Proceedings of an inception workshop for a project:

Going to Scale: Enhancing the Adaptive Management Capacities of Rural Communities for Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands of eastern Africa; Sites: Bukwo & Kapchorwa districts

Masha Hotel, Kapchorwa, 4th – 5th June 2009

This report represents proceedings of an inception workshop for a project titled “Going to Scale: Enhancing the Adaptive Management Capacities of Rural Communities for Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands of eastern Africa” but in the Bukwo & Kapchorwa districts context. The workshop took place on 4th -5th June 2009 at Masha Hotel, Kapchorwa.

THIS DOCUMENTATION IS MEANT TO BE A REFERENCE DOCUMENT for all participants and is intended to provide details of what transpired. Almost all outcomes of the plenary presentations, working groups, plenary discussion sessions and synthesis groups are documented with no or minimal modification. Table of contents List of Abbreviations ...... 4 Executive Summary ...... 5 1.0 Setting the Scene ...... 7 1.1 Welcome remarks by the Project Principal Investigator (PI) ...... 7 1.2 Participants introduction ...... 7 1.3 Workshop programme introduction ...... 8 Workshop Objectives ...... 8 1.5 Ground rules ...... 8 2.0 Opening remarks by project partners ...... 8 2.1 Remarks from AHI ...... 9 2.2 Remarks from ASARECA ...... 9 2.3 Remarks from LCV Chairman – Bukwo District ...... 9 2.4 Remarks from LCV Chairman – Kapchorwa District ...... 9 2.5 Remarks by the RDC, Kapchorwa –Hon Jane Frances Kuka ...... 10 2.6 Official opening remarks from representative of the NARO Director, Research ...... 10 Coordination ...... 10 3.0 Presentations to enable understanding of the project in the site context ...... 11 3.1 Project overview- by Project Leader, Dr Joy Tukahiirwa ...... 11 3.2 Experiences in managing conflict in natural resources management and use in Eastern and Central Africa, by Michael Waithaka and Miriam Kyotalimye ...... 15 3.3 Experiences On NRM Strategies By KADLACC: Kapchorwa District Landcare ...... 18 Chapter by Simon Nyangasi ...... 18 3.4 Interdependency of NAADS and the Environment: a brief from Bukwo Production department – by Elijah Masika Ndinyo ...... 22 3.5 Relevance Of Natural Resource Management In The Agricultural Sector: Brief From Kapchorwa Production Department – by Apil Nelson ...... 23 4.0 Site work plan development ...... 27 4.1 Criteria for site selection ...... 28 4.2 Proposed sites ...... 28 4.3 Technologies and practices ...... 29 Annex 1: Workshop Programme ...... 31 List of Abbreviations

AHI African High lnds Initiative ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa CBOs Community Based Organisations ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agro-forestry ICT Information Communication technology IDRC International Development Research Centre IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute KADLACC Kapchorwa District Land Care Chapter NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NARO National Agricultural Research Organisation NEMA National Environment Management Authority NRM Natural Resource Management PAAP Policy Advice and Advocacy Programme PMA Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture PME Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation SLM Sustainable Land Management SWC Soil and Water Conservation UNFAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations UWA Uganda World life Authority Executive Summary

Of the districts in the eastern highlands of Uganda, Kapchorwa and Bukwo seem to have more systems that are prone to multiple forms of conflicts. Their ecologies are fragile with its natural resources utilised by multiple users for multiple purposes. Land management is known to be among major causes of conflict especially in such highland areas which are usually highly populated. With conflicts in communities, further degradation of natural resources and erosion of social and human capital intensifies. In order to curb or reduce development and/or escalation of such conflicts requires the communities involved to have a better understanding of potential and actual causes of conflicts, their nature and how best they can be resolved. This calls for innovative approaches in managing both the conflicts and their causes. After analysis and establishment of sustainable practices, good ones need to be shared and scaled out. It is against this phenomenon that a project titled “Going to Scale: Enhancing the Adaptive Management Capacities of Rural Communities for Sustainable Land Management in the Highlands of eastern Africa was developed, and Kapchorwa and Bukwo districts included as beneficiary sites. The Uganda component of the project is implemented jointly by AHI, PAAP and NARO-BugiZARDI, and involves participation of Makerere University, NARO-NARL and Local Governments of the two host districts.

To kick-start the project, an inception workshop was organized and it brought together representatives of all key stakeholders so that they gain same understanding of the project purpose. Without a common understanding and hence a buy-in of all concerned the project would not be co-owned and hence not able to deliver expected results. In view of the above, the project inception workshop of 4th – 5th June was conducted with the main objective of developing an implementation framework for the project to scale up sustainable rural land management innovations in the Bukwo and Kapchorwa Districts. This was to be achieved through three specific objectives namely introduction of the project to the larger cross section of stakeholders in Bukwo and Kapchorwa district; facilitating a common understanding of the project purpose and intentions; clarifying roles and responsibilities of the implementing partners; and agreeing on workplan for the project with focus on the first year.

The two-day workshop was attended by participants from eight institutions: Kapchorwa and Bukwo Local Governments leadership, NGOs and farmers, and ASARECA, AHI, NARO and MAK. It used an interactive method to enable all participants share experiences and contribute ideas. Power point presentations were used to background and needed information whilre group and plenary discussions were used to respectively brainstorm and synthesize issues, such as workplans, roles and responsibilities.

In summary, the project implementers delivered the following key information to participants: . The project is run in both Uganda and Ethiopia but concentrating in highland areas. . It works through innovation platforms whereby both actors and linkages among them are equally important . It aim at building capacity and competence of actors and institutions in the project cycle, using evidence based methodologies and. . It works towards enabling formulation of institutional policies that enable delivery of benefits to actors and hence deliver impact. While the project’s targeted impact revolves around more quality benefits to more people over a wider geographical area more quickly, more equitably and more lastingly, its eexpected outcomes include: • Strengthened decentralized governance mechanisms and institutions, policies and practices that empower poor rural communities to better manage their NR natural resources for food and income security. • An Inclusive INRM agenda • Critical mass of practitioners in action research • Positive behavioral and attitude among IP partners • A network of champions spearheading NRM innovations • Tested and validated regional and International Public Goods (approaches, methods and tools) that can be widely used by partner organizations

The project will uses the approach of empowering local capacity to innovate in generating and sharing knowledge while scaling out the following new solution-based technologies and social processes interventions beyond plot sites:

1. Farmer innovations & technologies:- watershed conservation using SWC 2. Use of ICT for improved access to information for development (Telecenters, Village information Center 3. New approaches of influencing policy and learning (e.g. innovation platforms; strengthened decentralization; participatory policy analysis; bye law formulation and implementation including Best Practices Award)

Participants were allowed a tour to one nearby village that had been affected by construction of the main road to Kapchorwa town. The tour gave practical insight into some unexpected conflict and land degradation sources such as the road construction. Most important, however, it was a very good site from where some good practices and lessons on land care can be picked and scaled to other areas.

Through group work, the workshop delivered two major outputs namely: 1. The criteria for selection of project sites in each district were developed. 2. Using the criteria potential project sites were selected. 3. Interventions (technologies and practices) to be scaled out were identified 4. Development of each district’s work plan was initiated and was to be completed within two weeks after the workshop.

An evaluation of the workshop indicated that it was a success, brought about by high number and level of participants’ especially local government officials, interactive participation, good time management, good prior organization (including field tour), good facilitation and use of simple English. Last but not least Bukwo district was recognized. 1.0 Setting the Scene

1.1 Welcome remarks by the Project Principal Investigator (PI) The Ag Director Buginyanya ZARDI who is also the project’s Principal Investigator, Dr William Wagoire welcomed participants to the workshop. He said this was a follow up of a similar but higher level regional workshop held in March 2009 in Entebbe. The workshop, he said, was intended to see what could be done on the ground and therefore urged for a lot of participation to enable realization of its objectives. He introduced the facilitators, Dr Imelda Kashaija and Mr Julius Lubega and called upon them to set the ball rolling.

1.2 Participants introduction As a way of “breaking the ice” each participant was requested to introduce her/him self by mentioning her/his name, district, sub-county, what he/she does and his/her interest in the workshop.

The participants’ names, districts, sub-counties and organisations are as in the list of participants (Annex 2). Below is a refection of the participants’ interests and expectations from the workshop: . To share experiences o used in influencing implementation of land management policies o how people are benefiting from the project

. To learn / gain understanding on o mainstreaming land policies at higher levels o how land care approaches have worked elsewhere o how land management issues to relate to, and can guide our research work o project objectives, and why it is in this and not other areas in Uganda o harnessing natural resources for sustainable development

. Acquire skills in o land management o actions to improve livelihoods in the highlands

. Obtain information and use it to o make our selves more relevant by addressing the communities’ needs on land management issues o improved control of soil erosion, our plans, pass on the knowledge o integrate land management activities in Bukwo development plan o improved farming methods o make people network 1.3 Workshop programme introduction

The programme (as shown in annex 1) was introduced and explained to the participants. Day one’s programme was on flip chart and day two’s typed. It was thereafter followed but with flexibility to allow incorporation of other necessary issues.

Workshop Objectives

The workshop objectives were presented by the Project PI as: General objective: To develop implementation framework for the AHI-PAAP project to scale up sustainable rural land management innovations in the Bukwo and Kapchorwa Districts Specific objectives: • Introduce the Project to the larger cross section of stakeholders in Bukwo and Kapchorwa district • Facilitate a common understanding of the project purpose and intentions • Clarify on roles and responsibilities of the implementing partners • Agree on work plan for the Project but specifically for year 1

1.5 Ground rules As a way of encouraging and enabling optimal utilization of the workshop time, the facilitator lead the participants through a process of formulating rules to guide the workshop business. The following were brought out and agreed upon, and they were respected to a good extent.  Phones should be off or in silence not to destruct participation  Members should respect each others’ views and allow one person to talk at a time  Keep time for each session/activity, i.e.  (Health Breaks = 15mins and Lunch 1 hr)  Starting time is 8.30 am on day two  Everybody to participate actively, freely and transparently  A person should use a language of her/his convenience

2.0 Opening remarks by project partners

The workshop was officially opened by the Director, Research Coordination of NARO, represented by Mr Stephen Ojangole. His official opening speech was however preceded by remarks from other project partners (AHI, ASARECA and Bukwo and Kapchorwa districts). They were later complimented by remarks from the Resident District Commissioner (RDC) who came in after the opening remarks but participated actively on day one. Below are the remarks of the leaders of the different organizations in the project partnership. 2.1 Remarks from AHI Dr Joy Tukahiirwa welcomed participants and thanked Dr Wagoire and those he worked with to organize for the workshop. She informed participants that this workshop is a continuation of the regional workshop held in Entebbe in March 2009. However, this one held in the site area reflects that this is the time to set the stage and share experiences and expectations for the success of the project in Uganda. On behalf of AHI, Joy invited all stakeholders to join in the process of scaling up land management technologies that have worked elsewhere.

2.2 Remarks from ASARECA In his welcome remarks, Dr Michael Waithaka called upon participants and those they represent to work with ASARECA projects, and informed them that ASARECA as an organisation which brings together agricultural research institutions in ten east and central Africa. He showed that this project is being implemented in five ASARECA member countries, and the organization encourages and supports sharing experiences of the best practices and learning lessons from successes in other areas where ASARECA operates. It operates on the principle that by working together, work is done more quickly.

2.3 Remarks from LCV Chairman – Bukwo District The LCV Chairman of Bukwo district welcomed participants to the area and to Kapchorwa, a district from which Bukwo was recently detached. He expressed gratefulness to AHI for having chosen Kapchorwa and Bukwo for the project. He observed that the two districts are lucky to have been chosen as land management is one of the major problems in the area. He pledged support to the project as the local leadership also expects a lot from it.

2.4 Remarks from LCV Chairman – Kapchorwa District

While welcoming participants to the district, the LCV Chairman, Kapchorwa informed them of the meaning of the district’s name: a place of a friend. Everybody was therefore welcomed as a fried. He expressed happiness over the district part of a regional project, noting that the project will enable and give the district local government capacity to address the challenges of topography, high rainfall, high population, and poverty. He confirmed earlier observations that the community faces the challenge of limited land per household and said that the dryer environment in their neighbourhood has caused conflict, while cattle rustling has led to people abandoning the plains and congesting the highlands thus leading to soil erosion, exhaustion and water pollution. The district leadership is therefore anxious to use the new methods introduced to take care of our people, he concluded.

2.5 Remarks by the RDC, Kapchorwa –Hon Jane Frances Kuka Hon Kuka who gave remarks after listening into the deliberations for three quarters of the day, expressed pleasure over AHI bringing such projects to the eastern highland area. She was impressed that the pilot projects had already encouraged and empowered women in the districts of Bukwo and Kapchorwa. The new approaches introduced by the project have transformed the people and Women are gender sensitive and are now working together with men to improve their families. Scaling them up to more locations will increase the empowerment. The RDC emphasized the need to have women economically empowered; it enables them to support their families and defend themselves against cultural practices like female genital mutilation, she stressed. While congratulating KADLACC for emerging second best at the international land care conference in Melbourne, Australia in 2007, Hon Kuka urged NARO to come up with more technologies especially on value addition. She noted that agro industries will create more employment opportunities in the area.

2.6 Official opening remarks from representative of the NARO Director, Research

Coordination

Mr Stephen Ojangole, NAROSEC Expressed happiness over the joint organization of the workshop by the three organizations (NARO, AHI, PAAP/ASARECA). He interpreted the big turn up of farmers to the workshop as an indication that what scientists produce do reach farmers. He said that such workshops give him and NARO as a whole an opportunity to see what technologies have worked, what have not worked and obtain reasons for successes and failures. He that noted that such workshops offer an opportunity for forming and/or strengthening partnerships with end users, and learning from them. Mr Ojangole acknowledged that land management is one of the key production issues especially in the highlands, and encouraged farmers to demand technologies from NARO institutes to address constraints to agricultural production. He warned against continued depletion of the natural resources for it will not solve but deepen the poverty problem. He urged scientists to continue addressing the challenge of packaging research information appropriately for the benefit of all categories of end users. He called upon and challenged Management Committees to take science to the stakeholders. With those words, he declared the workshop open.

3.0 Presentations to enable understanding of the project in the site context

3.1 Project overview- by Project Leader, Dr Joy Tukahiirwa

Dr Tukahiirwa gave participants an overview of the project at regional and Uganda level. Her two presentations highlighted the vision and mission if AHI and informed participants of the whole project objectives, expected outcomes, targeted impact and participating institutions. Briefs were also given about scaling up of approaches with focus on why, what how and where. Below is the information.

AHI –Programme under World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) has its vision and mission as stated below:

Vision A rural transformation in the developing world through a massive increase in the use of trees to benefit the poor Mission To generate science-based knowledge about trees and use the knowledge to foster practices and policies that benefit the poor and the environment.

This project of scaling out land management technologies and approaches has the following:

Participating institutions at regional level • Dendi District Council, Ethiopia • Were Jarso District Council, Ethiopia • Kapchorwa District Council, Uganda • Bukwo District Council, Uganda • Makerere University, Uganda • Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) • National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) • AHI

Expected outcomes • Strengthened decentralized governance mechanisms and institutions, policies and practices that empower poor rural communities to better manage their NR • An Inclusive INRM agenda • Critical mass of practitioners in action research • Positive behavioural and attitude among IP partners • A network of champions spearheading NRM innovations • Tested and validated regional and International Public Goods (approaches, methods and tools) that can be widely used by partner organizations

Target impacts Improved food nutrition, security, incomes, empowerment of rural communities for poverty alleviation and productive healthy environment Benchmark sites Its benchmark sites are highlands at/beyond 1,500 m.a.s.l., with high population pressure (> 100 people per km2) and having clear signs of stress to natural resources (e.g. severe land degradation, land fragmentation to small parcels, decreasing agro-ecosystem productivity, and crop and animal pest and diseases). The map below shows AHI sites of operation in Africa.

Ginchi

Kapchorwa

Areka Kabale

Lushoto

What is Sustainable Land management (SLM)? SLM is was described as the use of land resources, including soils, water, animals and plants, for production of goods(food, timber) and services (purifying air & water) to meet changing human needs (shelter& nutrition) while simultaneously ensuring the long-term productive potential of these resources and the maintenance of their environmental functions.

Why focus on SLM innovations? • To enable small scale farmers in some fragile degradation prone regions able increase their farm productivity by up to 5 times upon adoption of SLM innovations • To enhance wide adoption of SLM is associated with: o increased yield through better water conservation o need for less fertilizers because better soils, o Less risk of crop failure because of better soil quality, o increased opportunities of diversification into higher-value crops on better soils o increased value of the land and; o reduced need for weeding because of better plant cover

What prompted scaling SLM innovations? For more than a decade AHI has been involved in developing and promoting integrated natural resource management (INRM) technologies and practices most of which have worked. These needed to be scaled out and they include: • Employing methods that bring together local and “scientific” knowledge to understand and solve NRM problems beyond pilot sites • Empowering local capacity to innovate in generating and sharing knowledge

What are we scaling up? New solution based technologies and social processes interventions beyond pilot sites 1. Farmer innovations and technologies: Watershed conservation using SWC 2. Use of ICT for improved access to information for development: Telecenters, Village information Centers 3. New approaches of influencing policy and learning e.g. Building on existing success stories 4. Using avenue of IP where partnerships, leaning and reflection are important characteristics 5. Capitalizing on self led Grassroots institutions for sustainability 6. Facilitating formation of District level Innovation platform in Bukwo and strengthening Kapchorwa one 7. Focusing on empowering site partners and strengthening existing Landcare farmer groups • Innovation platforms • Strengthened decentralization; Participatory policy analysis • Bye law formulation and implementation including Best Practices Award

How are we approaching scaling SLM? • Building on existing success stories • Using avenue of IP where partnerships, learning and reflection are important characteristics • Capitalizing on self led Grass root institutions for sustainability • Facilitating formation of District level Innovation platform in Bukwo and strengthening the Kapchorwa one • Focusing on empowering site partners and existing strengthening land care farmer groups

INNOVATION PLATFORM

Practitioners Rural communities Market value Chains –P.S.

Policy makers Researchers Innovation platform

The linkages are just as important as the actors Capacity and Evidence based Institutional competence Methodologies policies that of actors and and approaches enable delivery institutions in to deliver impact of benefits to Project cycle actors

Where are we scaling up? • Beyond Pilot sites targeting situation analysis outlined in the project document: o Landscape housing pilot sites o Allowing opportunities of understanding Upstream and Down Stream dynamics • Displaying one of a combination of: o Landscape housing pilot sites o Alarming deforestation record: ‘Wet desert’ o High rates of erosion o Prone to Flooding o Existing of natural resources related conflicts

3.2 Experiences in managing conflict in natural resources management and use in Eastern and Central Africa, by Michael Waithaka and Miriam Kyotalimye

Background The ECAPAPA experiences with NRM showed that most systems are susceptible to multiple forms of conflicts due to having fragile agro-ecologies and social space characterized by utilization of natural resource by multiple users for multiple purposes. The relationships among wide variety of social actors and stakeholders are complex and unequal, and aggravated by poverty, population pressure, urbanization, environmental conservation, decentralization. Conflicts over the use and management of natural resources intensifies further degradation of natural resources and erosion of social and human capital. Alternative strategies To have better understanding of use by local communities, the nature, causes and resolution of conflicts. This calls for innovative approaches and analysis of sustainable practices and sharing of best practices.

Main objective Provide insights for evidence-based policy options that address key barriers and opportunities for wide scale adoption of SLM innovations in Kapchorwa and Bukwo

Want to identify: Current practices and existing technologies, and policy and institutional constraints and opportunities. Previous experiences and ECAPAPA policy cycle that involves data collection, analysis, dialogue and implementation will be used.

Lessons from previous studies 1. As demonstrated in the figure below, including all stakeholders is a necessary but problematic task: • participation is not limited to natural resource end users • accountability and sustained communication are necessary reinforcements for stakeholder inclusion • if interests of any stakeholders, whether socially powerful or not, are ignored, full implementation of collective endeavors will be compromised

Policy Processes

Parliament IDRC Agenda setting

Monitoring and LG council evaluation Data collection and analysis CBOs e.g., KADLACC

Implementation ASARECA Dialogue NARO, AHI, NEMA Farmers, private sector

2. There is no single model for building social capital and developing local management agreements • process must be iterative, allowing for adaptive learning that take considerable time even years

3. Integrating conflict management into wider conservation and development objectives within the management of different natural resource management strategies such as law enforcement and benefit sharing • need to understand economic and social costs

Conclusions • It is possible to reduce conflicts and encourage sustainable NRM and use • Key principles – participatory approaches and innovation platforms – scaling up and integration with wider development • Co-management people centred – complex – policy reform – new institutions – technological innovations Dr Waithaka ended his presentation on a happy note that the project had kicked off with enthusiastic participation of key stakeholders some of whom are in the photo below. Thank you Kaitabon 3.3 Experiences On NRM Strategies By KADLACC: Kapchorwa District Landcare

Chapter by Simon Nyangasi

Mr Nyangasi presented the experience of KADLACC in land management issues and below is his presentation information. • Kapchorwa District Land Care Chapter (KADLACC) is an alliance of institutions involved in Biodiversity conservation; these include Non Governmental Organizations, Farmers Groups, Community Based Organizations and district Local government. • It is an innovation plat form mainly supported by AHI.

Goal • Improve livelihoods through increased access, control and productive use of land among the vulnerable, poor and disadvantaged people of Kapchorwa. • To participate and influence policies related to NRM and law formulation processes. • To solicit technical and financial support to organizations piloting innovative farming methods that address NRM and livelihoods. • To carry out research/publications on issues that has a bearing on NRM and livelihoods

Objectives • To create a forum for the civil society organizations, research institutions and other stakeholders involved in NRM to regularly exchange views on Biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. • To build the capacity of member organizations to effectively participate in Participatory planning, monitoring and learning processes to lobby for adequate resources to land care sector. • Protected area and Collaborative management • Indiscriminate removal of vegetation cover • Declining soil fertility • Lack of access, use and ownership of land and land rights. • Poor park - community relationship • Gender inequality. • Governance (Local and central government). • Watershed management • Farmer innovations and technologies • Farmer learning and institutional development • Marketing and enterprise development • Partnership and networking • Resource mobilisation

NRM issues • Indiscriminate removal of vegetation cover • Declining soil fertility • Lack of access, use and ownership of land and land rights. • Poor park - community relationship • Gender inequality. • Governance (Local and central government). • Unstable Markets and market outlets for NRM products. • Inefficient/ Little resources are allocated to NRM sector • Poor social infrastructure. • Inadequate extension services. • Population pressure resulting from insecurity/displacement.

CBOs • Tuikat watershed • Kaseko Soil and Water Conservation • Tuban Organic Farmers Association(TOFA) • Arokwo Growers Association • Kapchorwa Bee Keepers and Agroforestry Association • Kapchorwa Community Development Association (KACODA) • Sabiny Community Development Association (SACODA) • .Kaptoyoy Integrated Farmers Association • .Bukwo Agro forestry Farmers Association • Chesower Integrated Farmers Association

CBOs activities • Collaborative management between the protected area and the community. • Policy – Bye-law formulation, Implementations, grazing rights and property rights. • Agro-forestry/ Tree planting • Capacity building • Support communities to the implementation of riverbank management • Soil and water conservation (Contour siting and construction) • Bee keeping, • High value fruit growing • Horticultural production • Stove promotion • Organic farming (Banana gardens) • Fish farming, • Zero grazing. (Improvement of Napier grass) • Reflex cycles

Initial Agile intervention; • Inception of Agile by joint effort of AAU, AHI and CBOs • AAU hosted the AHI at meeting attended by representatives of CBOs. • In 2003, a Workshop was convened by AHI and AAU for the stakeholders to discuss problems facing them. Hence the genesis of KADLACC. • Enhancement of CBOs capacity

KADLACC formation • KADLACC is a culmination of three years efforts amongst local level collective action, institutions (farmer groups, CBOs, NGOs, local government) realization that solutions to their problems and hopes for the future would only materialize through a holistic approach, that strive to harmonize livelihoods and conservation efforts. Through inculcating Land care principles and approaches, building partnership, the communities at district level participated in the development of this innovation platform.

Function of KADLACC • Creating awareness • Building capacity. • Celebrating successes • Networking and Partnership • Lobbying and advocacy. • Resource mobilization • Collaborative management of resources • PME and learning • Research and Documentation

Benefits/Success • Improved networks among member organizations • Capacity training of member organizations • Study visits • Knowledge management/Production of materials • Access to technologies • The Chapter was nominated as the best-performing group by Uganda Land care Country programme. Consequently the chapter was rated as the second runners up during the international land care conference in Melbourne, Australia. An award was provided. • AHI support on impact assessment

Impact assessment (By AHI 2007) • Livestock (cattle, donkeys, goats and sheep) on communal grazing reduced from 4,000 to 7 per house hold (controlled or zero grazing. • Average milk yields per HH/Year: Milk production rose from 2.5 lts to 6.5 lts • Increased Agroforestry tree cover along contours from 50,000 in 2004 to 65,000 in 2005. • Landslide occurrences in Tuikat watershed have reduced from 7 in 2003, to 3 cases in 2005 and 2 reported in 2006. in the villages of Chemuron, Tuikat and Moikut . • Reduced river bank siltation observed from reduced brown colour of water. • Maize production increased from13 bags to 25 bags of 100Kg /acre per season

Emerging issues • Scaling out to other landscapes • Reach out for more membership - include more institutions of Kapchorwa and Bukwo districts that have principles approaches of KADLACC. • Address challenges/ capacity gaps for KADLACC, member institutions and incoming institutions that implement land care principles in Bukwo and Kapchorwa districts, • To improve local leaders’ capacity to continue embracing land care principles highlighting their specific roles in the land care programme as usual. • Resource mobilization

Key research areas • Conflict resolution on free grazing and boundary management by law reforms and nursery management • Negotiation support in the management of the protected areas ( co- management agreements ) between the Benets, UWA and local government for Mt Elgon National Park.

Research highlights • Identity of all stakeholders that have a role in protected area management. • Recognition of each stakeholders views that enhances collective action and eases tension during negotiation support between the community and the custodians of the protected area.

Target communities • KADLACC targets the marginalized poor communities and vulnerable groups in the degraded densely populated landscapes/watersheds with low productivity. It embraces land care principles in addressing Natural Resource Management and improving community livelihoods. • KADLACC has evolved to be part of national, regional and international land care.

Why has Kapchorwa Land Care movement succeeded? • Land care was initiated by the communities themselves due to problems of massive land degradation, landslides, resulting from the human activities such as poor agronomic practices - indiscriminate vegetative cover and continuous cultivation. • Land care was community initiated and commits own resources, uses local skills and innovations of the people, by the people, for the people’ • Land care has a leadership structure at watershed/landscape level elected by the people and members from these community based organizations form an innovative platform called KADLACC, with no complex or unnecessary hierarchy. • These land care farmer- led institutions are full time involved in livestock and crop production and management of NRM. • The women and children play a vital role in land care (Soil and water conservation and AF technologies). • The sustained community mobilization and education throughout the land care enhances sustainability which in turn encourages people to take a longer term view of resource use, land and water conservation. • Local government offers strong political support; but does not lead, in general the LG give technical support and advice on technology germplasm. The community is regarded as being composed of positive, responsible, intelligent, cooperative and competent individuals capable of managing finance collaboratively, and making sensible and at least medium term decision and trust brings community empowerment. • Land care activities through AHI have attracted strong NGOs support that ITALIAN, IUCN – LLS, IDRC, IFPRI, ALN, AusAID, and local government political will and commitment. • Land care farmer- led institutions have emerged both in Kapchorwa and Bukwo Districts through net working and linkages with KADLACC. • Local decision making is paramount with strong provisions for both planning and monitoring (Reflect circle., farmers review meetings) • No attempts have made to impose local and nation wide rules; instead flexibility is encouraged. Programmes try to take account of the fact that most land care members are volunteers and can't always need tight deadlines/regulations • Land care has wide community support including from production department, institutions and the media networking in common and leads to numerous partnership.

Land care potential • Land care Kapchorwa now covers more landscapes, working with 13 CBO’s, including Five newly registered farmer institutions from Bukwo and Kapchorwa districts. • KADLACC has some capacity to mobilize resources through project proposal writing and AHI support linking to other partners.

Networking and partnership • The movement networks quite well with other organization and International communities: AHI linking to (South frica,Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ethiopia) land care, ALN, World agro forestry (ICRAF). Land care Australia and Philippines.These provide learning experiences during international fora. • Land care stimulates visionary, attitudes and activities. • There is trust in the platform by other organization to leverage its activities – for instance NRM bye law formulation (IUCN-LLS) “KAYI TAPON KOROMUN” – Thank you very much

3.4 Interdependency of NAADS and the Environment: a brief from Bukwo Production department – by Elijah Masika Ndinyo

Elijah’s presentation focused on consequences of humanitarian activities before and at the birth of NAADS in the district.

Challenge before NAADS PMA-Plan for the Modernisation of Agriculture (NAADS) . It was one of the PMA pillars some being Agricultural education, community access roads, PFA-Microfinance . Consequences of Human activities to the environment before NAADS . Overstocking leading to overgrazing . Deforestation leading to desertification . Siltation of streams & rivers . Volatization of nutrients due to fires . Little and or no land fallows . Cutting down trees faster than their regeneration leading to deforestation that claimed 40-50 acres each year

Activities before NAADS . Predominant use of fires . No soil and water conservation structures . No skills in handling agro chemicals . Use of rudimentary tools & equipment e.g hoes

At the birth of NAADS . NAADS incorporated NRM as cross cutting issues . Trained farmers on agroforestry . Trained farmers on conservation tillage known as no tillage . Modifying wood stoves and increasing solar cooking . Encourage women to participate in natural resource management –they depend on it for survival Challenges: . The human population is increasing thus over consumption of natural resources . UN FAO , estimates that without major conservation efforts developing countries could experience an almost 30% decline in agricultural productivity by end of the next century, when their populations may have increased four to six fold

3.5 Relevance Of Natural Resource Management In The Agricultural Sector: Brief From Kapchorwa Production Department – by Apil Nelson

How does NRM impact on Production? Agricultural Production (Crop, Fish, Livestock and Apiary) solely depends on Natural Resources that exist within our reach. These resources are soils that provide the support to the plants and animals.

Soil nutrients: That provides the building block for body parts of plants and animals.

Water: That provides the medium for reaction, and carrier in both plants and animal cells.

Gas: Provide oxygen, carbon dioxide/carbon for energy building material for body parts.

Energy: • From sun and other sources. • ATPs in photosynthesis and food formation. Note that all the above resources are limited since creation, the amount cannot increase or decrease in nature, except that they may be shifted from one point to another; through use and misuse. Man in his effort to produce both for food and poverty eradication, has been able to alter the use of these natural resources in various combinations.

Below are some of the practices that directly affect the use of the above named natural resources, hence the relevance of Natural Resource Management on Production Sector.

Farming practices: Practices that encourage soil erosion deprive the plants/crop the medium of growth. Where the plants can not grow, then the livestock do not exist too.

Continuous cultivation of same field: This has led to change in soil texture and structure. Therefore these soils are unable to balance natural resources to the plants.

Draining off Water loss through drainage to claim production land. This affects the soil structure and therefore affects crop performance.

Leads to low levels of water for our livestock, especially during dry season and also affects the water organisms that are deprived of their home.

Nutrient mining: Through harvesting, crop resources, consumption and selling of produce. The soils depleted of the soil nutrients. However, these can be residues or put back to the fields.

Inappropriate farm tools: Continuous use of tractors of same plough/depth lead to formation of hand hard pans below the surface. This therefore means water may note easily penetrate down, neither do the plant roots, thereby creating imbalance.

Improved use of Agro-chemicals: Over use of fertilizers may result in leaching as a result of reaction between the fertilizer and soil. Leaching of nutrients deprive the crops of the required nutrients hence poor performance.

Run-offs: Due to sloppy terrains and type of soils – (lose volcanic soils). These soils are washed into streams, thereby creating pollution of the waters. This affects both bees and the fish since they can not make use of dirty waters. The soils left behind cannot support crop production.

Crop management Correct crop population offers optimum soil cover and optimum yields. Use of cover crops between perennial and seasonal crop. Harvesting methods that live crop residues in fields lead to surface productivity.

Farm expansion: Through cutting trees leads to poor soil cover and water loss. Loss of nutrient recycling since the trees do recycle the nutrients have been cut. The crops grown in such fields may therefore lack the leached nutrients.

Overstocking of livestock • Leads to erosion • Over use of grass

3.6 Field tour; Arokwo village Participants were taken to Arokwo village for practical assessment of achievements and challenges of the pilot activities. The village’s agricultural production was at a certain time curtailed by effects of the highway construction, but had by the time of the workshop regained due to employment of NRM innovative approaches and technologies. Through collective action, the village community members removed the boulders that had covered productive land, dug trenches and systematically engaged in a diversity of commodities to ensure food security and poverty reduction. The later is however not yet achieved due to shortage of land, as each household has, on average, one acre or less. The photo below is of a typical homestead in the village.

During the field tour of the village, it was found that a few household did not join others in the joint action learning, and were not implementing the passed bye-laws of land care. The difference between the participating and non participating farmer’s gardens was very clear. The crops (maize) in gardens of those not practicing the recommended practices was not only stunted but also scanty as much of it had been washed down by erosion. On the other hand, maize in gardens of those practicing NRM technologies was growing vigorously. The photos below show the described differences.

Garden of KADLAC farmer Garden of non KADDLAC farmer

Observations/comments from the field tour Asked to give comments on the field tour, participants gave the following as observations, advice and inquiries:

Incomprehension • People are still complaining of poverty though project has done good work • At what stage men participate since majority participating farmers were women - how this situation relates to poverty • How much resources is government channeling to agriculture given that it is the backbone of economy • Is government considering contribution to solve problem caused by the road construction • What did it take to reach where they are?

Observation • Land shortage and fragmentation is at high level • Collective action at the site by participating farmers • Environment management practices adopted included o Planting of grass along contours to control erosion, o trenches o integration of agroforestry o The surrounding community is copying from the site, required for the neighbors • Some farmers in the community have not adopted and need to be taken on board • Inception trenches lacking or limited in upper areas are lacking • There are gender considerations in the project •

Advice • More sensitization is needed to bring all community members on board • People should continue learning and form partnerships in order to succeed • To put inception trenches in upper and steeper areas • To construct a series of small dams along the vertical water streams that are on very steep parts, to reduce the speed and hence negative effect of such water.

4.0 Site work plan development

Group work tasks were used to initiate development of each districts workplan. It was done in two stages/tasks; one on site and interventions proposition and the other on work plan framework.

The first group work exercise sought for site selection criteria, proposed intervention sites and interventions hat could be scaled out. The selection of potential sites and technologies and practices to scale out was guided by the group exercise in the box below.

Group Task 1 - site & interventions selection

45 Minutes

In Groups (Bukwo, Kapchorwa, Policy makers)

Based on the general guidelines on project sites presented yesterday, develop criteria for site selection at district level (i.e. in context of local situations) Use the criteria to propose sites where scaling up should start List the interventions (technologies and/or practices) you propose for the sites

NB. The participants from institutions (ASARECA, AHI, NARO, MAK) distribute yourselves into the different groups

Below are the results of each group’s discussion of the task: 4.1 Criteria for site selection

Bukwo District Kapchorwa District 1. Topography-terrain The topography must be steep 2. Human activities Interaction within up and down slope 3. Success stories in The sites should be within the pilot site areas 4. Kabei, Bukwo & Chesoner Target the marginalized areas which have already started An area which protected, e.g National park

The raw material is shown below.

4.2 Proposed sites

Bukwo Distrct Kapchorwa District Kabei Sub-county- Benet Sub-county Riwo Kaseko water & soil conservation Mutushet Tuikat watershed Kortek Chesower Sub-county- Tuban organic farmers Association Nyalit Chekwir Arokwa growers Bukwo Sub-county- Kamet Kaptoyoy integrated association Chekwat Suam- Sengwe Kaptererwo Ngenge

Following discussion of the group work results, necessary adjustments were made. The revised proposed sites were then ranked so that in case of limited resources, those in great need should be addressed first. They are shown below and in order of priority for each district.

Bukwo Kapchorwa 1. Kortek-M landscape 1. Benet – Kaseko watershed 2. Tulele landscape 2. Ngenge 3. Chekwasta view point 3. Sengwel 4. Kaptererwo plains 4. Tuban – Arokwo- Kaptoyoy

4.3 Technologies and practices

Through group work, the workshop major outputs namely: 1. The criteria for selection of project sites in each district were developed. 2. Using the criteria potential project sites were selected. 3. Interventions (technologies and practices) to be scaled out were identified 4. Development of each district’s work plan was initiated and was to be completed within two weeks after the workshop.

An evaluation of the workshop indicated that it was a success, brought about by high number and level of participants’ especially local government officials, interactive participation, good time management, good prior organization (including field tour), good facilitation and use of simple English. Last but not least Bukwo district was recognized. Annex 1: Workshop Programme

Day 1: Thursday 4th June 2009

Day 2: Friday 5th June 2009

Time Activity Facilitaor 0830 – 0850 Prayer 0850 – 0910 Recap of day 1 Participants by participant 0905 – 1000 Site selection: - Criteria, - Potential sites Imelda - Possible interventions (Group work)

1000 – 1030 Site selection: Imelda - Synthesize criteria - Analyse sites and interventions proposed (Plenary)

1030 – 1100 HEALTH BREAK 1100 – 1200 Developing workplans Imelda - Using guiding information in a table form (Group work)

1200 – 1230 Developing workplans Imelda - Present group results - Discuss the results (Plenary)

1230 – 1300 Next steps Imelda (Plenary)

1300 – 1330 Workshop evaluation Imelda (Plenary)

Closing remarks Dr Waithaka – ASARECA 1330 – 1430 LUNCH BREAK 1430 ------Departure Annex 2: Participants of the project inception workshop of 4-5 June 2009.

No Name District Organisation Telephone Email address 1 Masika Elijah Bukwo Local +256777251685 Ndinyo 2 Ndinyo Government 075251685 @yahoo.com 2 Satya Soul Bukwo Local +256782-911266 - Government 0777829988 3 Chelangat John Bukwo Local +256777-602777 - Government 4 Sikor Mella Stephen Bukwo Local +256752-368670 Sikomella2006@ya Government 0776368670 hoo.com 5 Sikorya Peter Bukwo Local +256777603090 - Government 6 Kusuro Isaac Bukwo Local +256782711486 Kusuroisaac@yaho Government 07527111486 o.com/Ikusuro@ed uc.mark.ac.ug 7 Cheptyony Bukwo Local +256774932047 Government 8 Chemutai Olive Bukwo Land CARE +256777604100 ochemutai@yahoo. office 757604100 com 9 Mutai Patrick Bukwo KADLACC- +256777604760 [email protected] Cherop Bukwo-Farmer 10 Sande Wilfred Bukwo Land Care +2567772533578 - 11 Sorowon Julius Bukwo SCDA +256777602779 - 12 Nasimiyu Everlyne Bukwo SCDA +256779955178 - 13 Sawani Phylis Mrs Bukwo BAFLM +256777604204 14 Charicha Kamuyeke Kapchorwa Local +256773276538 Char.richamuyeke Government @live.com 15 Cherukut Mary Kapchorwa KADLACC- +256783294087 - Farmer 16 Cherop Sabaika Kachorwa KADLACC +256779065395 - 17 Cherop Dorothy Kapchorwa KADLACC +256779060172 - 18 Alinyo Francis Kapchorwa KADLACC +256782105282 Francis.Alinyo@stu +6143630268 ?? dentmail.newcastle. edn.au 19 Cheptegei William Kapchorwa KADLACC- +256752403845 wcheptegei@yahoo Farmer .com 20 Nyangasi Simon Kapchorwa KADLACC +256772609715 nyangassimon@yah oo.co.uk 21 Chebet Lorna Kapchorwa KCSOA +2563929433109 Kacsoa cso @ yahoo.co.uk 22 Cheptoek Mike Kapchorwa Local +2567726313306 Cheptoekmike@ya Government hoo.com 23 Labu Julius Kapchorwa KADLACC +256782160753 - -Farmer 24 Bukenya Joseph Kapchorwa ISO +256752888497 Jbumathy.yahoo.co m 25 Jane Frances Kuka Kapchorwa RDC 26 Chelimo Nelson Kapchorwa Local +256772697814 Chelimonelson@ya Government hoo.com 27 Chebet Siraji Kapchorwa Local +256703915959 Chebetsiraji@yaho Government o.com 28 Apil Nelson Kapchorwa Local +256772646875 apilnelson@yahoo. Gorvernment com 29 Ojangole O. Kapchorwa Local +256754501676 - Silvester Government 30 Cherop Sancd Kapchorwa Local +256772564414 - Government 31 Chemusto Samuel Kapchorwa Local +256772459166 Schemusto@yahoo. Government com 32 Bushedich Fred Kapchorwa HR +256775028184 - 33 Chemutai Olive Kapchorwa KADLACC- +256702879563 - Sabila Farmer 34 Chepkwuri Eunince Kapchorwa KSCOA +25677312639 - 35 Bulalu Stephen Kapchorwa Local +256772857230 - Government 36 Mangushom Kapchorwa KTR& Red +256782443253 - Lawrence Paper 37 Chelangant Edward Kapchorwa UBC +256773085084 edwardchelangat@ 0703029565 yahoo.com 38 Chemutai Patrick Kapchorwa KDFA +2567528883122? - 39 Akiti Alfred Kapchorwa KADLACC- +256777880249 - Farmer 40 Cherotin Godfrey Kapchorwa KCDA +256773754085 - 41 Kiplimo M. Robert Kapchorwa KADLACC- +256772872196 Kimrobyahoo.com Farmer 42 Banan Joseph Kapchorwa TOFA +256782429731 - 43 Cheptoyek Yosam Kapchorwa KADLACC- +256782883122 Cheptoekyosam@y Farmer ahoo.com 44 Banan One Stephen Kapchorwa G/Onus Mercy +256772301529 Sonebanan@yahoo. com 45 Sorowon Stephen Kapchorwa TOFA +256777254660 - 46 James Wasike Kampala MAK +256782330278 [email protected] Mangeni c.ug/byanasaye@ya hoo.co.uk 47 Nasinyama Moses Kampala MAK +256782865645 [email protected] M. 0777135005 ak.ac.ug/mmakoha @gmail.com 48 Namuyimbwa Rose Mbale MUK +256702865645 - 49 Waithaka Michael Entebbe ASARECA +256414321780 m.waithaka@asarec a.org 50 Ssekyanzi Wilbrod Entebbe ASARECA +256772595305 w.ssekyanzi@asare W ca.org 51 Kyotalimye Miriam Entebbe ASARECA +256414321752 m.kyotalimye@asar eca.org 52 Kamugisha Rick Kabale AHI +256772638166 rkamu2000@yahoo .co.uk 53 Tukahirwa Joy Kampala AHI-ICRAF +256772786816 jmbitukahahirwa@ M.B. yahoo.co.uk & j.tukahirwa@cgiar. org 54 Masuki Kenneth Kampala AHI-ICRAF +256414220611 [email protected] +254715813866 /kennymasuki@gm ail.com 55 Mogoi Jephine Nairobi AHI-ICRAF +254721330542 [email protected] 0735330542 m/[email protected] 56 Kasirye Joseph Sironko NARO- +256772511513 Kasiryejoe@yahoo. Buginyanya 0701511513 com ZARDI 57 Gidoi Robert Sironko NARO- +256772479617 robertsgidoi@yaho Buginyanya 0752479617 o.com ZARDI 58 Wagoire W. Sironko NARO- +256782892480 [email protected] William Buginyanya 0712281478 o.uk ZARDI 59 Lubega Julius Kampala NARO-ARIS +256772489183 [email protected] m 60 Kashaija N. Imelda Kabale NARO- +256772465070 [email protected] Kachwekano .uk ZARDI 61 Semalulu Onesmus Wakiso NARO- +25772615009 o.semalulu@gmail. Kawanda 0414567696 com/landuse@infoc om.co.ug 62 Ojangole Stephen Entebbe NAROSEC +256772669610 stephen- 0392946306 [email protected] .uk