive nutrient balances depict a nutritious soil thus implying fertile soil and subsequently high productivity. 5 N encourages vegetative growth, its part of chlorophyll molecule, crucial for photosynthesis. It’s also an essential part of all proteins, some of which perform regulating functions in the plant and influence utilization of other nutrients (FAO, 1994). 6 P enhances root development, strengthens stems and promotes flowering, fruiting, seed formation, early crop maturity and high crop quality (FAO, 1994). 7 K catalyses many enzymatic processes in the plant necessary for growth. It strengthens leaf area, leaf chlorophyll and delays leaf aging. Additionally it regulates water utilization in plants (McAfee, 2006).


7

Environmental Alert is a National Non Governmental organization which envisions ‘communities that are free from poverty and hunger and sustainably managing their natural resource base for improved livelihood.

Opportunities for integration of local and scientific knowledge have proven to overcome various constraints. In the context of this paper, ‘local knowledge refers to knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society; it is a basis for local level decision making in agriculture, food preparation, natural resource management, health care, education and a host for other activities in communities ( Warren, 1991).’ ‘It is ‘all bodies of knowledge developed by the indigenous people.’ Whereas scientific knowledge is, ‘facts, concepts, principals, laws, theories and models acquired through scientific inquiry and investigation (Lites, 2006).’ The integration of local and scientific knowledge refers, ‘to using in combination local knowledge, ideas and or techniques with scientific knowledge to overcome farmers’ constraints/limitations to agricultural production.’ For instance, there is evidence that integration of locally available organic fertilizers with mineral fertilizers depicts a better performance with respect to crop yield compared to single application of organic or mineral fertilizers (Onduru et al., 2002; Oad et al., 2004 and Zake et al., 2005). This requires entrenchment of systems and practices that recognize the potential of local people. It is this situation that prompted Environmental Alert and other like-minded partners to model various interventions to address the land degradation in Uganda After several years of modeling, testing policy and supporting local innovations, there has been a breakthrough in revolutionalising livelihood interventions in poor farming communities capable of being replicated elsewhere. The intention is thus to share these experiences widely through this publication. This paper therefore, highlights Environmental Alert’s experiences and lessons in relation to integration of local knowledge with scientific knowledge for solving challenges in agriculture and natural resource management among the smallholder farming communities in Central Uganda. It also demonstrates how these experiences can be effectively used for policy advocacy and influence at different levels of government but also empowering smallholder farmers to manage their resources more sustainably for improved livelihood. It is targeting research institutions, academic institutions, policy makers and development partners supporting community development initiatives in the agricultural sector. Key steps for integration of local and scientific knowledge Participatory identification of constraints and opportunities Farmer’s involvement in the development initiatives right from the start triggers sense of ownership. Essentially their involvement in the identification of constraints and opportunities in respect to agricultural production. The purpose of this stage was to generate baseline information on the issues at hand e.g. soil fertility status, agricultural practices and opportunities to inform subsequent interventions to change the situation. Participatory tools such as transect walks, seasonal calendars, pair wise ranking and problem trees among other tools were used to come up with the list of priority constraints. Among these, soil fertility depletion took the first priority (Zake et al., 2002 and 2004).


8

Participatory development and evaluation of potential technologies Farmers were facilitated in development of appropriate solutions (technologies) to overcome the priority constraint i.e. soil fertility depletion. This was addressed through the farmer field school (FFS) framework. During the FFS sessions, discussions were done during which both farmers and researchers/extension workers proposed a list of possible solutions to overcome the problem of soil fertility depletion. Proposals were screened for applicability with considerations for time taken for the technology to show results, the cost and availability of resources for the suggested technologies for testing. Farmers’ ideas, knowledge and technologies were integrated with the researchers’/extension workers’ (facilitators’) ideas, knowledge and technologies to develop appropriate experimental options. The agreed upon technologies were tested at the central learning plot (experimental site) in simple designs in small plots of 5x5 m for comparison of ‘new technologies’ with farmers’ common practices (control) using a test crop of the farmers’ choice. These are then replicated at farm level by different farmers in the FFS. Season long observations and monitoring were undertaken by farmers and facilitators to track performance of the test crops in respect to the tested technologies. This involved collection of data for agreed upon indicators like color of leaves, number of leaves, crop yields but also data on costs involved for each technology. At the end of the season, an analysis was done including cost benefit analyses with respect to each technology. The technologies were evaluated in focused group discussions to enable farmers to select the best technologies for up scaling on farm. Farmers presented their reports on performance of technologies based on subjective (color of leaves and number of leaves) and quantitative (crop yields) indicators were as facilitators presented reports on cost benefit analyses for each technology. These reports stimulated further discussions on the results and set the ground for evaluation of technologies through scoring. Scores were given out of ten for each technology by each participant based on analyses from both reports and field observations using a scoring sheet. The scoring sheet was developed based on agreed upon indicators including yields, gross margin, residual fertility and resistance to pest and diseases. Each farmer scored each technology out of ten points against each of the parameters. Points were given based on the performance of each technology with respect to the parameters. The rule of the thumb was that higher scores meant preference for technology with respect to parameter. The scores for each technology against each parameter were tallied and computed as percentages (Zake et al., 2004). Enhancing knowledge and skills of farmers, scientists and other stakeholders Training is very important in enhancing farmers’ knowledge and skills. Prior to the training, participatory training needs assessments were done to seek farmers input in the training curriculum. Farmers were trained in various aspects namely FFS approach/principals and methodology; basic soil science and integrated nutrient management; crop livestock interactions; agro-ecological systems analysis (AESA);


9

livestock management; manure management; record keeping and management; primary health care; nutrition; general environment management and conservation; group formation, dynamics and sustainability; leadership; but also information on cross cutting issues such as HIV/AIDS, gender, rights. During the trainings both the farmers and facilitators were equal partners each contributing and learning from each other. Trainings were done in the local language and scientific concepts, principals and terminologies were explained in the local language and in addition practical illustrations were used to facilitate further understanding. Practical excursions and energizers were integrated in the trainings to visualize the theory and to keep the participants active respectively. Likewise, exposure visits enhanced the learning processes from other farmers in different locations. Secondly, farmers should be linked to various research and development institutions namely National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Universities, Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), National Council of Science and Technology (NCST), Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF), District Agricultural Departments, PROLINNOVA and Private sector among others. The purpose of these linkages was to explore continued support for services and but also access to technologies including good quality seeds and livestock breeds after scaling out of development initiatives as well as opportunities for validating and standardization of the knew knowledge generated. This contributed greatly to the sustainability of the development initiatives in the community. In certain instances it helped in continued collaborative research among the researchers and the farmers. For example farmers in Lukwanga parish, Wakiso district Central Uganda who were involved in a sustainable land use and soil management project were linked to Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute, Makerere University Soil Science Department, NGOs operating in the area (Voluntary Action for Development and Buganda Cultural Development Foundation) and Wakiso district production and Environment departments. Secondly, farmers in Kabale, Western Uganda were linked to PROLINNOVA, NCST, NARO, MAAIF for collaborative research on validating, documenting and promoting local innovations knowledge for treating livestock ticks using local acarides made form Tephrosia volegii (Opondo et al., 2005; Lutalo et al., 2006). It is also important to note that these linkages with farmers give an opportunity to R&D players to solicit input from farmers into their development initiatives. These processes should not be hurried for better results to allow farmers own the process, gain confidence in considering and later sharing their knowledge as an equally important answer to the solution and above all be able to work as equal partner with scientists. In our case, this was achieved within a period of 3-year of continuous contact with the farmers. Therefore, the right personality and environment attributes would include the following:

Evolvement of the right community/scientist attitudes; Striking the balance on time, pace; An enabling policy framework that recognizes and facilitates the approach;


10

An orientation within training institutions and research institutions to churn out carders (scientists) with the right attitudes and skills.

Taking grass roots’ experiences into policy and decision making processes After a long time of working with communities using empowering approaches, communities are confident and ready to interface with government policy making processes. Environmental Alerts’ policy engagement approach of using evidence based field level experiences provides the motivation for supporting the farmers to advance their concerns as well as lobby for alternative policy options and practices like building on farmers experiences in the on-going government programs. Also in line with the democratic and participation principle provided for in the constitution and a number of policy frameworks like Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), a blend of approaches have been used and found to be effective in enhancing civic competency to influence policies, hold leaders responsible and accountable and claiming for their rights. Several approaches were used:

Strengthening community capacity for civic expression through participatory processes that emphasize rights, roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders in fostering development and sustainable natural resources management. In so doing strategies that systematically ensure strong and sustainable institutions have been used. This is done through sensitization, access to trainings and mentalling for advocacy skills enhancement and exposure to where best practices are demonstrated. This component of the programme was incorporated in the FFS and enabled farmers to raise their concerns to their local government leaders.

Fostering interface between leaders, duty bearers and community - this involves

facilitating a platform for interaction between duty bearers and communities for bridging information gaps on Government programs but also articulating roles and responsibilities of duty bearers and the communities as well as enabling farmers to share their concerns on Government programs. For instance, farmers in Lukwanga, Wakiso District Central Uganda were facilitated to dialogue with the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) officials to address information gaps and challenges in NAADS program implementation in the area.

Creating spaces for community in policy spaces. Communities have great

potential to engage in high level policy interaction if a conducive environment is created. Supportive mechanisms to the community to effectively occupy these spaces through providing practical and user-friendly information support for packaging and authoritatively presenting their issues.

Building partnerships, coalitions with like-minded civil society organizations and

institutions to influence policy at Local Government, National, Regional and International levels. Partnerships/coalitions help in galvanizing a common voice for influencing Government and global policies on particular issues affecting communities. For example in Wakiso district, Central Uganda, EA facilitated


11

development of a Coalition of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) i.e. Wakiso Environmental CSOs advocacy coalition (WECAC)8 charged with advocacy and monitoring for policy and program implementation for food security and sustainable natural resource management in Wakiso district.

Documentation of field experiences, community concerns, policy reviews to

inform policy engagements and also facilitate wider sharing. This targeted the different stakeholders namely policy makers, political leaders, institutions of learning, farming communities and donors among others.

Media advocacy campaigns on particular issues affecting communities. This was

done for purposes of improving visibility and amplifying gravity of the constraints clearly articulating the implications to policy makers if these constraints are not addressed. These campaigns are highly participatory involving key stakeholders including the farmers who are directly affected to speak out their experiences and proposals. For example EA conducted a media advocacy campaign on land degradation in Uganda. The campaign amplified the gravity and implications of land degradation on livelihoods and national growth given the rapid population growth of Uganda. It also highlighted policy and practice recommendations for addressing it (Land and Land use Media Advocacy Report, 2006).

Lessons learnt for successful integration

(a) Farmers have a lot of information and knowledge about their community but also on issues affecting their day to day livelihood which should be tapped when initiating development projects or initiatives and policies.

(b) Local knowledge or techniques have hidden scientific attributes or interpretations and these can be identified and appreciated by both parties when farmers interact with scientist or researchers

(b) Smallholder farmers still have a notion that the extension workers or researchers know it all. Likewise some extension workers think they know it all. Hence getting them to open up to share their knowledge requires patience and participatory approaches, which challenge them to take an active role. Also getting such extension workers/scientists to provide opportunities for farmer participation in technology development and extension requires training to enhance their facilitation skills but also appreciating and deeper understanding of participatory extension approaches such as the Farmer Field School among others.

(c) Farmers can understand and explain scientific techniques and concepts so long as these are simplified through illustrations and demonstration during training.

(d) Farmers’ ownership and adoption of developed technologies is higher because they have a feeling of being part of the process. This makes them self reliant in the sense that they are able to analyze their own farming systems and take appropriate decisions with minimum support from outside.

8 It comprises of Agency for Integrated Rural Development (AFIRD), Environmental Alert, Buso Foundation, Alinyikiira Farmers’ Development Association, Agali awamu Famers’ Development Association, Buganda Cultural and Development Foundation, Nature Palace as members.


12

(e) When confident and if given spaces, communities can lead to relevant policy/programme development and implementation. Critical for this is the need to build the confidence and information sharing.

Impact of EA interventions The impact of EA interventions took the following forms:

1. Increased crop yields especially for beans, maize and vegetables by over 50% as compared to the farmers’ practices of no fertilizer application. Consequently, there was household food security, increased incomes, better nutrition and hence improved livelihoods. This was attributed to a number of factors including integrated nutrient management. This involved integration of locally available organic and inorganic fertilizers and soil and water conservation techniques but also better understanding and analyses of their own farming systems and taking rational decisions for sustainable land productivity. Figure 1 illustrates maize grain responses to various treatment combinations of poultry manure and inorganic fertilizers integrated with soil and water conservation techniques in Lukwanga Parish, Wakiso district, Central Uganda. The integration of poultry manure with DAP and Urea registered the highest maize grain yields.

Source: (Zake, 2006). DAP = Diammonium phosphates Figure 1. Maize grain yield response to treatment combinations of poultry manure and inorganic fertilizers in Central Uganda.

2. Increased learning across scale, were farmers have learnt from extension workers, researchers and vise versa i.e. extension workers and researchers

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

No fertiliserapplication

Poultrymanure

DAP + Urea Poultrymanure +

DAP + Urea

Fertiliser treatment combinations

Mai

ze g

rain

yie

lds

(t/ha

)

Maize grain yield (t/ha)

LSD (0.05) = 0.3


13

learning from farmers. 3. Enhanced capacity of farmers in terms of analyzing their farming systems. For

instance they can analyze their farming systems based on the physical appearance of soil and crops. They can easily establish the extent of soil fertility depletion and take appropriate action with minimum support from extension workers/service providers. Secondly, they have gained popularity and confidence in training other farmers on issues of sustainable land use, soil management and other livelihood aspect as community extension facilitators.

4. The farmers have realized the importance of locally available inputs for restoration of soil fertility. Local farm inputs such as manure is now handled with much more care. Hence they have testified to this as follows: ‘I learnt the value of cow dung.’ ‘I used to let it run off, now I pick it from any where along the way and take it home.’ ‘We learnt how to use manure with little effort but significant output. It was much easier that we had imagined.’

5. Level of expression and leadership skills and relations with other people has improved. Hence, they have testified that now they can ably participate in discussions in various meetings at village, district, national and international levels. ‘I used to be shy but now I talk, I am even the advisor of the group.’ ‘I also speak for my Association at the district and I am listened to.’ As a result, the NAADS program supported them in the establishment of a piggery unit, an enterprise of their choice that had been for long neglected. This has also triggered close monitoring of service providers under the programme that had never been monitored by the government programme leaders from the local government.

6. Participating farmers’ skills for visioning and planning for personal and community development have been strengthened. They have testified to this, for example, ‘I never used to plan anything, now I do and with greater understanding of the value.’

7. Farmer field schools and groups have developed into more sustainable community structures constituting community-based organizations (CBO). These are legal institutions registered with the District Directorate of Community Services, and have operational savings accounts on which they save monthly fees as stated in their constitutions. They are charged with specific objectives to continue working together using FFS principles to champion development in the community. They deal with other community constraints such as poor nutrition and health for children, environmental conservation, and also implement income generating projects for their members and associations through revolving fund with appropriate terms and conditions such as interest rate, grace and loan repayment period among others, which they set themselves.

8. Recognition for Environment Alert contribution at different levels, for example Environmental Alert was recognized as 1st prize winners of Energy globe awards


14

2005 under the earth category9. This recognition has motivated the community further that now they feel more confident to train other farmers.

Challenges Despite various achievements, a number of challenges were met including: High expectations of farmers with respect to farm inputs ranging from farm tools

(wheel barrows, pangas), seeds, fertilizers, and livestock among others. Hence at the beginning of the interventions there was a high turn up but some farmers dropped out because they felt their expectations were not met.

Participation and involvement of all stakeholders in development initiatives requires patience and subsequently a lot of time.

Limited financial support to be able to meet more farmers and scaling out of the project lessons and proven technologies to other areas affected by similar constraints.

Limited political will for policy development, implementation and enforcement. Given the fact that we do not control the policy making process, some policy processes have stalled and hence over delayed for example the National soils policy for Uganda has taken over 15 years yet land and soil degradation is increasing at escalating rates. To date Uganda does not have a Land policy and land use policy to guide sustainable land management and land use. Secondly even where policies exist, there is weakness in compliance and enforcement.

Conclusions The experiences of Environmental Alert, corresponding community testimonies and scientific evaluations demonstrate that the integration of local with scientific knowledge works and can have a positive change on community livelihoods but also potential to contribute more significantly to Uganda’s agricultural growth and development. With over 60% increase in productivity realized from the interventions, the house food security and income situation would greatly improve if the interventions are up scaled to other areas faced with similar constraints. Key success factors in this integration also include openness, respect and equal opportunity for all stakeholders including farmers, extension workers, researchers and leaders given that they are all knowledgeable and have a contribution to make to development. In addition, active participation and involvement of all stakeholders in planning, decision-making and implementation, monitoring and evaluation of plans are equally important. In such a setting, extension worker/researchers are facilitators whereas the farmers should be at centre and seen to actively participate in the process.

9 The Energy Globe Award is a world award for environmental sustainability and is one of the most prestigious world environmental awards. It is an annual award given to innovative projects world wide contributing to improved livelihoods and environmental sustainability in the categories of Air, Fire, Water, Earth and Youth. Environmental Alert was recognized for implementing the INMASP project which built farmers’ capacities in analyzing their farming systems by promoting a blend of local and scientific knowledge (PELUM bulletin, 2006). http://www.energyglobe.at


15

Development projects and programs should be built on existing local knowledge and or levels of social organization and explore opportunities for integration with new scientific knowledge or thinking for successful implementation and sustainability in communities. Call for action There is a critical need for scaling up and out of these concepts, principals, approaches and proven technologies at different levels to other areas faced with similar constraints or shortcomings. At the local levels they should be integrated and supported in the district development plans (DDP) were as at National level they should be integrated in policies, investment frame works and plans. Pro-activeness on local community empowerment including farmer-led and farmer owned documentation is key to sustainability of best practices.

About the authors: • Joshua Zake is a Program Officer, Environment and Natural Resource at

Environmental Alert • Agnes Yawe is a Program Officer, Empowerment at Environmental Alert • Ronald Lutalo is a Coordinator PROLINNOVA Uganda

• Christine Nantongo is a Program Manager, at Environmental Alert References FAO. (1994). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Maximising fertilizer

use efficiency FAO fertilizer and plant nutrition. Bulletin 6, Rome, Italy. FAO. (2000). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Land and plant

nutrient management service, land and water development division, Rome, Italy. FAO. (2006). Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Monitoring progress

towards hunger reduction goals of the World Food Summit and the Millennium Declaration. Socio-Economic statistics and analysis service. Rome, Italy.

Land and land use media advocacy report. (2006). Environmental Alert, Kampala Uganda. Land, land use and soils issues paper. (2006). Environmental Alert, Kampala Uganda. LITES. (2006). Literacy, Technology and Standards. New Mexico Public Education

Department, New Mexico, Mexico. http://www.nmlites.org/standards/science/glossary_5.htm

Lutalo, R. and Critchley, W. (2006). Controlling ticks and influencing policy. Low external input and sustainable agriculture (LEISA) magazine 22.3, September, 2006.

McAfee, J. (2006). Potassium, a key nutrient for plant growth. PhD thesis. http://jimmcafee.tamu.edu/files/potassium%20a%20key%20nutrient%20for%20plant%20growth.pdf.

MFPED. (2002). Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Background to the Budget. Financial year 2002/2003. Enhancing Production and Exports for Poverty Eradication. Kampala, Uganda.

Oad, F. C., Buriro, U. A., Agha, S. K. (2004). Effect of organic and inorganic fertiliser application on maize fodder production. Journal of Plant Sciences 3 (3): 375-377, Tandojam, Pakistan.


16

Onduru, D. D., Diop, J. M., Van der Werf, E. and Jager, A. (2002). Participatory on-farm comparative assessment of organic and conventional farmers’ practices in Kenya. Journal of Biological Agriculture and Horticulture, 2002, Vol. 19, pp. 295-314. London, United Kingdom.

Opondo, C., Zake, J., Stroud A, Tanui J., Lutalo R., and Kanzikwera, R. (2005). From Reductionism to Local Innovation systems: Implications for Multi-stakeholder collaborative Learning and Client-orientation in Uganda. Proceedings of Global Learning event-Conference in September 2005, International Farming Systems Association (IFSA), Rome, Italy.

PEAP. (2004). Poverty Eradication Action Plan. Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development, Kampala, Uganda. www.finance.go.ug

PELUM bulletin. (2006) Participatory Ecological Land Use Management Association, regional desk, Lusaka, Zambia. Volume 7, issue number 2, P 11. www.pelumrd.org

Stoorvogel, J. J. and Smailing, E. M. A. (1990). Assesement of soil nutrient depletion in Sub-Saharan Africa. Winard Staring Cetre, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Stoorvogel, J. J., Smailing, E. M. A. and Jansen, B. H. (1993). Calculating Soil Nutrient balances in Africa at different scales 1. Supra – national scale. Fertiliser Research. 35; 227- 235.

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995), Chapter 11 section 176 (2b) UBOS. (2002). Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Provisional Population Census Results.

Entebbe, Uganda. Wareen, D., M. (1991). Using indigenous knowledge in agricultural development. World

bank discussion paper, number 127. The World Bank, Washington D. C., USA. Wortmann, C. S. and Kaizzi, C. K. (1998). Nutrient balances and expected effects of

alternative practices in farming systems in Uganda. Journal of Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 71:115-129.

Zake, J. Y. K. (1999). Towards building a participatory soil fertility management initiative for Uganda. Soil and water Conservation Society of Uganda, conference proceedings on the theme towards building a participatory soil fertility management initiative for Uganda, 5th-6th May 1999, Kampala, Uganda. Pp 1-12.

Zake, J., Walaga, C, Nagawa, F. (2002). Wakiso Sub-County, Agriculture Sector Baseline Study Report. Environmental Alert, Kampala Uganda. P 20.

Zake, J., Nagawa, F., Jager, A. and Walaga, C. (2004). Participatory on-farm development and evaluation of integrated nutrient management technologies in Central Uganda. A farmer field school experience. Proceedings of the 22nd Soil Science Society of East Africa (SSSEA) Conference in Arusha, Tanzania, 29th Nov-3rd December, 2004.

Zake, J. and Kaggwa, D. (2005). Sustainable Land management. Environmental Alert, Kampala, Uganda.

Zake, J., Walaga, C. and Jager, A. (2005). Bringing farmers together. Low external input and sustainable agriculture (LEISA) magazine, June, 2005.

Zake, J. (2006). Land degradation in Uganda. Proceedings of the Central Uganda regional consultative workshop on the National Land policy for Uganda. Rider Hotel, Seeta-Mukona, Uganda 5th-6th October 2006. Environmental Alert, Kampala, Uganda. P 7.


17

Integrating local and scientific knowledge: a testimony of Agali awamu and Alinyikira farmers’ development association, Wakiso, Uganda

By Ndugga Evaristo,

Secretary, Agali awamu farmers’ development association

Alinyikira and Agali awamu farmers’ development associations are two Community Based Organizations found in Lukwanga Parish, Wakiso District in central Uganda. We shared our experiences and lessons regarding the use of simplified scientific knowledge blended with local knowledge at the World Social Forum Nairobi, Kenya, 20th-25th January, 2007. These were generated through facilitation and support from Environmental Alert. Some of the impacts from the interventions included increased agricultural productivity by 50%, strong and sustained community institutions managing their livelihood challenges and increasingly demanding for their rights. Introduction ‘Local knowledge’ is knowledge of our grand parents passed on from generation to generation but who do not reveal the concrete of it. For instance our fore fathers say, ‘that when taking an animal to be served one is restricted from greeting people on the way otherwise it will not conceive.’ The scientific reasoning for this could be that you may reach to the bull when the heat is over. Over forty years ago we had plenty of food to eat and some put in our local ovens, but this is no more. Something went wrong. Science calls it soil degradation which is a common problem in our area and world over. In the year 2002, through mobilization of peasant farmers of Lukwanga community by Environmental Alert a supportive NGO, we started two Farmer Field Schools (FFS)10 that were later registered in 2004 as Community based development Association (CBOs) at Wakiso District Directorate of Community Development i.e. Agali Awamu Farmers Development Association and Alinyikira Farmer Development Association. We are able to analyze the fertility and productivity based on subjective and quantitative indicators; hence, we observe and see changes in germination of seeds, growth and harvest. In case of poor germination, we observe weak growth of stems, leaves loose color e.g. from green to yellowish in older leaves starting from the tip of the leaf, indicating loose of Nitrogen. We use a test crop like maize for this purpose. On the other hand, scientists take soils to laboratories and identify lack of minerals like Nitrogen, Potassium, and Phosphorous. To overcome soil degradation, we tried various technologies including Poultry manure, diammonium phosphorus (DAP) + Urea, integration of poultry manure and DAP+Urea and control where no fertilizers were used. In each case, soil and water conservation (fanya chini and fanya juu) were established across the plots. The technologies were applied in plots of the same size using maize as a test crop. All these were conducted at a central learning plot within the FFS. Our contribution as local knowledge in this experimentation was the use of poultry manure and soil and water conservation

10 See definition of FFS in case study presentation by Zzimbe Daisy


18

practices for soil fertility improvement. On the other hand, the scientific knowledge was the use the inorganic fertilizers and integrating them with poultry manure. This increased our ownership of the process given that we were involved in decision making on what to try out in addressing soil degradation. Secondly, our proposals were considered. From this experimentation, we prefer the application of poultry manure for maize production because it generated high yields. Secondly, it is cheap and readily available compared to the inorganic fertilizers. Major components/process followed in the FFS (a) Community participatory identification of the food constraints and other common problems in the area through listing of constraints/problems faced according to priority and in case of our community the following were identified:

- Poor yields due to soil degradation; - Long draughts; - High costs for transporting agricultural produce to the market; - Fluctuating market prices for agricultural produce; - Limited access to financial support for agricultural investment.

(b) Open discussions on solutions to the problems that hinder development in the area. This provided opportunity for sharing information and potential solutions to the constraints among the farmers and the facilitators. For instance, Integrated Nutrient Management involving utilization of various techniques in combination was adopted to attain sustainable soil and crop productivity. In this case, both indigenous and scientific knowledge was applied as part of solution to plots of maize crop. (c) Establishment, monitoring and evaluation of agreed upon technologies. This involved establishment of the agreed upon technologies at a central learning plot and undertaking season long observations and recording of performance of test crop responses to the different technologies. Changes in the leaf color stem size and harvest from each plot were monitored and recorded. The season long observations and records gathered were discussed at the end of the season to identify the best performing technology. Benefits realized from interventions so far

- Decrease in soil degradation through use of cheaper and less labor intensive manure.

- Yields have increased, including food for the families. - Both CBOs have saving accounts in the bank accumulated from sale of harvests,

membership fee (5000/= per year), subscription fee (6000/= per year) and money (grant) given to us by Environmental Alert from energy globe award 2005 a total of 10m each association 5m.

- This same fund has helped in setting up a revolving fund loan scheme for financing income generating projects for members and the association.


19

Lessons

Participatory research method guarantees ownership of the solutions, self confidence and self reliance.

Learnt the multiple purpose of hens and cows

Hens and Cows. Eggs Milk Meat Meat Poultry Manure Cow dung

Poultry use and generate income to the home, maintains good nutrition. That means good healthy.

Challenges The following are major challenges to up scaling these interventions:

Need of in-puts for each home to practice poultry farming and cattle rearing. Hence, this would require 100 hens layer birds. And a house for them would require 1 million Uganda shillings. On the other hand, acquisition of cow for each household requires about 1 million Uganda shillings.

Weak skills and capacity for farmer led documentation. Lack of funds for water harvesting and irrigation equipments.


20

INSIDE A FARMER FIELD SCHOOL (FFS)

By Zzimbe Daisy, Chairperson, Alinyikira farmers’ development association

What is a Farmer Field school (FFS)? A farmer field school is a school with no buildings. But it can be anywhere near demonstration plots which is mostly under trees with about 25-30 people.

In FFS, we undertake action based learning on soil management. We participate in decision making and management of trial plots.

In FFS, field exchange visits are part of

the training curriculum. Emphasis is

placed on optimal utilization of

resources for maximum benefits i.e. less

time, less power, less materials.

After participating in decision making, the farmers decided to practice the integration of local knowledge with scientific knowledge.


21

Here is the out come after the combination of local knowledge with scientific knowledge.

Integrating local and scientific knowledge: Farmers’ Innovations in livestock parasites management Kabale and Wakiso, Uganda

Case 1. Utilization of tephrosia acaricide for tick control in Piggery

By Evelyna Tibemanya, Innovator of tephrosia acaricide

Introduction Am Mrs. Evelyn Tibemanya, a farmer from Kabale district, Western Uganda. As a farmer, in Kabale, we were faced with low crop and livestock productivity. This had implications to household food security and incomes that we were not able to our basic needs. This situation, prompted the World Agro-Forestry Centre (ICRAF) in 1999 to introduce tephrosia for soil fertility improvement and crop productivity in the area. Through the ICRAF trainings, we were advised not to allow tephrosia to get into fish ponds as it would have lethal effects on the fish.


22

Evelyn Tibemanya sharing her innovation of using

tephrosia mixture for tick control in pigs.

Despite this, we continued to have challenges in the management of pig parasites and diseases. This greatly affected piggery production as my animals kept dieing. Secondly, I could not afford wormcides and other agrochemicals from the market for treatment parasites especially, the ticks. Therefore, I thought of other appropriate alternatives which are locally available and affordable. In the process, I observed that whenever I stacked tephrosia between bags of grain and beans, pests like weevils were no more. So I applied and tested tephrosia on a badly infested piglet because of the warning from the extension agent that I should not use it. I obtained amazing results because all the ticks died and the piglet recovered. Consequently, I

widely shared the knowledge and results to fellow farmers who have since used it make their own acaricides using similar technique. NGOs and other stakeholders came in through PROLINNOVA and helped me in identification, validation, documentation and dissemination of the innovation. Consequently, the innovation has been shared at different platforms at Local, National and International levels. Preparation of tephrosia mixture The preparation of tephrosia mixture requires crushing about 250 grams of young, dried tephrosia leaves before mixing in a soap solution. This solution is prepared by dissolving about 100 grams of common laundry soap in 5 litres of water. A soap solution is added to increase the “stickiness” of the acaricide as well as to remove dirt and skin microbes. This increases the overall efficiency of the mixture. Five litres of this tephrosia-soap mixture is adequate for treatment of one large pig, weighing over 50kg. The validation, documentation and dissemination of this innovation has made a great change in my life for instance impact of this interventions/innovation in my life for instance am now able to use it more effectively in controlling ticks in livestock and subsequently their productivity has increased. I also save money which I would have spent on purchasing acaricides. Secondly, this innovation has made me more popular given that I have shared it at different levels to various stakeholders. Thirdly, the community has continuously benefited from the trainings I have conducted in the community especially among other farmers on how to prepare and use it in controlling ticks. My future plans are to continue working on the development of the innovation for instance am planning to experiment its effect on the control of ecto-parasites in cattle. I


23

will as well continue sharing my experience and train other farmers about the formulation and use of the tephrosia-based acaricide. I will do this through the community resource centre/ library with support from Africa 2000 Network and farmers in Kabale district. With support from National Chemotherapeutic Laboratory and PROLINNOVA Uganda. I will work together in the verification and validation of the active ingredient in the tephrosia mixture but also establish appropriate dosage for tick control in different livestock. Case 2. Using local weeds for treatment of endoparasites (worms) in goats

By Nalongo Afuwa, Mende farmer

Introduction Am Nalongo Afuwa, a smallholder farmer in Mende parish, Wakiso district, Central Uganda. As farmers in Mende community, we were faced with constraints of low income levels and food insecurity which greatly affected our livelihoods. Environmental Alert worked with us and introduced development project for food security and poverty reduction. The project emphasized sustainable agriculture through improved crop and livestock management. Specifically for livestock, they introduced improved goat breeds which were crossbred with our local breeds to improve their productivity. Consequently, the resultant offspring had a better quality of 75% compared to the local breeds. Secondly, they were easily managed and could survive better in the local environment compared to the pure breeds. In addition, we received training and skills for better management of the crops and goats including nutrition, parasites and diseases control using wormcides. Despite the trainings we had received from Environmental Alert, parasites (worms) in the goats still remained a challenge because we could not afford the wormcides to control them. So they retarded the growth of the goats. This challenged me into developing a concoction of local weeds including Kisanda, Enjaga and ekisula which I crushed and mixed with water and treated the goats. Surprisingly, the concoction was effective in controlling the worm infestation in goats and subquently improved production. I shared the information with my fellow farmers; they tried it and got similar results. Currently, we use this mixture for worm control in goats because it’s made locally and it’s much more affordable compared to the worcides. From this local knowledge have been able to rear goats and controlled the endo-parasites (worms) there by increasing goat productivity. Consequently, I was able to sale some of them for household income generation. Each goat is sold at 500,000 Uganda Shillings (about US $ 286), price far much higher than that for local breeds (40,000/= each). Through this I was able to raise enough funds that enabled me to educate my children up to University.