Scaling Sustainable Land Management (SLM) innovations : Insights and Lessons from
Rural Grassroots Initiatives in Eastern Africa
J.M.B. Tukahirwa1, M. Tenywa2, R. Kamugisha3, H. Nyinamutozo4
1
World Agroforestry(ICRAF)-African Highlands Initiative (AHI) Box 26416, Kampala UGANDA:
j.tukahirwa@cgiar.org
2
Makerere University Institute of Agricultural Research, Kabanyoro, Box 7062, Kampala,
UGANDA : tenywam@agric.mak.ac.ug
3
World Agroforestry(ICRAF)-African Highlands Initiative (AHI) Box 650, Kabale UGANDA:
rkamu2000@yahoo.co.uk
4
Chahi Women Group, Muganza, Kisoro District
ABSTRACT
The limited landscape-level impact of SLM innovations is a cause of major concern among
Government agencies, Research and Development partners, considering that significant
contribution to rural livelihoods demands wide adoption of SLM innovations. Removal of critical
barriers of knowledge, technology and policy is imperative. However, scaling SLM innovations
to a large extent entails protracted, self propelled community based local initiatives within
contexts of multi-stakeholder platforms centered around four themes: taking advantage of poly
centric local-level grassroots institutions; enhanced resilience among small scale farmers
through partnerships and networks; harnessing the power of local champions in motivating rural
communities; and bolstering benefits of collective action supported by an enabling local policy
environment. The intricate combinations of these factors are illustrated in experiences and
practices of rural smallholder farmers in Muganza community, in Kisoro District, Uganda. The
community of 340 households innovatively manages 200 ha degradation prone landscapes with
apparent successes replicated in other sites in the district. The cash income from sale of crops is
US $435 above the Uganda’s GNP per capita 300 in 2009 with landscape –level impacts SLM
innovations outstanding as well as an empowered community. The experiences in fostering wide
adoption of SLM innovations through strengthened local –level social capital and practices
combines agronomic technologies, consistent capacity building, monitoring and evaluation,
augmented communication, institutional development, and bye laws formulation. These
provide insights on ingredients of scaling SLM innovations within the contexts of Landcare
principles that centers on community groups working together to rehabilitate highly degraded
landscapes using novel but practical science based techniques The paper highlights the
importance of local actors’ empowerment, participation, partnerships, local champions as
catalysts, shared learning in multi-stakeholder platforms, strong leadership, viable grassroot
institutions, and nurturing stewardship to generate a broad range of sustainable, improved
economic, socio- ecological benefits to many people, widely and equitably.
KEY WORDS: Scaling, Innovations, Grassroots, Multi-stakeholder, Platforms
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 1 of 12
Introduction:
Government agencies, Research and Development partners are increasingly perturbed about the
limited impact of Sustainable Land Management (SLM)1 innovations on the lives of the poor and
their environment. The context is degradation of natural resources presents an increasing and
alarming challenging problem in the highlands of Eastern Africa where more than 80% of the
rural population’s livelihoods depend on natural resources (Kilewe and Hatibu, 2004; Hatibu,
2005). Consequently, natural resources degradation threatens the life support systems of millions
of poor people with wider implications in the densely populated eastern Africa Highlands where
it is intricately part of the rural poverty traps closely associated with dynamic rapid changes that
increasingly render agro-ecosystems vulnerable to shocks and uncertainties (Sachs et al.,
2004).The limited impact of SLM is partly attributed to the dearth of innovative, participatory
approaches to generate and disseminate technologies including
landcare2, lack of multistakeholders and multi-scale platforms to catalyze and accelerate scaling processes , and poor
links between research, development and policy (Wangati, 1994; Stroud 2003; Sanginga et al.,
2004; Campbell et al., 2003). The basis of major concern however the devastating impacts of
land degradation on economies, health and environment (FAO 2008) alongside research results
indicating that smallholder farmers who adopt SLM innovations record better performance than
those who do not ( Nkonya et al., 2004). Further, in some fragile degradation prone regions of
Eastern Africa, more research data confirm that farmers can increase their farm productivity by
up to 5 times upon adoption of SLM innovations (Mowo et al., 2002). On record, across the
tropics as recorded by Stocking in 2006, increasingly wide adoption of SLM innovations is
associated with multiple benefits including (i) increased yield through better water conservation
(ii) less need for fertilizers because better soils, (ii) Less risk of crop failure because of better soil
quality, (iii) increased opportunities of diversification into higher-value crops on better soils (iv)
increased value of the land and; (v) reduced need for weeding because of better plant cover. In
eastern Africa highlands, some of SLM innovations (individually or/and in combination) with
proven positive effects on small holder farms include: (i) use of legumes in crop rotation,
mulching, terracing, biomass transfer, contour bunds; (ii) use of information and communication
technology (ICT) for promoting technology uptake; and (iii) new approaches of influencing
policies and learning (Mercado; Mekuria et. al 2008; Keely, 2001). Ironically, despite the
multiple benefits, the prevailing status in most fragile landscapes remains ‘islands of successes’
with SLM innovations failing to reach the poor at wider scale beyond target sites (Arshby,2001)
Despite SLM given prominence in national and regional development strategies, the
mainstreaming of SLM policies into national development strategies and policies remains
suboptimal and has not translated into effective implementation of SLM at landscape levels
(NEPAD,2004). It is against this background, that there is a growing surge of interest in the
concept and realities of scaling SLM innovations. In the context of agriculture and natural
resources management (NRM), the concept and principles of scaling is embedded in widely used
definition (IIRR 2000):
More quality benefits to more people over a wider geographical area more quickly more
equitably and more lasting
1
Sustainable Land Management (SLM) is a knowledge-based procedure that helps integrate land, water, biodiversity, and
environmental management including input and output externalities to meet rising food and fibre demands while sustaining ecosystem
services and livelihoods (World Bank, 2006).
2
Landcare is a widely adopted approach to integrated natural resources management. As an approach, it centers on community groups
working together to rehabilitate highly degraded landscapes using novel, but practical science-based agroforestry and natural resources
management techniques. It also focuses on empowering local people to willingly take action to address local problems (Catacutan
2001)
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 2 of 12
Both vertical (institutional expansion to more stakeholder) and horizontal (geographical spread)
dimensions are included in the definition. However, even with this innovative approach implied
by the definition, relatively little information is available on practical strategies to catalyze and
facilitate scaling SLM innovations. Hence, in order to contribute to filling this knowledge action
gap within the context of smallholder farmers, a rural community strongly associated with a
conspicuous landscape level conservation was investigated. The study was guided by two
questions: (i) What are the positive aspects of scaling SLM innovations process and how can
these be built upon?; (ii) What problems have been experienced and how can these be overcome.
Two assumptions were made namely: (i) “Home grown” ingredients of scaling SLM innovations
whose foundation if well articulated, presents important lessons to take into account in scaling
efforts ; (ii) the underlying reasons for limitations in going to scale with SLM innovations can be
identified through investigations into real experiences that provide opportunities of building on
strength and overcoming weaknesses.
Study area:
Muganza is located in Chahi sub County, Kisoro District SW Uganda. It is composed of two
parishes namely; Nyakabengo and Muganza and three communities namely Buhinga and
Kabuga in Muganza parish and Muganza community in Nyakabengo parish. Historical records
indicate that during early history, the predominant economic activity in the area was pastoralism
(Denoon, R. (1972) These pastoralists were organized within small kingdoms that had several
levels of semiautonomous chiefdoms. In the mid 1800s, emigrants from densely populated
Rwanda began flowing into Southwest Uganda. The Tutsi pastoralists in search of grazing land
settled in the valleys and plains while the Hutu agriculturalists in search of farmlands and
political freedom farmed the hillsides. As population increased, due to frequent erratic inflows,
ethnic strives from Rwanda and high fertility rates among local groups, the need for arable land
forced farmers to encroach on steeper and fragile slopes. Consequently, by mid 1920, population
pressure was seriously damaging land resources associated with reduced fallow and inappropriate
farming methods such as wide scale land cover removal denuding the slopes by causing serious
erosion and contributing to declining agricultural performance (Hamilton 1984)
A combination of traditional land inheritance practices, fast growing population, resulted in
land shortage and fragmentation that further exerted more pressure on none-elastic land
resources (Tindituuza, 1971). In response, the British administration embarked on a rigorous
capacity building on improved agricultural practices targeting extension officers as trainers of
trainers. On record, agricultural officers from Kisoro were among the first to be trained who in
turn trained a cadre of local agricultural officers in the entire district including Muganza who then
built local farmers. In 1935 after a widespread famine then Kigezi3 District authority passed a
series of soil conservation by- laws stipulating that farmers construct bunds- soil mounds no less
than one meter across slopes at an interval not exceeding five meters. The by-laws were well
implemented and enforced by well equipped agricultural officers and local chiefs (Clayton 1993).
By 1945, most communities in the district were complying with the laws and by 1949, the area
had reached a standard of soil conservation unsurpassed anywhere in Africa (Uganda Protectorate
1949). In 1953, British administration in addition to the by-laws initiated and implemented a
resettlement programme to reduce population/land ratios with marked impact on increase fallow
periods.
3
The current Kisoro District evolved from a large district, Kigezi prior 1986 becoming a 35 th district of
Uganda in 1991
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 3 of 12
However, the post independence (1962) era in Uganda coincided with a gradual decline of bylaws
enforcement leading to widespread destruction and abandonment of soil conservation
interventions. During Uganda’s period of political instability (1971-86), the state of land
management deteriorated further as a result of weakened enforcement mechanisms ( MUIENR
1992) The local authority had weakened during the British administration and later Amin’s
regime. Rejuvenation towards SLM countrywide benefited from strengthened local authority
under the rule of law regime led by President Museveni commencing in 1986. Specifically, the
introduction of the five-tiered system of local councils (community, parish, subcounty, county
and district) enhanced local authority country wide including the case study area, Muganza.
Methodology
The study employed a combination of primary and secondary data collection including literature
reviews, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and field observations. Literature
review targeted historical and current government documentation to appreciate trends in land
management practices in the study area. Focus Group Discussions (FDG) were conducted with
communities with one FGD held in each community comprising of a mixed gender group
categories from each village. These groups consisted of 10-20 members depending on their
availability at the time of the discussion. The FGDs which on average lasted one hour were
conducted in a local language ‘Kifumbira’ with assistance of an English speaking interpreter.
During the discussions, participation was encouraged by asking open ended questions.
Respondents were kept focused but innovatively encouraged to share their views exhaustively.
Key informant interviews were conducted with specific community members such as grassroots’
groups leaders, opinion leaders, elders, teachers and progressive farmers. Field observations were
carried out during field visits and when conducting FGDs with communities. Multiplestakeholder analysis, comprising of grassroots institutional analysis, community level analysis,
and individual female and male farmers were employed. The purpose was to gain a holistic view
of the process by taking into account different experiences and practices of all relevant
stakeholder groups. Triangulation of data sources, methods of data collection, analysis and
utilization ensured collection of rich data, gain in-depth understanding of the area and allowed
generalization of the research findings. The study was based on an analysis of purposeful
selected case study and learning process during the entire data collection was iterative, with
knowledge provided by each stakeholder group influencing the analysis of experiences of the
other groups.
Results
Trends in land care towards landscape SLM
Smallholder mixed farming is the basis for most economic activity in the study area. The average
land holding per family is 1-1.5 hectares. Family holdings are fragmented into 5 to 10 parcels
and widely scattered apart. Sorghum, beans, and Irish potatoes are the most common crops in the
valleys and lower hill slopes along with peas, maize, beans, maize, bananas. Sweet potatoes and
peas are the principal crops grown on the slopes. Land management in Muganza taking advantage
meticulously a combination of indigenous and conventional agronomic practices including:
minimum tillage especially for peas; careful seed selection; land suitability assessment matching
land quality with crop requirements using local expert knowledge; mulching in bananas; strategic
land opening to avoid erosive storms that coincide with bare soil; mixed cropping to ensure
maximum land cover; crop rotation with beans and peas to capitalize on nitrogen fixation;
compost and Kraal manuring; water retention basins in lowlands; dry crop residue with double
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 4 of 12
tillage; and burning of invasive weed. Mixed farming is an integral part of the farming system as
most households own some few goats, sheep, and chicken and a small group own cattle. As a
result of open pastures scarcity, animals graze on fallowed land, around homesteads, along access
paths and roadsides or on a few remaining communal grazing areas. Limited agroforestry is also
integrated in the farming systems with nucleated individual woodlots, multi purpose trees and
scrubs growing in close proximity to homesteads.
A conspicuous organized pattern of contour terraces on Muganza particularly in Buhinga is most
striking on the landscape and it has gained farmers’ recognition beyond the district. Two forms
of terracing: contour bund and strip terraces are practiced. Contour bund terraces are
characterized by eight meters contoured bunds of land that encircle Muganza hill and
alternatively cropped and fallowed at specified intervals. Farmers in Buhinga rotate the fallowed
and cropped areas every six or twelve months. The natural growth on the fallowed bunds captures
soil that erodes from the more exposed cultivated bund above it. Bund terraces are not effective
unless at least one half of the landscape (hill) is fallowed all the time. Hence, in Buhinga village,
farmers use a six months rotation cycle and grow two crops per year. Previously farmers cropped
one time a year, intercropping fields of traditional long duration crops such as sorghum on the
entire hill. The crop/fallow system has several advantages including soil conservation and water
retention effects of the fallow bunds in addition to the fact that double cropping means more food
and disbursed labor patterns with lower labor peaks. To ensure synchronized crop/fallow
rotations, farming activities specifically planting and harvesting are planned and done at the same
time. Meeting of farmers or their representatives comprising of village elders, local council
chairmen and agricultural extension officer prior to the beginning of each cycle are important to
reach consensus on the crops to be cultivated and coordination of planting and harvesting
schedules. Crop rotation with peas /beans is popular as they are leguminous and mature in three
months. Although farmers sometimes plant short –duration crops such as cabbage, rarely do they
leave their fields fallow during the cropping cycle. Bund terraces are popular among farmers
because farmers recognize them as an effective soil conservation measure. In addition, bund
terraces allow mandatory fallowing thus permitting land productivity regeneration. Grazing of
any livestock even on personal land anywhere on slopes is prohibited
In Kabuga village, strip terraces are practiced. These are interlocking four meter short bunds of
farm land that encircle a section of the hill, where the topsoil is predominantly granular loose
volcanic ash. Between the interlocking bunds, farmers plant a one meter strip of napier grass.
Grass strips trap as well as stabilize soil eroding down the slope and over time a natural terrace
builds up in and above the strips to form a raised terrace. Farmers continuously plant two crops
per year on the strip terraces. Periodically, the mature napier grass is harvested and used as
staking materials for climbing beans
Innovation trigger
Landscape level impacts of SLM innovations is recorded among the local communities to have
been triggered in 1984 by uncommonly heavy rains that caused severe soil erosion on slopes
characterized by gullies, landslides, reduced yields. The local chief realized that there was need to
act together collectively to stop the situation. At the suggestion of a highly respected retired
agricultural officer, the local chiefs closed Muganza hill to all agricultural and livestock activities.
The farmers responded positively in avoiding the slopes while intensifying agricultural activities
on their valley plots. Notable, considering most sweet and Irish potatoes (important cash crops)
are grown on the slopes, household incomes declined appreciatively. However, after five years,
the agricultural office judged the recovery and the chief agreed to open it. During the closure, the
remnants of terraces initiated during British administration and the farm boundaries were lost thus
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 5 of 12
necessitating re-demarcation that demanded significant collaboration as it involved shifting plots
up and down the hill slopes about four meters. Coordination was also needed to redesign the hill
slopes and relocate farm plots. The customary tenure of strip terraced land offers rights to use a
certain amount of land instead of rights to certain plots prevented any form of disputes during redemarcation. In addition, bye-laws formulation was initiated and implemented successfully
putting mechanisms for their enforcement
Bye laws for Muganza
Article 1: Nobody will be allowed to graze the animals especially cattle in Muganza hill
Article 2: Who ever will be caught grazing cattle in Muganza hill will be punished with a fine of
10,000 for each cattle
Article 3: No cattle is allowed to step on the hill form today at 10.00 a.m of 23/11/2002
Article 4: All people who have plots in Muganza hill have agreed that each and every one must plant
agroforestry trees especially veronica plant along the contour lines
Article 5: People who have plots in Muganza hill have requested the management to alow them to
plant swetpotatoes for only one year.
Article6: Who ever will not cultivate well along the terraces in the hill will be fined shillings 3000
only
Article 7: Concerning about the goats rearing, we have agreed that goats be grazed in the hills but the
one who looks after them should not graze in the plantations. If caught uprooting and
grazing in potato plantations will be fined amount of money equivalent to 3000/=
Article 8: Selection of management committee to help communities implement the byelaws
The byelaws were signed by the Chairperson of Lc1 ( Hakiza Deo) for Muganza village on 23 rd of November 2002 and the Parish Chief Joy Nfitumikiza
The heavy rains accompanied by alarming soil erosion were innovation triggers whose impact
was a shock to the entire community catalyzed a group response (reaction) dictating collective
action as an innovation. The community response of collective action was a demonstration to
recover from shock (resilience) capitalizing on a readily available social capital. However it is
important to note the community made a heavy investments in community mobilization which
also demanded strong leadership and a common vision (rehabilitated landscape). Consequently,
the role of innovation triggers, collective action, leadership and common vision in understanding
scaling up process is conspicuous in the case study.
Local multi stakeholder platforms
In order to harness, the benefits of collective actions grass roots multi-stakeholders local
grassroots platforms have been formed in three different villages. On these platforms, the
majority are subsistence farmers (Those who own land on the hill slopes and those who
do not own land on the slopes but own livestock that graze in the fallowed land); NGOs
such as faith based organizations; Extension service staff; and local government. Each
of these stakeholders play different roles: Farmers ensure that the entire hill landscape is
well managed and that all community members comply with the bye-laws and planting
cyscles. Both the executive committee members and other group members are equally
responsible for this ‘community policing’. The extension service ensure that the
community members are regularly trained in proper farming methods, linking community
with relevant NGOs that could be of any assistance, participates in monitoring the
conservation structures on the hill among other roles. The local government (LGs) also
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 6 of 12
plays a big role in backstopping the success of local initiatives land management on
Muganza hill. Most important, LGs oversee the implementation and enforcement of the
bye-laws and are also represented on the executive committees of the platforms. The
grassroots local platforms have defined governance structures with inbuilt mechanisms to
address gender dynamics, communication, and conflict management. The governance
structure is composed of executive and committee members whose number varies from
group to group but range between nine to ten members. Local platforms membership is
open to men, women and youth and each category is represented on the committee. Of
critical importance , women are the major land users yet lacking control, leadership and
decision on land matters justifying that they voices are amplified at platform level.
Platform leaders are democratically elected during community meetings. The selection
criteria used is based on inherent skills such as team leadership, ability to read and write,
gender, owning land on the hill and generally active participation in community affairs
such as community meetings and generally developmental activities. Governance
structures are effective in ensuring desired behavioral compliance with ethical standard
thus reducing possible ethical violations, strengthen organizational cultures and
managerial accountability, enhance trust among members of the grassroots institutions
and overall ensure viability of institution
Capacity building and information management
Agriculture officers employed by the local Government administration on a regular basis train
Local platform members in farming methods including: strip, water trenches and bund
management; tree planting; and crop rotation. The main source of information on improved
farming methods and land management is the Agriculture extension workers and councilors who
circulate information during meetings at village, parish, sub-county level and district levels.
However, most meetings take place at parish level and both the Chairperson LC II and the parish
chief carry out the mobilization. At community levels l, it is the LC I chairperson and Secretary
for production that are responsible. There is regular record keeping. In addition, information
flows from the community to the leaders such as reports about those found grazing animals on the
hills, those not following proper guidelines as laid out in the bye-laws, those stealing other
farmers trees among others. Notable is individual and collective responsibility in collecting
information regarding mismanagement of land on Muganza hill and sharing it with those in
leadership to take appropriate action. On the whole, verbal communication is the main form of
communication used and members consider verbal communication fast and effective. Public
notices in the community are strategically placed in public areas where many people meet such as
schools, health centers, trading centres /shops, sub county offices and bars among others. On
many occasions church services and school children complement other forms of communication
and considered very effective
Conflict management
At local platforms, conflicts are generally associated with failure to comply with the rules and
regulations governing proper land management of Muganza hill. Different conflicts are handled
at different levels. The executive committee’s roles include conflict management. When the
culprit fails to comply at the local platform level, the matter is handed over to the local leadership
beginning with the Local council 1, parish level and sub county level. The local platforms have
several conflict resolution mechanisms that include the following: warning, arbitration; penalties
depending on the gravity of the crime. The most common cause of conflict in the group is grazing
livestock in other people’s land which is normally attracts a fine of Sh.10,000/= (US $ 5) per
animal. Although fining is significantly associated with compliance and reported to be effective,
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 7 of 12
on the other hand the practice is punitive and not sustainable. There are other none punitive
options including building dialogue between herders and cultivators to better manage synergies
between crop and livestock. Promoting zero grazing accompanied by a more intensive
agroforestry programme with a focus on multipurpose trees is fundamental.
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation
Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E) is community driven with inbuilt incentive
mechanisms for compliancy and outstanding performance. The team include sub county chief and
local leaders together with the executive committee of local government who participate in
PM&E visits specifically making assessment on management of terraces, adherence to specified
improved farming methods. Other issues monitored are illegal grazing of animals, tree planting.
The flow of information is a two way since there is a collective responsibility by all members of
the community. The lesson from this community monitoring and evaluation is the consistence,
involving multi actors and the process being collaborative, participatory, iterative and democratic
Partnerships and network
Local grassroots platforms in Muganza are involved in partnerships and network ventures with
development and conservation organizations, micro finance initiative, government programmes
and community based organizations. For example, Muganza and Nyakabengo are supported by
CARE, Area Based Agriculture Programme (AAMP). Buhinga has received support from a
number of NGOS such as National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS), AAMP, CARE,
Gorilla Organisation and Kisoro District Farmers Association (KADFA).
Enabling policy environment
Uganda is a signatory to multilateral conservation commitments, charters, agreements, protocols
and treaties relevant to sustainable land management including United Nations Framework on
Climate Change (UNFCC); Convention to combat Desertification (UNCCD) and Convention on
Biological Biodiversity (CBD) At national levels, the legal and/or policy framework in the
national constitution articulates the principles of SLM and are well established by the National
Environment Act NEA (1995). Mechanisms for penalizing defaulters are well established under
the National Environment Statute NES (1995) together with sectoral laws and regulation. An
institutional framework for resolving conflicts between the compliant and non compliant parties
exists under the established courts of law. At local levels, decentralization emerges as one of the
crucial policy towards supporting SLM. The five – level local Council (LC) system (LC 1Village/community); LC2- Parish ; LC3 Subcounty; LC4-County; LC5 District is a hierarchy of
councils and committee is an important forum for local people specifically grass root
communities. The political leaders of each level are elected by population and whose leadership
administration is to operate. Under decentralization, LC are responsible for overall planning and
implementation of development activities including SLM. The LC system enjoys autonomy and
is empowered since decisions made by the LC system are usually respected by the central
government. The section 15 of the National Environment Statute mandates the establishment of
District Environment Committee (DEC). The DEC is responsible for ensuring that the
environmental concerns are integrated into activities carried out by each district in accordance
with the national environmental policy. In all the districts, a district Environmental Officer is
responsible for overall planning and management of environmental concerns. Their tasks include
creating environmental awareness, incorporating environmental activities in schools and other
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 8 of 12
activities, monitoring issues in each district, supporting implementation of environmental actions
within the district, building a database on environmental issues, monitoring economic activities
which may have adversarial impacts and supporting implementation of environmental actions
within each district. Scaling of SLM innovations Muganza has befitted substantially from the
prevailing policy environment
Landcare initiative and its impacts
Muganza case study is part of a district wide initiative in land care built on the principle of
stewardship approach whose origin is anchored in farm-led sustainable land management efforts
involving grassroots farmer groups facilitated by retired but respected extension officers living in
communities. The initiative has caught the attention of development agencies, national
agricultural and advisory services, local governments because it is considered to be a ready
channel for reaching communities. Currently, at an individual typical household level, cash
income from sale of crops grown on conserved landscapes is approximately US $435 above the
Uganda’s GNP per capita 300 in 2009. The land care initiative in Muganza involves a total of
340 households but on a district level the initiative has been growing to include several other
locations including Nyarurembo with about 250 households, Sagitwe with 230 households and
Karambi with 50 households. The local platforms comprising of several farmers groups have
successfully transformed landscapes with outstanding conservation efforts involving several
kilometres of grass strip terraces, bund fallows, agroforestry systems. Many of the farmers –
driven local platforms are part of the government extension programme and recognised as well as
supported by local government. Several NGOs including international organizations have linked
into local initiative network. Farmers involved in the land care initiative revealed that they have
derived high economic benefits from adopting the technologies and being part of the local
platform including increased income, improved land cover and conservation of the environment.
Notable beyond the adoption of SLM, is the success of farmer led land care to catalyze positive
change needed to reverse land degradation while improving agricultural productivity among
small scale farmers. Other important impacts include fostered learning, cooperation,
volunteerism, enhanced participation, rejuvenated strength and social capital catalysing collective
action. This demonstrated expansion of the land care initiative is considered phenomenal in the
context of catalyzing scaling of SLM using few resources to generate great impacts. Be
Gaps and weaknesses for strengthening
In the case study, some gaps and weaknesses are exposed in the farmers driven landcare
initiative towards scaling SLM occurring at different stages of the scaling processes. Theses gaps
are evident on collective action, capacity building, partnerships and networks, policy
implementation and dialogue, stakeholder representation. While collective action is visible during
land preparation, it does not extend beyond to include full the entire value chain (production to
end user) such as harvesting, marketing and processing ( value addition) hence a need to train
farmers on strategic value addition of their products and link them to markets as an incentive to
increase agriculture production and incomes. This will motivate farmers to adopt improved
farming methods to get higher yields. Gaps on networks are illustrated by insufficient
partnerships and coalition to strengthen farmers resilience to withstand shocks. The bye law
formulation process has clear weaknesses specifically in involving more stakeholders,
articulation of issues and measures to address conflict management and review. There are
deficiencies in advocacy and generally empowering communities to demand support . The
absence of researchers to address various land management such as agroforestry support
including availability of multipurpose tree seeds is glaring.
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 9 of 12
Discussion
The case study illustrates a number of important factors isolating stakeholders at different levels
each bringing the needed capacities to catalyze and accelerate the scaling process. The role of
government agencies emerges as an important stakeholder in providing the administrative,
regulatory, training and infrastructural capacities that do not exist at the local level. The local
stakeholders as natural resource managers emerge important in contributing their knowledge,
social capital specifically to mobilize community for collective action. The case study,
demonstrate that increasingly demands on governments is to evolve towards becoming more
‘downward’ accountable to local people and less autonomous in decision making and planning
while demands local stakeholders is to become upwards accountable and with higher –level
policy mechanisms. These observed trends point to scaling SLM more implying on simultaneous
‘bottom up and top down depending on the perspective of the stakeholders involved. Further,
results from the case study point at key bottlenecks to scaling SLM being the lack of cross-scale
linkages to facilitate open two way communication with feed back loops and mutual recognition
among stakeholders of each other mandates, responsibilities and roles. Addressing these bottle
necks becomes relevant in scaling SLM in as much as it facilitates scaling –up by building trust
and
mutual
understanding
among
stakeholders
including
capacity
among
disadvantaged/marginalised groups for more participation. However, considering facilitating
communication between levels scaling positive requires that stakeholders receive critical
comment, engaging higher –level becomes challenging. Nonetheless, through dialogue, there is a
possibility of stakeholders redefining their roles and responsibility hence shifting hierarchies to
networks/ partnerships as illustrated by the local innovation platforms. The local innovation then
presents unique opportunities of expanding spaces of engagements to strengthen linkages across
scale. The efficiencies of local innovation platforms is embedded in the fact that internal
hierarchies within individual organizations who are `part of the network, become secondary to
more horizontal relationships and learning between stakeholders. The study further illustrates that
scaling SLM involves beyond technology to institutional that foster arrangements to enhance
capacity of organizations to catalyze change. In addition the study also highlights the importance
of understanding how scaling SLM, fits into a complex braid of social, institutional, political,
ecological and economic trends of change thus comprehending the needs, limits, and relevancy.
The importance of promoting participation towards realizing scaling SLM is articulated in the
case study specifically in fostering trust, ownership to influence the agenda; fostering learning
through supporting opportunities for stakeholders to share experience as well as strengthening
institutions specifically to bridge levels while remaining sensitive to local needs and ecological
change
Conclusion and key lessons learnt
Scaling SLM is an outcome of an intricate interplay of various players and involves building
relationships for learning that is centred around promoting participation, fostering learning,
strengthening institutions and disseminating experiences. It requires high institutional capacity
and coordination of networks to uphold its culture of stewardship while taking advantage many
opportunities including and enabling policy environment. Among the key lessons learnt are:
Grassroot initiatives develop self propelling mechanisms towards sustainability and ownership;
Bye-laws formulation and implementation are important institutional mechanisms useful in
ensuring
and safe guarding community interests; involvement of local government
administration (sub county chief, parish chief, and LCs) in project intervention has a potential
towards sustainability; Effective communication within the group is key in maintaining group
cohesion, solidarity and social capital; The role of leaders is one of negotiating shared values and
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 10 of 12
developing trust necessary for building networks; facilitated multistakeholder platforms,
collective action, champions, capacity building, strong grassroots institution as well as enabling
policy environment are critical ingredients of scaling process.
References
1. Ashby, J. 2001.Integrated research on food and the environment: An existing strategy
from rational food syndrome in agricultural science, Conservation ecology. 5 (2),
http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art20/index.html
2. Campbell, A. 1998. Fomenting synergy: Experience with facilitating landcare in
Australia, In Rolling N. and Wagemakker M. (eds) Sustainable Agricultura and
Participatory Learning, Cambridge Univesity Press, Cambridge, pp 232 – 249.
3. Cataculan D. (2001) The triadic Approach:Some experiences in Landcare Phillipnes. Is
IIR, IFAD, ANGOC 2001 Enhancing Ownerships and Susuatinability: A Resource on
Participation. IIRR, Phillipines, 335p
4. Clayton E. 1993 Masefiels, G. B. 1962. Food Research Institute Studies 1962
5. Denoon, R. 1972. Migration and Settlement in South-West Uganda. Kampala; Makerere
University, Departmenr of History, Mimeo
6. Denoon,R.(1972) Migration and settlemen in South-west Uganda. Kampala : Makerere
University, Department of History. Mimeo
7. Hamilton A. C. (1984) Deforestsion in Uganda, Nairobi. Oxford University Press
8. Hatibu, N. 2005. Scaling up and uptake promotion and soil and water management
research outputs in East and Central Africa: Constraints and Barriers: Discussion Paper
4.
9. International Institute for Rural Reconstruction) 2000. Going to scale: Can we bring more
benefits to more people more quickly? IIRR Workshop, Silang, PH.114 p.
10. Keeley, J. E. (2001) Influencing Policy Processes for Sustainable Livelihoods: strategies
for change. Lessons for Change in Policy & Organisations, No. 2. Brighton: Institute of
Development Studies
11. Kilewe A. M. and Hatibu, N. 2004. Institutionalized scaling up and uptake promotion of
outputs m soil and water management in East and Central Africa. SWMnet Discussion
Paper 3.
12. Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources ( MUIENR). 1992
Uganda: Environmental and Natural Resources Management Policy and Legislation,
Issues and Options, Vol I-II, Summary and Documentation, Kampala: Makerere
University
13. Marquet, J. 1961. The Premise of Inequality in Rwanda: A study of Political Relations in a
Central Africana Kingdom. London: Oxford University press
14. Mekuria, M., La Rovere, R. and Szonyi, J. 2008. External Review and Impact
Assessment of the African Highlands Initiative (AHI). Program Evaluation report.
February 2008
15. Mercado, A R, Jr. and Rondall, J. (2007). Natural vegetative filter strips. In: Crtichley, W.
and Wach T. (eds). WOCAT 2007: Where the land is greener – case studies and analysis of
soil and water conservation initiatives worldwide. Bern, Switzerland. pp 129-132
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 11 of 12
16. Mowo,J.G., Mwihomeke T.S., Mzoo J.B., 2002 Managing natural resources in the West
Usambara Mountains : A glimmer of hope in thé horizon. Paper Presented at the
Mountain High Summit Conference for Africa, UNEP Nairobi. 6-10 May 2002
17. NEPAD, 2003. Comprehensive Africa Development Programme. NEPAD Secretariat,
Midrand, South Africa, 102pp.
18. Nkonya, E., Pender, J., Kaizzi, C., Kato, E., and Mugarura, S. (2005). Policy options for
increasing crop productivity and reducing soil nutrient depletion and poverty in Uganda.
IFPRI, Washington, D.C.
19. Sachs, J. D., McArthur, J. W., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kruk, M., Bahadur, C., Faye, M., and
McCord, Go., 2004. “Ending Africa’s Poverty Trap,” Brooking Papers on Economic
Activity 2: 117-216.
20. Sanginga, P.C., Kamugisha, R., Martin, A., Kakuru, A. and Stroud, A. 2004. Facilitating
Participatory Processes for Policy Change in Natural Resource Management: Lessons
from the Highlands of Southwestern Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences
9:958-970. National Agricultural Research Organization
21. Stroud, A. and R. Khandelwal (2006) In Search of Substance: "State of the Art" of
Approaches, Strategies and Methods for Improving Natural Resource Management and
Livelihoods. AHI Working Papers No. 6.
http://www.africanhighlands.org/pdfs/wps/ahiwp_06.pdf
22. Tindituuza, R. J and Kateete ,B.M. 1971 eassys on land Fragmentation in Kigezi District,
Kampala: Makerere University, Department of Geography Occassional Paper No.22
23. Uganda Protectorate (1949) Soil Conservation Report for 1941-49 Entebbe : Government
Printer
24. Wangati, F, 2004: A Historical Perspective. In Amede et al. (eds). Integrated natural
resource management in practice: Enabling communities to improve mountain
livelihoods and landscape. Proceeding of the African highlands Initiative Conference, 1215 October 2004, at ICRAF Headquarters, Nairobi, Kenya. Kampala, Uganda: African
highland initiative.
25. World Bank 2006. Reengaging in Agricultural Water Management: Challenges and
Options. Washington, DC:World Bank.
Paper for SA Land care meeting: by Joy Tukahirwa et.al, entitled scaling SLM innovations
Page 12 of 12